- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
by jamesd＠echeque.com 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

-- On 1 Sep 2001, at 16:12, Faustine wrote: > All I'm saying is that if the feds are doing their job well, > they won't stick out at all. Smells like a witch hunt. Fortunately government employees seldom do their jobs well. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG VMG1ETupIefAXUXhriXMx/jYuZ/GAkBiR2bp0dam 4j11sKNzaPkhkV9Dcny7kqNAWJLgxx2fb75bC3eBw

1 0

stump go boom, and keeping kanooks at bay
by Subcommander Bob 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

At 11:17 AM 8/31/01 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Note that the unlicensed private use of explosives may be legal in America >depending on time and place. Need any stumps cleared? Last week, my local (SoCal) Home Depot had Grant's stump remover, which appeared to be homogenous small spheres and KNO3 was mentioned on the ingredients list :-) >How can we stop >that Canadian armoured column slicing through Buffalo and heading down the >Thruway towards NYC? Wait for a snowstorm.

3 2

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by jamesd＠echeque.com 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

-- On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:52, Faustine wrote: > And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are > willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to > sell their betas to the NSA, you never will. There is nothing wrong with selling betas to the NSA. I make my crypto source code available to the NSA, and to everyone else. Everyone should do this. Anyone that fails to do that is up to no good. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 67dYNaWosvJqHSU041w2pF90I0cE+VHfMhQxInsf 4Is1TS6sNGfG1fhrdBPgbEbNEPYuv+XqX9gM0Ua0i

3 2

That's the 3th e-mail I send to you! 1_129
by 00001_002962＠mailcity.com 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

---------------------------------------------------------------- NASTY YOUNG GIRLS - WEB'S YOUNGEST WOMEN ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teens Super Model - Customizable pictures - Live & Interactive Videos Anal - Blowjob - Fucking - Young Teen - Clouse Up - Hardcore http://3368103282/young_g/ (Click in the link or copy and paste into your browser) ---------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been requested by a user on your network and has not been sent unsolicited. If the user does not recall requesting this email, then another user has maliciously requested it for them. If this is the case, please accept our apologies and email: nasty_young2001(a)yahoo.com IMMEDIATELY. Please include this entire email, plus any other info which may assist us in identifying the guilty party. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASTY YOUNG GIRLS - WEB'S YOUNGEST WOMEN ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Moral Crypto
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:40 AM 9/2/2001 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: Tim May wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > Yes and no. The users aren't all that anonymous, or they wouldn't need > > anonymous technologies, would they? The remailer network sees where > > this message originates. If you use Zero Knowledge software, their > > network knows exactly who is using it at any time. If a digital cash > > bank came into existence, payments transferred into the digital system > > from outside would largely be from identified sources. > > What can I say? You clearly don't understand: > > -- how remailer _networks_ work (Hint: nested encryption...all the first > remailer sees when he opens a message is an encrypted message he can't > read and instructions on which remailer to send it to next, and so on. > Only if most/all remailers collaborate can the route be followed by > them.) >The fact that a given person is using the remailer network is not a secret. At least one remailer finds out every time he sends a message. The point is, the entry from the non-anonymous to the anonymous world is a vulnerability. If the number of remailers of small then this represents a vulnerability. If the number is large (and especially if the first remailer link is encrypted and is a generalized P2P client able to perform a great number of functions, including remailing) then risk is greatly reduced. > -- how Freedom works (Hint: They say that even they cannot know who is > using it, except in terms of network usage. Which with cover traffic, > forwarding of other traffic, dummy messages, etc., means the fact that > Alice was using the network during a period of time does not mean they > know which exit messages are hers.) >You are not stating their claims accurately. ZKS does indeed have information about who is using it at any given time, if they operate any of the servers. Or at least the server operators can tell. Each user sets up a route through a chain of servers, and any given server knows exactly who is using it as the initial connection into the network. Again, the entry from non-anonymous into anonymous networks is visible. The hierarchical architecture of ZKS' network is, in my opinion, a weakness. I greatly prefer a P2P approach, despite possible DoS shortcomings. In a P2P approach the first remailer may be hosted on your own machine. As Tim has noted as long as one or a few remailers are trusted (and one assumes you own PC is trusted) then the chain is sufficiently reliable. > -- blinding. (Hint: That Alice deposits money into a digital bank, and > is identified by the bank, does not mean the bank knows who received > digital money from Alice, because Alice unblinds the note before > spending it--or redeeming it.) >No, but the fact that Alice transfered a certain amount of funds into the anonymous bank is visible to at least some observers. Once again, the point is that as you enter the anonymous world your entry is visible. As in the remailer case, if the number of ecash merchants is small and they don't accept cash then this may be true. If the number of sales and redemption points is large and cash, or other anonymous bearer instruments, are accepted then the risk is greatly reduced. > > Nonsense. Most participants in this forum DO share common philosophical > > goals: the preservation and enhancement of individual freedom via > > technological means. This is our common heritage. People make moral > > judgements every single day on this list based on exactly this framework. > > And it is this moral view which tells us that bin Laden and his terrorist > > groups are not the market which we should target in order to advance > > these goals. > > How about McVeigh? How about The Real IRA? How about John Brown? How > about Patrick Henry/ How about Cuban exiles? (By the way, everyone > should know about the time an anti-Castro group blew up a Cuban > airliner. Terrorists, freedom fighters, or just a bunch who wants to be > in control?) >Not everyone will agree with every specific case. But given our common philosophical heritage, list members can come to agreement with regard to most examples. The test is simple, whether these individuals advance the causes we support. >As long as you're listing examples, what do you think about Osama bin Laden? Would you support efforts to market crypto technology to Islamic religious extremists? If it can't pass the terrorist or pedo test its not ready for prime time. Would you limit firearm ownership to pellet guns. Would you trust or wish to pay for a missile defense system which would only defend against amateur rockets? >The great thing about bin Laden as an example is that we can see exactly what the consequences will be when he succeeds. With McVeigh, nobody knows for sure. But chances are it would be much the same if the militias achieved their goals: installation of a religious state. Supporting these people means helping bring about another Afghanistan, maybe right here at home next time. And we can guess what happens when what we thought were our constitutional guarantees are slowly eroded "for our security and the safety of the Children." I have no interest in living in a "safe" society virtually devoid of my civil rights and woe onto those who enact leglislation or enforce laws taking it from you or I. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.0 wmAEARECACAFAjuRtHIZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV n0GtAKClCvpYr35qjFjsgWHASTip7P79bQCfbHSthkT76QyYLPZsm5PZHg/eZUo= =03a3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Aimee Farr 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

