April 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Deniable URLs....
by Tyler Durden 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Peter Fairbrother wrote... >From: Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> >To: Thomas Shaddack <shaddack(a)ns.arachne.cz>, "cypherpunks(a)lne.com" ><cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: Re: Anonglish (was: Re: Authenticating Meat) >Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:42:41 +0100 > >Thomas Shaddack wrote: > > > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > >> But seriously, you've just mentioned what's called "textual analysis". > >> Spelling errors and other idiosyncratic choices can be used > >> to "pierce the veil" of anonymity. That's what did in Dr. Kaczynski, > >> who pissed on the FBI for over a decade, until his brother recognized > >> his text. > > > > Couldn't there be a standard English-based language, "Anonglish", with a > > subset of English grammatical rules, human-readable (though maybe with >its > > own idiosyncrazies) and machine-parseable, which appearance would not >give > > many more clues than that Anonglish was used? Something where grammar > > rules would be few, strict, and easy to machine-check, spelling as well, > > and still be readable to anyone who knows "standard" English? Possibly > > with a "translator" from "normal" English (of course with the necessity >to > > read the translation, correct eventual semantical mistakes introduced by > > rearranging the words, and "anonspell-check" the result)? > > > > That would put textual analysis from comparing the errors characteristic > > for a given person to comparing of trains of thoughts, which is much >more > > difficult, much less being a "reliable proof", and practically >impossible > > for very short messages. > >I'm starting to do something slightly similar, for different reasons. It's >part of a deniable encryption project. > >If you have perfect compression, and you encrypt a message which has been >compressed, any decryption will look sensible. > >This means that you don't need long keys, that brute force attacks won't >work, and that any supposed decryption is deniable. Unfortunately it's >theoretically impossible to achieve, and difficult to usefully approach, >perfect compression. > > >What _is_ possible, at least in theory, is super-perfect compression, >wherein the set of possible messages is reduced. The way I am attempting to >do it is quite similar to your proposal, but there's a long way to go yet! > > > >There's an August 2001 thread in the sci.crypt.research archives called >"Grammar/dictionary-based compression for deniability:" in which I explain >a >bit more about it (or rather, about an earlier version). The "super" bit >solves, at least in theory, the unicity problems. > > >-- >Peter Fairbrother Well, a thought just popped into my head. Basically, why not have the message actually be a URL and a password pointing to the message? A convolved fake message would be an alternate URL ponting to the deniable text. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: [Lucrative-L] Anonymous Transport Layer
by Patrick Chkoreff 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Patrick Chkoreff wrote: >> I have sometimes wondered if it might be possible to use non-blinded >> digital notes on top of an anonymous transport layer and thereby >> achieve the same untraceability as that provided by blinded digital >> notes. Patrick McCuller wrote: > Cryptographically speaking, if you have both anonymous digital > cash and anonymous transport to the mint, why not stack them? No reason > to make it easy for the black hats. Perhaps because the system would be easier to implement and much more efficient in both space and time. The idea is to have a division of labor, where the anonymous transport layer takes care of the nasty stuff and the application writer has it relatively easy. Consider that even in a blinded note system, the black hats will be able to detect that you are making a habit of contacting the note server, even if they cannot tell which specific notes you are generating. An anonymous transport layer would help to conceal that as well. It's just a thought. In programming, laziness is sometimes, but not always, a virtue. By the way, does a working Tarzan library and network even exist right now? - -- Patrick http://fexl.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPq1pOlA7g7bodUwLEQLUBQCg9icZhSwfUIEKm6k36SNcCuqmUpUAoIhE cW06JBRy/LyweGZ75wsOC75y =0jSL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Will Liechtenstein's Autonomy Prevail?
by R. A. Hettinga 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

