- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Crypto-making vs Crypto-breaking
by Eric Cordian 06 May '03

06 May '03

Cypherpunks often think of Crypto as the state-killing technology which will free us all from the clutches of inculcation in the collectivist mentality. It should be noted, however, that advances in complexity theory or quantum computing that would render cryptography useless, would also have a detrimental effect on the state apparatus. So I pose a question. You have two boxes. In the first is crypto so powerful that it will keep peoples data safe for 1000 years, against all advances in mathematics, with perfect forward secrecy. In box number two is technology that will break any crypto designed by mankind in the next 1000 years. You are allowed to take the contents of one of the boxes, and publish it on the Internet. You wish to do maximum damage to the state, free the Sheeple, enable Tim's libertopian vision of the future, crush totalitarian centralized government, and make the world safe for flowers and other living things. Which box do you pick? And why? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

6 9

RE: Capitalism and economic struggles
by Vincent Penquerc'h 06 May '03

06 May '03

> I actually don't impose my ideals. Not any more than I do, that may be so. I wasn't the one to utter" > What part of "Don't impose your ideals on others" do you not > understand? Did I ask for laws ? I didn't. But that's besides the point, is it ? > I do however urge others to accept and adopt them. Point in case, you > have assumed that I smoke. I actually don't, and never have I have a nasty habit to indiscriminately say "you" instead of "one", and, hmm, "the Americans" when I mean "part of the US govt". Seen from here, anyway. I just can't get the habit out, and it's generalization that hinders discussion. But I'm very aware of it. > I'm not imposing, I'm asking. I don't have a law book to > thump, nor a gun > to point at you, nor a cop waiting to arrest you if you > disagree with what > I say. Nor am I asking for such laws to prevent or limit others in > similar ways. I'm undecided. I was thinking this exact same thing some 15 or 20 years ago. I was really in that Libertarian way of thinking. It makes some kind of superficial sense, and I've still got ties to a lot of that thinking. But I now am of the opinion that if you (someone, not you particularly) do something that affects me, this person actually is imposing something. Not at gunpoint, not with the threat of force, litigation, jail time, whatever. But imposing nonetheless. I'm aware of the difference of scale, and the lack of a formidable power of coercion from an individual compared to a state. My point is other, however, that yours. You say the state should not decide what is and is not allowed. I say that, while the state may indeed not, it still leaves an unresolved problem, which it is futile to dismiss with a wave of "personal freedom", because it doesn't only involve, in this particular case, the smoker. However, I'm torn by the parallel with, say, free speech. Speech can affect others, as well as smoke, or anything else, can. If you impose it, or oppose part of it, where does it stop ? I don't have a solution to that, apart from case by case analysis. But saying "I can do what I want even if affects others, short of murder/rape/theft/etc", no, I don't see that as a solution. -- Vincent Penquerc'h

1 0

Re: Capitalism and economic struggles
by Harmon Seaver 06 May '03

06 May '03

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:21:05AM -0400, Sunder wrote: > What part of "Don't impose your ideals on others" do you not understand? What part of "Don't impose your drug addiction on others" do you not understand? Tobacco junkies are worse than crackheads, especially concerning their irrational behavior. > > Yes, someone may chose to smoke at a time which is convenient for you, but > why should you be able to dictate that to someone else? Mind your own > fucking business - even if it's just hypothetical. > > > ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- > + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ > \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ > <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ > /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ > + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! > --------_sunder_(a)_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ > > On Fri, 2 May 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: > > > gain something (pleasure) from smoking). But the smoker could > > gain the same pleasure from smoking at another time (though if > > smoking was forbidden everywhere, that would be a different > > matter) for little annoyance. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

8 9

RIAA legal attacks on students
by Adam Back 06 May '03

06 May '03

Here's some more detail about the RIAA legal attacks on four students recently: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/05/06/191207.shtml?tid=188&tid=141&tid=99&ti… and some more on one of the students web pages: http://www.chewplastic.com/ In fact it turns out that he was just running a search engine that indexed any files available on windows shares on the local network. You could search for any type of file; as you might expect some of the files users searched for and downloaded were mp3 files. But I don't see how they can claim he is guilty of contributory infringement anymore than google! Jeeze. So in the previous slashdot thread on the same topic, there were a number of people calling for a fund to be setup that people could donate to to defray the legal expenses and settlements. (The settlements were between $12k and $17kk). Do any of our legally qualified list members know if it is legal to collect money to reimburse a defendant against a settlement in a politically unpopular case. The students apparently admitted no guilt if it helps. I'm thinking all it takes is a paypal account, and a post to slashdot and their expenses would probably be covered. The remainder if any should got to the anti-RIAA lobby; ie whichever of the online rights lobbying groups that is mostly robustly defending against DMCA excesses. Adam

1 0

[AntiSocial] [IP] The Boot Heel of the Patriot Act (fwd)
by J.A. Terranson 06 May '03