Reese wrote: > >This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) > > Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. > Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. > Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense, > at the least. > > Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of Damn it, Reese, I didn't say that. Can anybody here read between the lines? Helloooo? *echo-echo-echo* > those same mechanisms to commit crime is not a death knell for those > mechanisms just as manufacturers do not stop producing and selling > vehicles that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, even though > some people do speed and are ticketed or given warnings, at least. > > You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various > mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way > of the dodo. That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out secrets to Libya. > Tim may be correct, in his assessment on your deserving > what you receive. Oh, Noooooo!!!!! > >> think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > >> forbidden to. > > > >I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government. > > > >o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications. > > It also has legitimate applicability for Joe Sixpack and Suzy Winecooler, > who don't want a zillion ads and cookies clogging their bandwidth and > cache, who don't want targetted ads or their surfing habits tracked and > monitored, who certainly don't want their health insurance premiums to > go up after they do research on some rare, incurable disease they are > mildly curious about or after researching a more common ailment when a > friend happens to be diagnosed - to lean on those old standbys. No shit. > >o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like > >blinded biometrics. > > The maintenance of privacy can be a problem, from a marketers POV, other > things can be viewed as problems too, when the end consumer has proper > control of self-identifying information. If the money is good, that > level of authentication can be conducted in meatspace if it is truly > needed - most times, it is not. Again, I was speaking within the confines of a very limited application where authentication can be rather critical. > >o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing > >intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an > >intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, > >or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're > >left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth. > > You leave many possible things out, you present a false summation of all > the possible uses of Blacknet and maintenance of anonymity. As I stated, I was examining it in the context of an _intelligence application_. I wonder if that's a good contract, but obviously not....why do I even bother? *sigh* > >Most move product and still have > >distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are > >buying arms with offshore debit cards. > > This event by people acting criminally in another country (according to > the rules imposed by past-rulers of that other country, heh) should be > used to shape and mold US domestic policy and legislation for the care > and feeding of US citizen-units how, exactly? I was merely pointing out that people that crypto does not "beam" product. Solve the ship-submarine ditching problem if you want to help that scum. > >o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context. > > Bad timing? Who is disadvantaged by the timing of this discussion? > Your handler said to slow the conversation down while they run some > numbers and gets some surveillance in place, or something? They've caught on to our "slow-the-conversation" tactic!! Oh, whatever shall we do now? *slap to side of face* "Run some numbers?" What? I flag posts in here that might qualify for Title I interceptions. This month is looking to be a record-breaker. Excuse me, my "handlers" are calling.....Sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about this. > >This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather > >than something subversive. > > Principle is like that. You don't like what others have to say? You > should remove your own right to freedom of speech, before you attempt > to censor others. (Good luck, once you've effectively removed your own > right to free speech, on censoring anyone else). Damnit, I'm not censoring anybody. I believe in the First Amendment. It's such a good source of intelligence and so often leads to probable cause. *kidding* > As a lawyer, you know or should know that most (if not all) of the most > significant constitutional rights cases to be heard by the courts have > involved criminals and other undesirables and unlikelies who pushed the > edge of the envelope in their own defense. Just because I have a dislike > for Charles Manson, does not mean I support movements to suspend all the > rights affirmed under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and other of the > various Amendments we collectively refer to as the Bill of Rights, for > example. *applause* > >It's like the fall of Knights Templar in > >here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage? > > When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it > probably isn't a pilgrim. Real ducks neither quack nor waddle, Reese. I'm going to go outside now, and talk to snails. ~Aimee

5 5

Re: secure IRC/messaging successor
by Bill Stewart 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

At 06:41 PM 08/30/2001 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >Gale http://www.gale.org/ seems a well thought out infrastructure. Is the >consensus "this is it", or have I missed any alternatives? Jabber seems to be emerging as the main cross-ISP instant messaging platform. I'm not sure how much security it offers, but I've heard that somebody's doing something along those lines.