--- begin forwarded text List-Subscribe: <mailto:article-subscribe@mises.biglist.com> From: "Mises Daily Article" <article(a)mises.org> To: "Mises Daily Article" <article(a)mises.biglist.com> Subject: Will Liechtenstein's Autonomy Prevail? Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:05:07 -0500 Importance: Normal <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1214>http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1214 Will Liechtenstein's Autonomy Prevail? By Karen De Coster [Posted April 28, 2003] Freedom havens are always of interest to libertarians. For instance, the <http://www.freestateproject.org/>Free State Project hopes to establish liberty in our lifetime by designating a single U.S. state as the center for political downsizing and constitutional federalism. Offshore havens such as Bermuda and Vanuatu are gaining notoriety for their favorable taxation and financial policies although, when the topic of autonomous freedom retreats is discussed, Liechtenstein is frequently a point of focus. The Principality of Liechtenstein is a small State in Central Europe, situated between Austria and Switzerland. Though its geographical location and diminutive size make it a somewhat anonymous State, its independent political climate gives rise to an exemplary model for the study of political and economic phenomena. Once a part of the Holy Roman Empire, Liechtenstein gained its sovereignty in 1806 when it was admitted as a member of the Confederation of the Rhine. It rose to the status of an independent State in 1866, and as a result, became the master of its own fate. Its standing army was abolished in 1868, and this marked the beginning of its long-standing neutrality position within Europe's geopolitical ambit. Upon its independence, Liechtenstein's interests abroad were maintained by Austria until the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918. At this time, Liechtensteiners recognized that a break with politically unstable Austria was imminent, and so they turned toward their neighbors to the west in Switzerland. The fiercely independent principality sustained its neutrality throughout World War I, and shortly thereafter, it adopted the Swiss currency and entered into a customs agreement with Switzerland. Since that time, Switzerland has represented Liechtenstein in international matters. This German-speaking Principality is governed by a hereditary constitutional monarchy, but in fact, it is often referred to as a representative Republic. According to its modern Constitution, state power proceeds from the Ruling Prince and the People. With its eleven municipal areas and a population of 33,000, its constitutional neutrality proviso requires that it refrain from all foreign aggression and political allianceswa truly libertarian foreign policy as espoused by Washington and Jefferson. In the post-World War II era, Liechtenstein underwent an industrialization in which it developed into one of the world's wealthiest countries, with a lofty standard of living intact. What's more, private banking became Liechtenstein's banner product. It's refusal to bow to rigorous banking regulatory oversight while maintaining the secrecy of its financial institutions made it into a prospering financial haven along the lines of neighboring Switzerland. Liechtenstein is also a business asylum for reasons that it is very unrestrictive to set up and perform business operations, due to its privacy of registration and its lack of compulsory permits and registrations. Also, the varied privacy laws make this place an ideal environment for the establishment of a trust, foundation, or even an anstaltwa corporate form that is particular to Liechtensteinwwhich is more or less an anonymous fund with beneficiaries. Tax-wise, both business and personal tax rates are moderate compared with the United States and neighboring European countries. Minimal taxes are imposed on multinational corporations, making it a popular refuge for international business headquarters. In spite of the low tax rates, the government of Liechtenstein derives much revenue from its authentication as a thriving financial and business center. Over the years, Liechtenstein's magnificent wealth creation has been helped along by a lack of public debt. It owes nothing, and its annual revenues are truly higher than its expenditures! Try to find that in a democracy, where the majority wolves and minority lambs vote on what will be dinner. In addition, inflation and unemployment are nearly invisible as are cultural shortcomings such as illiteracy. The glory of Liechtenstein's political freedom, overall, has been due to unequivocal banking secrecy; lax regulatory oversight; anonymity in business formation and banking; legal company structuring that is friendly to wealth-creating holding companies; overall moderate taxes; tax laws allowing for tax-efficient asset management; and a minimal licensing and permit environment. However, the future could be bleak for this Principality. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a unilateral organization that operates under the auspices of "anti-money laundering", had long ago made Liechtenstein a favorite target because of its tax haven status and its refusal to "cooperate" with regulatory measures. Essentially, the FATF is a pro-big government blackmail organization that adopts a fluffy and well-meaning name, but operates to rid the world's individuals of financial wealth and privacy. By 2002, the Liechtenstein government had kowtowed under pressure to the organization's decrees, agreeing to cooperate with the FATF in the establishment of various "anti-money laundering" programs and regulations. This was the trade-off to get off the organization's blacklist. Additionally, the rotten "know your customer" banking laws have recently taken hold for banks belonging to the country's Bankers' Association. This has effectively destroyed the guarantee of anonymity for account holders, making Liechtenstein an unknown in terms of banking privacy issues in the future. In other words, governments and alliance organizations around the world will continue to target Liechtenstein until they break down that nation's autonomy and lack of restrictions. In a related note, this tiny nation has been making the rounds in world news in recent times. Traditionalist-minded Liechtensteiners recently voted to give their ruling Prince more powers, and especially, a wider range of veto rights. The democracy talking heads 'round the world are appalled that this monarchy insists on continuing its tradition while shunning their notions of all-inclusive, egalitarian-democratic government. The Council of Europe is one of those organizations that has been trying to force its model of "democratic principles" upon this seemingly "uncooperative" nation that demands to be left alone to exercise its monarchical traditions. Council of Europe Secretary General Walter Schwimmer has recently said that "the Council of Europe will have a closer look at the practical application of the amended constitution. I hope that the new rules will be used to strengthen the democratic institutions and that the courts will keep their independence." A translation of this would indicate that ruling decrees will be forcibly imposed on this tiny freedom enclave should it not fall in line with Europe's ruling regime. Liechtenstein's options for self-rule in the future will likely be shut down as it eventually will have to succumb to the edicts of Europe's multitude of pro-E.U., anti-independence governing bodies. If truth be told, with wealth and liberty-hating organizations like the Financial Action Task Force, the United Nations, and the Council of Europe sniffing around Liechtenstein's borders and enforcing their diktats by way of intimidation and blackmail policies, its autonomy and reputation as one of the world's most emancipated societies will likely give up the ghost. Karen De Coster, CPA is a freelance writer and Business Consultant in the Midwest. Send her <mailto:oldrightwinggal@yahoo.com>MAIL and see her Mises.org <http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=De+Coster>Articles Archive. Also, see her website at <http://www.karendecoster.com/>www.karendecoster.com. This column is a modified version of an essay that will appear in the Encyclopedia of Capitalism (forthcoming, 2004). <http://www.mises.org//fullstory.asp?printFriendly=Yes&control=1214>[Print Friendly Page] <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Mises Email List Services <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Join the Mises Institute <http://www.mises.org/store>Mises.org Store <http://www.mises.org/>Home | <http://www.mises.org/about.asp>About | <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Email List | <http://www.google.com/u/Mises>Search | <http://www.mises.org/contact.asp>Contact Us | <http://www.mises.org/journals.asp>Periodicals | <http://www.mises.org/articles.asp>Articles | <http://www.mises.org/fun.asp>Games & Fun <http://www.mises.org/news.asp>News | <http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp>Resources | <http://www.mises.org/catalog.asp>Catalog | <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Contributions | <http://www.mises.org/calendar.asp>Freedom Calendar --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

