- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

(fwd) Re: NETCOM/FBI Spying "Business as Usual"
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this in the eff group, and think it has some implications for remailer operators and their logs. (That the FBI is subpoenaing e-mail records is not news, but the connection to the Kevin Mitnick case is.) Explanation: In an earlier message, Glen Roberts of "Full Disclosure" gave his informed speculation that this subpoena has to do with the FBI's search for uber-hacker Kevin Mitnick. The guy being subpoenaed and monitored, Lewis De Payne, comments below. The concern for remailer operators is that while I was reading this saga, all I could think of was 'Why didn't they use remailers?" I planned to comment on this in the public groups. (And I may still, if somebody else doesn't beat me to it.) But of course the concern is that if the FBI is going on a fishing expedition (a legal term :-}) for e-mail records, and Netcom is cooperating, then had they used remailers to communicate, we could now be seeing subpoenas of *remailer logs*. (This will happen eventually. All the more reasons for multiple national jurisdictions, for destruction of logs, for bonding of remailers, and for "forward secrecy" (a la Diffie-Hellman) to be implemented somehow.) > Xref: netcom.com alt.2600:23077 alt.2600hz:100 alt.privacy:18575 comp.org.eff.talk:39275 > Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.2600hz,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk > Path: netcom.com!lewiz > From: lewiz(a)netcom.com (Lewis De Payne) > Subject: Re: NETCOM/FBI Spying "Business as Usual" > Message-ID: <lewizCvrsCz.E1B(a)netcom.com> > Followup-To: alt.2600,alt.2600hz,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk > Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) > X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] > References: <CvqnGC.Csq(a)rci.ripco.com> > Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 17:24:35 GMT > Approved: mitnick(a)hideout.com > Lines: 25 > > Glen Roberts (glr(a)ripco.com) wrote accurately: > : > : Some of you may be aware of the FBI subpeona for email transactions of > : lewiz(a)netcom.com. > : > : She wouldn't discuss the particulars of lewiz(a)netcom.com, and said they > : were "not open to talking about it." > > I will be sending you a story for Full Disclosure. In it, I will discuss > how tech support at netcom told another party (whose name will remain > anonymous until I receive a subpoena) that the FBI was watching my acct, > and that they were served with an order. This was disclosed to a > third-party by tech support! I will also discuss my conversation with > the various people at netcom regarding this matter, as well as the > letter I sent to netcom explaining to them that their "monitoring" of > my account to conform with the _sealed_ court order was slowing me > down too much, and that if they didn't correct it, I might go find > another provider, and then they wouldn't be able to monitor me. > > Lots more to come... in Full Disclosure Live. > > -- > cc: Kathleen Carson, S.A., FBI, LA, CA. || Pursuant to Court Order > Kenneth G. McGuire, III. S.A., FBI, LA, CA. || served August 11, 1994 > Stanley E. Ornellas, S.A., FBI, LA, CA. || on Netcom Communications >

1 0

Social punishment 1/3: law without enforcers
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Social punishment 1/3: law without enforcers I live in a country where many laws are simply not followed. As laws are always behind the times, this can lead to an environment that, ignoring laws, follows the times. (For example due to no legal precedents there is theoretically no electronic privacy and all my mail is read. This is not, in practice the case - if my mail is indeed read, then it's probably by the NSA). When the legal system is lax, society falls back on age-old methods of keeping order - a system of taboos and 'social' punishment such as ostracization. In small tribes or villages ostracization is the most passive of punishments - indeed by definition it implies _non_-cooperation or having _nothing_ to do with a person. It is also the most powerful, often better for the society than capital punishment which simply gets rid of a person who might be useful if following the rules. Of course societies that continue to use 'social' punishment do so to enforce antideluvian values (don't talk to those people, don't engage in pre/extra- marital or deviant sex, etc). This is not the fault of the system of social punishment, rather that of the society itself. The system of social punishment can easily be adapted to educated, liberal inhabitants of cyberspace, much more easilty than can present law enforcement systems. My next post will examine the similarities between tribal and cyberspatial society. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "Clean the air! clean the sky! wash the wind! rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in take stone from stone and wash them..." Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