06 May '03

Forward of a forward, so kill me... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 18:33:51 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Benson Schliesser <bensons(a)neohaven.net> To: antisocial(a)mfn.org Subject: [AntiSocial] [IP] The Boot Heel of the Patriot Act (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 06:57:29 -0400 From: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Subject: [IP] The Boot Heel of the Patriot Act Sponsored by ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-halperin2may02,1,4171430.story?col l=la%2Dheadlines%2Doped%2Dmanual Feeling the Boot Heel of the Patriot Act By Jason Halperin May 2, 2003 Several weeks ago, my roommate Asher and I went to an Indian restaurant just off Times Square in the heart of midtown Manhattan. We helped ourselves to the buffet and sat down to begin eating. Suddenly there was a terrible commotion and five police officers in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us. "Go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled. I hesitated, lost in my own panic. "Did you not hear me? Go to the back and sit down," they demanded. I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging from late teens to senior citizen. One of the officers pointed his gun in the waiter's face and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen. The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Latino men crawled out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them. After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and restrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, officials in business suits emerged from the stairwell. Two walked over to our table and identified themselves as agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Homeland Security Department. Having some limited knowledge of the rights afforded to U.S. citizens, I asked why we were being held. The INS agent said we would be released once they confirmed that there were no outstanding warrants against us and our immigration status was OK. In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. " "You have no right to hold us," said Asher. But they explained that they did: This was a homeland security investigation under the authority of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed into law on Oct. 26, 2001, in order to facilitate the post-9/11 crackdown on terrorism. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap or detain without a warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been fudged as well. When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official told me I did have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be taken to the station for security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month." We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the police officers, with his hand on his gun, taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead." We remained seated. Our IDs were taken. I was questioned why my license was from out of state and asked whether I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking and kept providing the day's date March 20, 2003 over and over. As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself. "We are at war, we are at war; how can they not understand this?" I most certainly understand that we are at war, and that we need some measure of security in times like these. But I also understand that the freedoms in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. After an hour and a half, the INS agent returned our licenses. An officer escorted us out. Before we left, the INS agent apologized. Among the customers, there were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman. Several said they were U.S. citizens. I doubt they received apologies. Nor have the hundreds of immigrants being held without charge. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. Three days after the incident, I phoned the restaurant. The owner was nervous, embarrassed and did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl, police officers kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU, a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Halperin lives in New York City. Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ --------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo(a)mfn.org with "unsubscribe antisocial" as the entire message.

1 0

Re: Capitalism and monopolism: "Obvious" it ain't.
by Tyler Durden 06 May '03

06 May '03

James Donald wrote... "Despite the fact that the trend has been in the other direction for the past two hundred years, despite the fact that what Marx wrote was obviously false then, and has become more obviously false in the 150 years since he wrote, Marxists repeat Marx's prophecies with the more confidence, the more obviously the facts contradict them." A lot of people living in the US make this kind of mistake. Actually, developed nations make up a minority of the world's population (though with China and India this may change wihtin our lifetimes). When one considers the abverage living standard for the entire world its been debated that it may actually be going down. I'd argue that in some ways the real standard of living in the US has certainly gone down since the 1950s. Although technology has made things more affordable, the numbers of hours per week has increased steadily since the 1970s, and the number of homes where both parents must work has increased greatly. So "obvious" it ain't. (However, if China and India's standard of living continue to increase, within our lifetimes I think its quite clear that the world's standard of living will certainly be higher, on average, than its ever been.) -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Capitalism and monopolism >Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 13:57:27 -0700 > > -- >On 3 May 2003 at 21:03, Andy Lopata wrote: > > Simply put, markets lead to consolidation. > >So said Marx. He also said that markets would make the workers >poorer and poorer. > >Despite the fact that the trend has been in the other direction >for the past two hundred years, despite the fact that what Marx >wrote was obviously false then, and has become more obviously >false in the 150 years since he wrote, Marxists repeat Marx's >prophecies with the more confidence, the more obviously the >facts contradict them. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > Ic1xAeCT1HkM0xATi9N8p+jTR40FPoz4Ej6T5Oep > 4hL/SG1g6h/sdIbk/IJWPDxc3E/XmQj/f3wE3EYS1 _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy
by Major Variola (ret) 06 May '03

06 May '03

At 10:28 AM 5/5/03 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >This is why I still bother reading Tim May's posts. Every now and then he >comes up with a good one. Where the frequency of "every now and then" depends on the reader.. (Actually, many educated catholics probably thought this at the >time.) And although the Catholic church did lose power on many fronts, it by >no means dissappeared. (You could almost say it propered, but probably by >virtue of the fact that it might be the single largest real estate dealer in >the world.) It was also the largest entrenched dealer in software-opiates in an empire entering the steep part of the tech sigmoid. Still a flourishing market, BTW, though there's more competition, from protestants, scientologists, and mohommed is reporting a high compound annual growth rate..