How convenient...
by J.A. Terranson 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/sprj.irq.britain.iraq.ap/index.ht… Report: Iraq-al Qaeda link found LONDON (AP) -- Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, a newspaper reported Sunday. Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported. The paper quoted an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational." The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, the newspaper said. Journalists found a three-page file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the paper said. "Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid," the newspaper reported. "After carefully removing the dried fluid, however, the name is clearly legible three times in the documents." One of the pages, dated February 19, was marked "top secret and urgent" and referred to plans for the trip from Sudan of the unnamed envoy, who is described in the file as a trusted confidant of bin Laden's, the paper said. The document, signed, "MDA," which the newspaper said is a code name believed to belong to the director of one of the Iraqi intelligence sections, said the Iraqis sought to pay for the envoy's costs while in Iraq "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The message to bin Laden "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him," the newspaper quoted the document as saying. The other documents confirm that the envoy traveled from Khartoum in Sudan to Baghdad in March 1998 and that he stayed at the al-Mansour Melia hotel. The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said. Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials. The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington. One document, dated September 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

8 9

Re: How convenient...
by Tyler Durden 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

if Iraq did in fact destroy all WMD, as he stated he did, and as we are now beginning to acknowledge, how do we "justify" [read: "make legal"] our recent BoyzWithToyz party?" ANd don't forget that whole loadacrap about their WMDs being destroyed "hours before the arrival of UN inspectors". Guess they took all that sarin gas and flushed it down the toilet, huh.... In the end I think it's clear that they really didn't feel they needed to work too hard to create credible lies. -TD >From: "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org> >To: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com >Subject: How convenient... >Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:44:44 -0500 (CDT) > >On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Justin wrote: > > > I assume this means that nobody cares any longer about finding WoMD? > >I have seen several different wire stories in the last few days where >Shrub's >Thugs stated that "WMD may have been destroyed before the start of the >war". I find it amazing that nobody in the press has stopped to ask the >obvious questions, for instance, if all WMD were destroyed before the war >(as >Iraq stated), then (a) How is it that the US continually asserted that it >knew for FACT that these weapons existed, and even claimed to KNOW the >exact >locations (but "wouldn't tell" Blix), and (b) if Iraq did in fact destroy >all >WMD, as he stated he did, and as we are now beginning to acknowledge, how >do >we "justify" [read: "make legal"] our recent BoyzWithToyz party? > >-- >Yours, >J.A. Terranson >sysadmin(a)mfn.org _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

2 1

Re: Three Cheers for the State - RAH RAH RAH
by Tyler Durden 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