1 0

T-shirts
by vaccinia＠med.unc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Since we're on the subject of T-shirts, does anyone have any X-large or XX-large T-shirts with the "1984, We're a little behind Schedule!" logo on them? If someone is ever going to do another run of them I would be interested in buying one or two of them. The "Big Brother Inside" on the front and the "1984" logo on the back would be an ideal shirt! Anyway, if anybody knows where I could purchase such a shirt please contact me at the below address. Thanks. Scott G. Morham !The First, VACCINIA(a)uncvx1.oit.unc.edu! Second PGP Public Keys by Request ! and Third Levels ! of Information Storage and Retrieval !DNA, ! Biological Neural Nets, ! Cyberspace -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLmolmD2paOMjHHAhAQGBLgP/RipTDTCeY4IcGP3padoDcNWDexgy8M94 5YUZb4rzjmv3lu/WoSI4jXV4SZAxOW8F5lia8dkxtkeKAYTVwPdmWJvJ8V3BbEYv vg4juygrULe1wX3toHnI4ueQCFDoBxacCzM1KRhpcD6q2sKyWsfZKbMniko/AhvY InA/gnPiVJo= =akOU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: your mail
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)access.digex.net> wrote: > Anonymous scripsit > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a > > > "Cypherpunk victory." > > > > > > 1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export > > > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, > >low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, > >or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage > >dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are > >markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical > >devices). > > It is you who have overgeneralized. No limits on technology certainly > does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating. > The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets > than anything else (baring colletables). How would you argue that some > low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy? A lack of mileage standards, which are regulations on technology, can be expected to result in technology that doesn't meet the standard. > Unsafe medical devices? I would say this is a problem with testing > technology, not a lack of limitation on technological advance. If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment. Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to use it. And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time. > Genetically tampered food? Why is this dangerous? Have any evidence? > Most of the livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way > or another, be it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or > genetic/hormonal therapy. You see this as a regression? In some cases, yes, I see problems in biotech. For example, hormones used in cattle in high doses are known to cause tumors in women in low doses. Whether people would choose to eat horemone-treated meat is debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by cypherpunks as an article of faith. Without regulation on the technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between hormone-treated beef and organic beef. > You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and > regulation designed to deter technological advance. Technological advance is a means to an end. Regulations should properly be about insuring the public welfare. While we might reasonably disagree about what that welfare is, clearly technological anarchy doesn't promote it. > Market > forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost. I propose this boost > be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and > privatization. Either the market works or it doesn't. You can't decry all government regulation and then call for handouts to businessmen. > When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound > packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The > Green Point) They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on > their products provided they meet XYZ specifications. Actually, I think this is a great way to proceed. ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKieKvOblMnt4MdAQH72wP+NiE1e/wGy5t2XZla3gRXLRRGpCFeEX5J YtcKLqbym/pV9XRLBuEGIETnrsmJoOrWN+PDlzW02HXRmiad+Wbf1jp/QjPwXkQm 0ysSrrTIkZMsjIlY5ffxzwR8LzQZMhAMliFmFjhE8rAz/fLAqY1N+kT7NLiPyP54 TPOVSSyEhKU= =1dU3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 7

Re: Impact of Free Strong Crypto (Essay of sorts)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Carl Ellison scripsit > > Your message signature was bad, BTW. > Oh? Anyone else on the list have this problem? If so I will be happy to re-up with a new sig. -uni- -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

1 0

Digital Telephony vote TODAY 7PM Eastern
by gnu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to EFF staffer Jonah Seiger: The bill is expected to be voted on in both the House and Senate TODAY! The House is expected to vote at about 7:00 pm (ET) and the Senate shortly there after (although it is still possible that they may not vote until tomorrow). The bill IS expected to pass both bodies. Do what you think is best. John Gilmore