1 0

Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this list n
by Nomen Nescio 06 May '03

06 May '03

Andy Lopata writes: > I subscribe to this list for a number of reasons. One of them is because of > the potential crypto has for destabilizing capitalist/monopolist and state > control over information and expression (e.g. Freenet). Excellent point. Few participants here understand that private attempts to suppress freedom of speech are just as surely defeated by crypto as government efforts. Remember when Tim May a few days ago suggested that newspaper editors who printed false stories should be tortured and killed? > But the journalist and his editors are still alive. > When they have been necklaced and lit, we can rest easier. ("Necklacing" refers to the practice, common in South Africa during the turbulent years fighting apartheid, of putting an automobile tire around an opponent's neck, cutting his tongue and throat so that it hung down like a neck tie, and lighting the tire on fire. Tim May endorses this form of torture.) Cryptography can free publishers from intimidation by the likes of May just as much as it protects them from coercion by the government. Tim May and other hate-filled thugs will not be able to use threats of violence to prevent unpopular voices from being heard. The mere fact that no one complains about language like this from May, in a forum which supposedly fights for freedom of speech, is prima facie evidence of the chilling effect of his violent language. Only those of us protected by the shield of anonymity have the freedom to criticize this vile and hateful man.

4 3

Re: Making Money in Digital Money
by Anonymous 06 May '03

06 May '03

Robert Hettinga writes: > So, how do you do this? Easy. For software, the first copy is > auctioned for cash. Then the second copy, wherever it is on the > network, is auctioned for cash, and so on, until nobody's buying any > more copies, across the whole network. This is the oldest model of > trade there ever was. It's how red ochre from Maine ended up in > Neolithic tombs in Ireland. It's how Homo Habilis traded raw rocks > for finished hand axes across hundreds of miles of African savanna. > The Agorics guys called it the "digital silk road" for obvious > reasons. I hate to get into this, because I tried to educate you on this last year and you were totally impervious. As usual you started firing invective in all directions in an attempt at misdirection. Let me explain it so simply you can't miss it. This system does not work, because by the time the content is in the hands of just a few people, they will be bidding against each other to sell it on the net. Such a state of competition will quickly drive the prices down to the cost of reproduction, which is effectively zero. Therefore you can't sell more than a dozen-odd copies of the software at a non-zero price. If most of the people buying this software are doing so with the expectation of recouping their costs by re-selling, then no one will buy after the first few, since they will not be able to make any money selling at zero. But this means that even those first few buyers won't be able to sell at non-zero, since these second-wave potential buyers were their customers. Try to follow the logic here, Bob. The inability to make a profit after there are a dozen sellers *implies*, logically, that even the very first seller can't make a profit, because his potential buyers will see that they have no profit opportunities. Therefore the only motivation anyone would have here is to buy the software for what it is worth to them, and not to redistribute it. So we are talking about a private-contracting, custom-built software model. But it's not a software sales model. > For most digital goods, you just need to digitally sign the copies, > and you're done. Look Ma, no lawyers. Okay, no legislators and > regulators. No intellectual property attorneys. No "is a person", or > "know your customer", or other mystifications of identity. Funny > thing about this is, you'll notice the people who make the most new > stuff the most often get the most money in a single product's value > chain. Which is, oddly enough, exactly what we do now -- ask a movie > star -- only we'll be doing it cheaper. This is even more stupid. So someone signs the software. What difference does that make? It doesn't stop redistribution, it doesn't stop piracy, it doesn't keep it from being used in any way. It's irrelevant.

2 1

Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy
by barabbus＠hushmail.com 06 May '03

06 May '03

At 11:53 PM 5/4/2003 +0100, Adam Back wrote: >- Another potential and probably more likely to happen medium term technology could be improvements in display technology making telepresence more functional. 3d projective displays able to project into free-space for example allowing basically free-form tele-presence. >It would be harder for governments to attempt to tax remote workers, >but they might try it anyway by passing the tax burden on to the employers -- forcing them to collect local taxes against remote workers. I think you will find that an increasing number of professional workers and some companies are moving underground. This has not been uncommon in some trades in which compensation was traditionally cash-based, but the addition of professionals is, I think, something of note. This article discusses the trend of decreasing voluntary tax compliance within the U.S. "Tax Inquiries Fall as Cheating Increases," David Cay Johnston, New York Times, April 14, 2003 http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2003/0414inquiries.htm >Another corporate trend to avoid US taxation is where companies move their notional headquarters off-shore so that they are not taxed on international sales. >Either way the fact that companies are doing this suggests that currently companies themselves are ahead of individuals in mobility to avoid taxation. In fact, many taxes individuals face are indeed mobility taxes. Barabbus Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434 Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program: https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427

1 0