RAH wrote... "as the net does to centralized information, the surfacting of markets for force into recursively smaller and smaller market actors,..." Ah. I was wondering when a reference to "fractals" would be made. -TD >From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: Patrick Chkoreff <patrick(a)fexl.com>, dgcchat ><dgcchat(a)lists.goldmoney.com> >CC: cypherpunks(a)lne.com, Clippable <rah(a)shipwright.com> >Subject: Re: Three Cheers for the State - RAH RAH RAH >Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:46:31 -0400 > >At 7:55 PM -0400 4/21/03, Patrick Chkoreff attempted to calibrate his >apostasy reflex, across three email lists: > > >You're on a roll, Mr. Bob Hettinga: > >And you're on a troll, Mr. Patrick Chkoreff? :-). > >At the very least he either doth protest too much, or at least mistook my >meaning. Let's be charitable, and assume the latter, shall we? > > >> ... is a distinction without a difference. Identical to the > >> distinction between "pacifism", or "opposition to war", and treason, > >> in an actual time of war. > > > >> Of course, the very concept of tax-free *anything* is anathema to me, > >> these days. At the very least, it's just as much a state subsidy as a > >> cash grant. > > > >To summarize: > > > >- Opposing any war is treason. > >Well, if you're the de facto property of one nation-state or another, >that's exactly true. Find me someone who isn't, these days. Hint: ><http://www.google.com/search?q=failed+states&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8> The very >definition of evil these days is the so called "failed" state. > > >- Every human activity should be taxed. > >Isn't it already? Certainly I think that *nothing* should be done without >profit, that nothing really *is* done without profit to somebody, no matter >what its governmental designation, and that *all* economic activity should >be taxed if any of it is, and it *will* be, directly in cash, or indirectly >in regulation, since we're all the "property" of one nation state or >another, whether we say we "own ourselves" or not. So, maybe you're right. > >When you think about it too hard, Non-Governmental Organizations aren't >Non-Governmental, and that Non-Profit isn't. Churches, included, if you >remember one of the three(?) original posts you're clipping from. > > >- Failure to tax is equivalent to subsidy. > >Given the above, indeed. Think about the implicit government subsidy for >medicine (I hate to commit the commie-code neologism "healthcare" in polite >company...) by making it tax-deductible on a corporate tax return. >Certainly the home interest rate deduction is a subsidy for single housing. > >Taxes, since nation-states have their guns at our heads and take them >whether we want them or not, shouldn't have deductions, if the word >"should" has anything to do with it. It "should" not distort the economy >anymore than it has to to pay the guys with guns. > > >> Nation-states are a bitch, y'all... > > > >And from the above I conclude that you like it that way. > >I think you mistake a statement of naked fact for approbium. > >Since the nation-state is caused by physics, I expect that changing >physical phenomena is the only way to solve the problem. > > > >Three cheers for the state, rah rah rah! > >Fancy that. My initials make a cheer. Never heard that one before. <Hyuk!> > > > >Digital bearer settlement is treason. > >Possibly. Certainly lots of people, you and others, hope so, apparently. > >But, hope, as exemplified by one's politics, or ethics, for that matter, >doesn't have much to do with it. Like I said, nation-states are caused by >physics, not politics. Politics is a result. It is not a cause of anything. >These days, I tend to prefer economics, myself, as a reason for doing >things. YMMV. Religion, applied fiction, if you will, doesn't make physical >reality change anymore except through non-coercive economic means, and I >live for the day when politics, whose very modern definition is the control >of force monopoly, doesn't either. I figure that suckers are born every >minute, if they want to pay money to people who tell them what to think, >ethically, or politically, that's fine by me. > >I'm not resigned to, much less in favor of -- not that what you or I *want* >actually matters -- the ubiquity of the nation state or any other monopoly, >force or otherwise. Nonetheless, we do live in a world of geographic force >monopoly, funded by expropriation and extortion. Like Philip Dick