1 0

Government and Markets (Again)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: nobody(a)jpunix.com (Anonymous) >> unicorn(a)access.digex.net: >> Unsafe medical devices? I would say this is a problem with testing >> technology, not a lack of limitation on technological advance. >If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement >that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment. >Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to >use it. And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the >expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in >the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time. The market adjusts to these problems through the civil litigation system. A product is identified as potentially defective/dangerous and a law suit arises. Either the product appears to be responsible or not. The hospital is either responsible for not insuring that the emergency equipment is safe, or it isn't. The costs are ALREADY allocated in this example. Hospitals begin to look into their products with more care instead of relying on some FDA regulation that took 5 years to instate and is probably out of date. Do you think that FDA regulations are any less lagged? How many people have to die before the FDA passes a ban, or a regulation? And worse, how many people die because new products are kept in the wings for years? >> Genetically tampered food? Why is this dangerous? Have any evidence? >> Most of the livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way >> or another, be it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or >> genetic/hormonal therapy. You see this as a regression? >In some cases, yes, I see problems in biotech. For example, hormones >used in cattle in high doses are known to cause tumors in women in low >doses. If the market is so faulty, how is it you have this information? In fact it was easy to get wasn't it? So you probably will watch out for hormone treated meat. Poetry in motion the market can be. Look, you did it without any regulation, and without paying 2000 federal employees between 25 and 90 thousand dollars a year. >Whether people would choose to eat hormone-treated meat is >debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by >cypherpunks as an article of faith. Exactly. You have information, you are free to make your choice. If you're not a woman, you can eat all the meat you like and not fret over the study. Why? Because the federal government hasn't taken the meat away, or banned the use of hormones which increase the output of meat in certain cattle. >Without regulation on the >technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose >is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between >hormone-treated beef and organic beef. I think Tim May put this best: T>Underwriters Laboratories, Good Housekeeping ("Seal of Appproval"), T>and Consumer Reports are better testers than any bureacrats in T>Washington, and they are private. Insurance companies have a strong T>interest in safe equipment, as do hospitals, doctors, and even T>patients. Indeed. Listen to yourself: "the right to choose is taken away because [Insert reason of the week here]" In your case it's because "consumers can't detect the difference between hormone-treated beef and organic beef." But you never explain how this is a function that is impossible to accomplish without federal government. Even worse, how do you reconcile this with your previous assertion that :"I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by cypherpunks as an article of faith." Who is the blasphemer? In fact there is reason to believe the regulation you propose is more harmful than good. Institutions have a lifetime, a staying power if you will. This is why they are no good at setting technological regulation. FDA is a wonderful example of lag, lunacy and backwardness in standards setting. Tim May comments: T>What often happens with government-imposed standards is that some T>lobbying group decides that "cheese is good for you" and so gets T>cheese installed as one of the government-mandated "basic food T>groups." [...] >> You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote >> and regulation designed to deter technological advance. >Technological advance is a means to an end. Regulations should properly >be about insuring the public welfare. While we might reasonably >disagree about what that welfare is, clearly technological anarchy >doesn't promote it. Not for all of us. Some of us believe the advance of technology is an end unto itself. So many things follow from the advance of technology, sometimes it's all you have to look at to make progress. The shortest distance between two points.... Often this argument reminds me of those who whine about free trade. They want protectionist tariffs. They point out that their backward business is going to be destroyed because some automaker elsewhere in the world is doing a better job, for less. So in the interest of making this special interest group happy, the market is disrupted and all cars are more expensive. The cheap manufacturer has trouble advancing to even greater heights and consumers get the short end of the stick to preserve.... what? Jobs. It's the same thing for technology. Why are the rest of us being held back from eating tomatoes twice the size at half the cost? Because: 1> Real tomato growers are powerful in politics 2> The FDA is a morass of paper and policy 3> The government has anything to do with the tomato market. Where did we lose the concept that you make money when you sell a good product for a good price? When did sympathy for special interest groups come into the picture? I'll tell you when, the 1930's. The result? Today the average citizen depends on government for over half his assets. HALF HIS ASSETS are government entitlements. Think about that very carefully. Soon they are going to be taking away your drivers license for all sorts of reasons. Do you think driving is a government entitlement? Well it is. Why? Because the government got the foot in the door. Today your car keys, tomorrow your crypto keys. >> Market forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost. I propose >> this boost be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market >> assisters and privatization. >Either the market works or it doesn't. You can't decry all government >regulation and then call for handouts to businessmen. I just can't agree. There are very few black and whites here. Stewart, Krier and Manell point out what are (IMHO) quite legitimate market failures and where intervention is warranted. 1> There has been a fairly liquid exchange and availability to consumers of information in the marketplace. 2> There are no restricted commodities 3> There are large numbers of buyers and sellers in the market. 4> There are no localized externalities. Even in these circumstances, there are many options for intervention, collectivization and regulation being THE LAST ONE ON THE LIST. Tim May: T>Government standards are a two-edged sword. Many of us would prefer to T>"opt out" of their idea of what's healthy and safe and what's not. And that's what real choice is all about. -uni- (Dark) -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

1 0

crypto game idea
by jim＠bilbo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Crypto-Magic: The Gathering I was recently introduced to the card game Magic: The Gathering. Today over lunch, I realized that this game could be transformed into an ideal networked crypto-game. Why ideal? Magic is a really popular game right now and a network version would require a lot of the crypto technology discussed on this list. So, it's ideal for the purpose of getting crypto into popular use. Brief description of game: Magic is entirely based on cards. There's no dice or board or game pieces. Each card represents a creature, an artifact, a magical ability, or something else (like land). Some cards a common, some uncommon, some very rare. Players each have their own deck of cards which they assemble from a larger collection of cards before the start of the game. They take turns drawing cards from their deck, revealing some (invoking their power), keeping others in their "hand" until later. A player wins when they kill their opponent's "army" (or render it leader-less). Where's the crypto? In my mind, the cards must be handled kind of like digital money. You have to have a way of authenticating cards (can't have players forging new creatures) and you have to have a way of preventing players from duplicating powerful, rare cards. These constraints imply there is some bank-like agency that creates and signs "official" game cards. They could sell them for real digital cash, or Tacky Tokens, or whatever. The "bank", or another third-party service, might have to participate in the play of a game to enforce the constraints. It's not really like digital money, of course, but it would require protocols at least as sophisticated. I haven't thought about this beyond what I've just described, but it seems like a promising idea. Somebody could probably make money at it, if they wanted to. Too bad I'm to busy. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

4 3

Re: Government vs. Markets
by Amanda Walker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> In the main, corporations persuade and governments force. I don't see so much of a difference. There is very little difference in the nature and methods of governments vs. corporations. A government can usefully be viewed as a corporation engaged in the business of public services. It's simply a geographical monopoly, as are many public utilities. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

2 1

Re: Government vs. Markets
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>"Be very afraid, the Flavor Savor(tm) tomatoes are going to kill us >all!" > Um, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes? :-) Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

2 1