1 0

Borders UK and privacy
by Allan Hunt-Badiner 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

BORDERS U.K. USES FACE-RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS Borders Books in the U.K. is employing SmartFace technology to compare the "unique digital face-maps" of customers against similar face-maps of known shoplifters. Privacy advocates such as the director of the Scottish Human Rights Centre are outraged by the development: "I can see why they don't want shoplifters in their store, but I would question whether this is proportionate to what they are trying to do. We are talking about having a bank of pictures of everyone going into the shop -- I would consider that a serious breach of privacy. There is no control over what they do with those pictures, or how they are kept -- are they safe? Nor is there much control over whether Borders could sell the information on, or whether people will actually know this is happening." (Sunday Herald 26 Aug 2001) http://www.sundayherald.com/18007

7 10

need
by keo kong 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

to cypherpunks I am keo and I would like to order no brand CD-R over 50000 per mounth, could you let me know about the price, I need you send me to nongkai onething if the CD-R can not use ,can I return? onething could you let me know where is your address and your phone number for me easy to connect. Please reply me as quick as possible I look forward to hearing from you. best regard keo _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Nomen Nescio 02 Sep '01

02 Sep '01

On 31 Aug 2001, at 12:13, georgemw(a)speakeasy.net wrote: > On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > This means that the operators > > choose to whom they will market and sell their services. > > Here I disagree completely. I think in a properly designed > anonymity system the users will be, well, anonymous, and > it should be impossible to tell any more about them than that they > pay their bills on time. Certainly most potential users would balk at > requirements that they prove who they were and justify their desire > to use such a system, since that would tend to defeat the purpose. Yes and no. The users aren't all that anonymous, or they wouldn't need anonymous technologies, would they? The remailer network sees where this message originates. If you use Zero Knowledge software, their network knows exactly who is using it at any time. If a digital cash bank came into existence, payments transferred into the digital system from outside would largely be from identified sources. Nevertheless it's true that the operators would probably not find it cost effective to try to identify every single customer. (Although ZKS will cancel your nym if you spam with it.) The real issue is the clause above about "market and sell". This was the original point raised by Tim May: what markets do we select? His whiteboard exercise teaches that you need to identify, select and target particular markets which make sense. And if you care about the world you are creating, that's where the moral issue comes in. > I don't think it serves > any purpose to discuss who constitute "valiant freedom fighters > resisting a tyrannical government" and who are "bloody terrorist > fanatics attempting to overthrow a benign legitimate government > and replace it wth a worse one" in this forum. We may have strong > opinions on this matter as individuals, but it is completely > unreasonable to expect us to come to any kind of consensus as a > group. Nonsense. Most participants in this forum DO share common philosophical goals: the preservation and enhancement of individual freedom via technological means. This is our common heritage. People make moral judgements every single day on this list based on exactly this framework. And it is this moral view which tells us that bin Laden and his terrorist groups are not the market which we should target in order to advance these goals. > Nor is it necessarily beneficial to do so. Would a system > useful to the "virtuous" seperatist Kurds in Iraq be different in any > technical way from a system used by the "evil" seperatist Kurds > in Turkey? No, probably not. However the world seems strangely short of virtuous freedom fighters right now. In fact "freedom fighters" are probably not an appropriate target market for cypherpunks. They may be well funded but most of them are wedded to violence. If they get into power they're not going to make things any better. James Donald made this point: few countries are undergoing true popular revolutions. It would be better to target technologies that would benefit groups where there is a large, oppressed minority, people who just want to be left alone. Unfortunately, almost by definition, oppressed minorities tend to be poor. So it is a hard problem to do this profitably. > > It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather > > than set it back. Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier > > posting. Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by > > their morality are the ones who are missing the point. > > Wrong. When discussing design of a system, it makes sense to > limit discussion to parameters relevant to system design. How > much individuals might be willing to pay to protect their privacy, > how great of injuries they might suffer if their privacy is > compromised, is relevant to system design. Why they > want privacy, whether you or I as individuals would think of them > as "good guys" or "bad guys", really isn't. It's true that this does not directly impact the design. But we can't ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue. For example, there are any number of papers on key escrow systems, or "fair" electronic cash (where only the government can trace it). Legitimate businesses might well be willing to use such systems. So there is profit to be made, all the more profit since the government is less likely to hassle you. Would you say that discussions of such technologies would and should be encouraged on the cypherpunks list? That it doesn't matter whether this helps us in or long-term goal or not? Surely not. Morality plays a part in everything we do. We have goals in common. We should structure our efforts so that they are in accordance with our highest goals. Having principles is nothing to be ashamed of. We all have them, and we should be proud of that.

4 4