said, >reality doesn't change when you change your mind. > >Part of that expropriation is that nation-states can expropriate your >physical person, put you in jail or kill you, for not agreeing with them, >much less actively thwarting their behavior, particularly in time of war >between nation-states. Part of that extortion is that they can threaten you >with every thing from mobs and vigilantism to, again, murder and kidnap you >if you don't pay them what they tell you you owe them. Their attempts to do >this as efficiently as possible with the least amount of violence, usually >through bribery of their supporters and fraud about that bribery as a >"public good", do nothing more than sugar-coat the fact of their basic >extortion and theft. > >Life is hard. As I said before, "Nation states are a bitch". > > >Certain financial cryptography protocols hold out the, promise, the *hope*, >that functionally anonymous, and completely secure, non-repudiable >transactions can be done on ubiquitous geodesic internetworks without the >requirement of the monopolistic force of nation-states in order to execute, >clear, and settle. > >Economics, and not politics, will determine the answer to that question. > >Furthermore, as has been said by Tim May and others, those transactions >must, sooner or later, execute, clear, and settle in the face of vigorous >*repression* of those transactions, by most, if not all nation-states. > >Though certainly said as expressions of political opinion by Tim May and >others, the efficacy of their survival in the face of such opposition will >be the ultimate determinant of their *economic*, their physical -- and not >political or ethical -- usefulness. That's not surprising, or, for that >matter, hostile to nation-states, per se. Any more than railroads or >television are hostile to nation states, even marginal or "failed" ones, >like Bhutan, or Somalia, or Afghanistan. > >Ultimately, however, *if* those transaction technologies work as >advertised, orthogonal to the nation-state, if you will, they will have >consequences to the nation-state, and, as others have said, might be >considered threats. Clearly lots of people *want* them to threaten >nation-states, but what people want in the absence of *profit* is, also >orthogonal. > >However, and this is most important, at *every* step of the way these >protocols must make money. You can't be like Trotsky and say that the >revolution hasn't come *yet*, with "yet" being permanently defined as "not >now". That means that, plugged into and collateralized by existing >*book-entry* assets, bearer certificates on the net are cheaper than >book-entry transactions on public internetworks, much less the considerably >more expensive book-entry transactions over the proprietary networks of >meatspace. > > >My other claim, contingent on the above admittedly long stretch of >conditionals, that bearer transactions on the net, because they execute not >only anonymously, but more important, *without* the force monopoly of the >nation state, make the transaction costs of nation states, and, ultimately >non-monopolistic force contracting itself, fall, and, accordingly, >dramatically increase the number of "firms", and competition in markets for >force. Anarchocapitalism, right here in River City, folks. > >Crypto-Anarchy, in other words, but not because nation-states can't *catch* >previously illegal transactions, causing their fall and, ultimately, >violent chaos, but because their *competition* in newly emerging >non-monopolistic force markets reduces their market share -- as the net >does to centralized information, the surfacting of markets for force into >recursively smaller and smaller market actors, at lower and lower cost, >with no loss of, if not actual gains in, total individual security -- and >liberty. > > >Finally an even bigger stretch, contingent on all of the above, is the idea >that if the above really does happen, it, among other things, would prove >something that I've always thought was true, something someone else has >probably said before somewhere, though I haven't come across them yet, that >our social structures map to our communication networks, and that Moore's >"Law", in making our network architectures geodesic makes, in turn, our >social structures less hierarchical and more geodesic themselves. > >That, boys and girls, would be very cool indeed, but we ain't there by a >long shot. > >Cheers, >RAH > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

2 1

Three Cheers for the State - RAH RAH RAH
by Patrick Chkoreff 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

You're on a roll, Mr. Bob Hettinga: > ... is a distinction without a difference. Identical to the > distinction between "pacifism", or "opposition to war", and treason, > in an actual time of war. > Of course, the very concept of tax-free *anything* is anathema to me, > these days. At the very least, it's just as much a state subsidy as a > cash grant. To summarize: - Opposing any war is treason. - Every human activity should be taxed. - Failure to tax is equivalent to subsidy. > Nation-states are a bitch, y'all... And from the above I conclude that you like it that way. > Cheers, > RAH Three cheers for the state, rah rah rah! Digital bearer settlement is treason. -- Patrick "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison, April 20, 1795

6 11

Cypherpunks List Info
by cpunk＠lne.com 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

Cypherpunks Mailing List Information Last updated: Sep 12, 2002 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 or you can send posts to the list via cpunks_anon(a)einstein.ssz.com and your mail's headers will be stripped before posting. Note that this doesn't provide complete anonymity since the receiving site will still have log file entries showing the source of the mail (or you have to trust that they delete them). You also will be 'sharing' a reputation with the other entities that post through this alias, and some of them are spammers, so some subscribers will have this alias filtered. 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: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ssz: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)ssz.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)ssz.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)ssz.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: Subject line prepended with "CDR:" Reply-to cypherpunks(a)ssz.com added. Privacy policy: open Info: http://www.ssz.com/cdr/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

[eff-austin] [Fwd: Action Alert : Say No To Government Video Surveillance] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 28 Apr '03

28 Apr '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:00:45 -0500 From: Adina Levin <alevin(a)alevin.com> To: eff-austin(a)effaustin.org Subject: [eff-austin] [Fwd: Action Alert : Say No To Government Video Surveillance] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Action Alert : Say No To Government Video Surveillance Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:46:57 -0700 From: ACLU of Texas <webmaster(a)aclutx.org> To: List Member <alevin(a)alevin.com> ACLU of Texas Legislative Action Alert * /Oppose HB 901/* / *Say No To Total Government Video Surveillance*/ April 21, 2003 Dear ACLU supporter, I need your help today to oppose a bill in the Texas Legislature that's poised to be voted on in the Texas House of Representatives this week. HB 901 authorizes up to 20,000 linked government digital surveillance cameras to spy on Texans as we move about in public throughout the state. The bill's supporters justify this expansive surveillance system by the need to limit cars running red lights. But once in place, the system could be used for any security purpose. In Tiananmen Square during the pro-democracy uprising in 1989, cameras originally installed to regulate traffic were used to identify individual protesters for retribution b hundreds received imprisonment or worse because they were identified from the surveillance cameras hanging from traffic signals. *I need you to call your State Representative in the Texas House of Representatives today!* Let them know you oppose HB 901 installing cameras at intersections for traffic enforcement. Ibve provided some background information below my signature that will help you prepare to make your call. *If you donbt know who represents you in the Legislature, use the search engine on the Texas capitol web site to quickly figure it out at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm. * Please make the call. This is really important b once theybre in place, surveillance cameras powerful enough to distinguish a license plate number can conceivably be used for any purpose, both aboveboard and nefarious. Itbs important to stop this bad idea now before the cameras are in place and they become a lot more difficult to regulate. These are trying times, and itbs important that those of us who care about liberty and freedom continue speak out. Thanks for calling your State Representative as soon as possible, and thank you for your support for civil liberties in Texas. Sincerely, Will Harrell Executive Director ACLU of Texas Donbt be surprised if the person who answers the phone asks a question or two about the bill. Herebs some background to read before you make your phone call: * * *Current Law:* Traffic tickets are issued in person by law enforcement officers. *Privacy: One Nation Under Surveillance* Developments in digital video, infrared, x-ray, wireless, GPS, biometrics, image scanning, voice recognition, DNA, and brain wave fingerprinting provide government with new ways to "search" individuals and collect vast databases of information on law-abiding Texans. The proliferation of government and private databases with our personal information in it is a real cause for concern. *Big Brother is possible today*. Personal information about Texans that is captured by our government is typically sold and frequently ends up on television or the internet. *Government already sells embarrassing personal scenes* involving Texans to TV shows like b Copsb. Government can use digital cameras to enforce criminal laws against Texans. Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (Opinion JC-0460) held that government can use surveillance cameras to enforce criminal laws against Texans. This practice has been banned in the European union to limit privacy abuses by law enforcement. After these 20,000 cameras are installed, government can arrest individual Texans for any criminal violations committed in public, including failure-to-wear-a-seatbelt and jay-walking. The sponsor of the bill hasnbt even considered all the consequences. Asked whether there will be a privacy problem when rental car companies must provide all of our private rental information to the government, Representative Phil King (R-Weatherford) replied: *b I hadnbt thought about it from that standpoint.b* * * * * *Due Process: No Actual Notice Required . . . Car Impounded* * B7*The proposed citations will not punish the driver -- a citation will be mailed to the owner of the car no matter who was driving. HB901 will have little or no effect on commercial drivers, teenage drivers, car thieves, and other non-owner drivers. There is *no requirement that the owner actually receive notice* of any violation. Nonetheless, the punishment for repeated failure to respond is *the government can impound your vehicle.* * * * * *Government Abuse: Yes, Even In Texas* Even the very best governments are burdened by some abuse. In this case, the potential for abuse will increase with the surveillance powers b exponentially. In Washington DC police were caught using police surveillance databases to gather information on certain paramours the then blackmailing citizens who were married. In Detroit police used their police surveillance databases to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists, and track estranged spouses. *Ineffective: No Heinous Deaths Prevented By Mailed Citation* The proposed camera system will not fulfill its purported function. The camera system is being proposed to decrease the number of traffic fatalities caused by drivers who run red lights. Drivers who commit the senseless and irrational act of driving so fast and late through a red light that they can cause a fatality or serious wreck will not be stopped by the notion that the owner of the vehicle might later have to pay a small civil fine. Such a heinous act is so perilous and life-endangering that it defies reason. Unfortunately, HB901 will have no effect on this type of irrational crime. *Say NO to Total Government Video Surveillance* Please do not redistribute after April 30th, 2003 Visit our website for updates ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACLU of Texas PO Box 3629 Austin,TX 78764-3629 Phone:(512) 478-7309 Web site: http://www.aclutx.org E-mail: info(a)aclutx.org <mailto:info@aclutx.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Powered by List Builder Click here to change or remove your subscription <http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/sp?c=2382&s=59D694000490B3EF&m=101>

1 0

Re: Finder's Keepers, Smartcards, Anon Cash [Re: double-spending prevention w. spent coins]
by Major Variola (ret) 27 Apr '03

27 Apr '03

At 05:38 PM 4/26/03 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 03:05 PM 04/26/2003 -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >>Clearly the most anonymous systems (cash) >>have the 'finders keepers' property, *necessarily*. > > Ok, Major Variola has demonstrated that he's either Not Tim, > or is Tim trying to make it look like he's Not Tim :-) > He's also Not Even Hettinga, nor Adam, nor Choate.... > ... is that you, Lawrence? Perhaps this whole thing is just one person talking to himself, with Tim listening in! -Dr Evil, CP list Clearly I'm not talking about online systems here, where the online DB-query prevents double-spending, and protocols provide anonymity. I'm talking about those systems where you have a tamper-resistant device providing double-spend assurance. Yes, I know that a bank's secrets are not safe in Paul Kocher's back pocket. But lets assume a tamperproof system protected by a reasonable PIN. The stored-value smartcard in your pocket was bought off the shelf with cash and has no identifying info. >>But one can imagine anonymous systems that are useless to finders, >>e.g., a smartcard with a real PIN and/or fingerprint reader. > > Fingerprint reader? No thanks; aside from their technical weaknesses, > they're rather at cross-purposes to anonymous digital cash. > Do not double-spend by looking into laser with remaining eyeball. I'm aware of the problems with biometrics & street surgery. Ok, a PIN is fine. > You don't even need a smartcard; a data file format that uses > some kind of password-based encryption is enough. > Smart cards, or dumb cards, may or may not be a useful adjunct > to some digital cash systems, but one of the big reasons for using > digital cash instead of 500-Euro banknotes is for online transactions. > Smartcards may let you use your digital cash at somebody else's >cash reader, > and may reduce the risk of software problems trashing your cash, > but digicash isn't necessarily something most people will carry >around. Physical tokens are better user interfaces. You can also leverage their tamper-resistance as the origin of trust. Without going online for every transaction. Obviously there are pros and cons for different techs. (I don't see why a secure smartcard couldn't be used for online transactions if it has a convenient home-computer i/f; dedicated devices are more reliable, anyway.) >>In these cases, it is advantageous to the finder to return the >>smartcard in hope of a reward, IFF the loser makes this possible. > > Now, *that's* an interesting suggestion. Pay-to-bearer has finder's-keepers property, but the PIN can remove this property. I suppose this applies to online protocol based systems, e.g., if someone trojans your computer and copies your coins. Much like PGP does with private keys, requiring a passphrase to get to them. >>Maybe there's a bizmodel in being a clearing house for lost locked >>smartcards, without trashing their potential "bearer" anonymity unless >>the loser tells the clearing house they've lost it. > > Not any time soon :-) It's much more likely that the issuing bank > or the wallet vendor would be in this business than a third party, > and there are problems like how to preserve the anonymity, My claim is that anonymity can be present *unless* you want your card (with its stored-value) back. This is a feature that cash doesn't have. > Or you just limit use of smartcards to money you're willing to lose, Much like a leather wallet & paper cash; but smartcard-cash could be 'safer' with a PIN & (anonymity-busting) reward mechanism. Obviously you can't 'cancel' a smartcard like you can a lost credit card, since the smartcard transactions are not online. So you hope its found, instead of truly lost. When you lose paper cash, you don't care, its the same to you.

1 0