- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Schneier: Why Digital Signatures are not Signatures (was Re :CRYPTO-GRAM, November 15, 2000)
by Lynn.Wheeler＠firstdata.com 18 Nov '00

18 Nov '00

there are issues about authentication ... like conceptual frame-works of something you have, something you know, and something you are. it is possible to put together digital signature authentication technology/frame-works involving digital signature that are dependent on one or more pieces of 3-factor authentication. legal "signatures" as indication of intent have involved issues like counterfeit and understanding (and various regulations about font-sizes, wording, different expectations about prudent person, etc). a digital signature, once executed is a lot harder to counterfeit (compared to various written signatures) ... however there is much less direct correlation between intention and the act of executing a digital signature. digital signature in conjunction with various process that can proove that every digital signature executed was directly dependant on various combinations of 3-factor authentication (for each and every digital signature executed) attempts for a tighter correlation and demonstrate some degree of actual binding (between intention and signature execution). however, they also introduce new technology challenges ... there is now a significantly wider gap between the presentation of the information that a person may be agreeing to ... and the actual representation that is involved in executing digital signatures. paper documents also have had the advantage that the presentation of the information and the signature application is nearly identical technology .... much closer binding between the representation of what is being agreed to and the method of indicating that agreement. There are not a whole lot of cases where as the person is using a pen to sign a specific piece of paper ... that the pen can wonder off and sign a totally different piece of paper (like radar getting week-end passes signed in the MASH show). So the understanding issue pretty much stays the same in both environments (digital signature and paper signature) ... digital signatures (in conjunction with the appropriate authentication framework) can reduce the instances of counterfeit signatures being applied to documents ... but also opens up the instances where what a person is presented isn't necessarily what the person is signing. So one issue might be ... all other factors being equal ... is the magnitude of any counterfeit reduction significantly greater than the increase in the "what you see is what you sign" problem and the "did the person actually intend/confirm that particular signature" problem. "Paul Kierstead" <paul.kierstead(a)alcatel.com> on 11/17/2000 06:09:02 AM Please respond to paul.kierstead(a)alcatel.com

1 0

Re: Atlanta Fed on a Theory of Financial Privacy
by Somebody 18 Nov '00

18 Nov '00

No, it doesn't use the "B" word, but it is fun to see someone _define_ money as "a technology that allows consumer A to anonymously conduct a transaction with firm B." I am stirred to view the referenced literature in which record-keeping and credit are related to currency. One of the most common counter-arguments to bearer transactions has been to point out that the cost of centralized bookkeeping is falling and our ability to scale it is rising (e.g. DTC, FederalReserve, NSCC, CREST. These, the argument goes, handle huge centralized bookkeeping and credit scorekeeping chores with a very low per item cost.) In fact this argument is mentioned in this tract. The insight here is to note that transactions carry a "privacy right" with them, iff they can be conducted anonymously, and this can affect the bargaining process. For the time being, it remains an intellectual/academic exercise whether anonymous e-money is the most cost effective solution, or whether privacy can be economically grafted onto huge bookkeeping data processing systems. To some of us the answer is intuitive, but I'm sure it will come down to "bits on the wire" before we have very many believers. "R. A. Hettinga" wrote: > Lions and Tigers and Coasian Microeconomics, oh, my... > > http://www.frbatlanta.org/publica/work_papers/wp00/wp0022.pdf > > No mention of the "B" word, but, then, they're not supposed to, yet, right? > > :-) > > Cheers, > RAH > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: Theorytrxpriv.pdf > Theorytrxpriv.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) > Encoding: base64 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > ----------------- > 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' --- 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

Re: Atlanta Fed on a Theory of Financial Privacy
by Somebody 18 Nov '00

18 Nov '00

No, it doesn't use the "B" word, but it is fun to see someone _define_ money as "a technology that allows consumer A to anonymously conduct a transaction with firm B." I am stirred to view the referenced literature in which record-keeping and credit are related to currency. One of the most common counter-arguments to bearer transactions has been to point out that the cost of centralized bookkeeping is falling and our ability to scale it is rising (e.g. DTC, FederalReserve, NSCC, CREST. These, the argument goes, handle huge centralized bookkeeping and credit scorekeeping chores with a very low per item cost.) In fact this argument is mentioned in this tract. The insight here is to note that transactions carry a "privacy right" with them, iff they can be conducted anonymously, and this can affect the bargaining process. For the time being, it remains an intellectual/academic exercise whether anonymous e-money is the most cost effective solution, or whether privacy can be economically grafted onto huge bookkeeping data processing systems. To some of us the answer is intuitive, but I'm sure it will come down to "bits on the wire" before we have very many believers. "R. A. Hettinga" wrote: > Lions and Tigers and Coasian Microeconomics, oh, my... > > http://www.frbatlanta.org/publica/work_papers/wp00/wp0022.pdf > > No mention of the "B" word, but, then, they're not supposed to, yet, right? > > :-) > > Cheers, > RAH > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: Theorytrxpriv.pdf > Theorytrxpriv.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) > Encoding: base64 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > ----------------- > 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' --- 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

CDR: Re: Aces high (long reply)
by jonathan＠screaming.org 18 Nov '00

18 Nov '00

> >And despite all the talk, chad pregnancy is still a problem in America > >today. You know all those chads are just going to end up on welfare. > > They burn real well. Just feed them into the incinerators. Hell that's funny. It really is. Now something that sucks: I just saw a report on CNN-or-some-such, that the Bush Camp was outraged that they'd seen some Techie "rifling the punchcard ballots" before feeding them into the machine!!! How many of us here can harken back to the days of punchcards in computing? Did you not, routinely, rifle them prior to feeding them in to the reader, in order to dislodge the "chads"? WTF, I respectfully ask? Morons will begin raining from the damn sky. Skeet shooting anyone? /jonathan

2 1

CDR: Re: Aces high (long reply)
by Allen Ethridge 18 Nov '00

18 Nov '00

On Friday, November 17, 2000, at 09:37 PM, jonathan(a)screaming.org wrote: > I just saw a report on CNN-or-some-such, that the Bush Camp was > outraged that they'd seen some Techie "rifling the punchcard ballots" > before feeding them into the machine!!! > > How many of us here can harken back to the days of punchcards in > computing? Did you not, routinely, rifle them prior to feeding them in > to the reader, in order to dislodge the "chads"? WTF, I respectfully > ask? I can, barely, and, no, I didn't. But I get your point. The card punching machines I used did a good job of punching a clean hole. And I noticed on my Texas ballot just how cleanly the holes were punched. If there were many chads hanging about then either the punching equipment, the cards or both were faulty. Maybe the butterfly wasn't the only flaw in the design of the ballots.

1 0

CDR: Re: Florida Supreme Court freezes certification
by jonathan＠screaming.org 17 Nov '00

17 Nov '00

Mr. not-so-well said: > > Florida Supreme Court freezes certification. > > > > (That's it.) (As they well should have, given its statistical invalidity.) To which replied some entity which cannot distinguish Bush Spin from actual events: > Hmmm. That would seem to be a violation of separation of powers. > > The Florida deadline law is very clear. If the Florida Supreme > Court wishes to rule on a suit that the Dems bring up then that > is their authority, but preventing the Secretary of State from > doing her duly appointed job seems to be a violation of > separation of powers. Except that the legal motion was filed by the Reps, not the Dems, originally. They brought it on them-damn-selves. Idiots. Christ. Is the entire Republican Establishment as fucking low-IQ as GWB? What a bunch of morons/amateurs. The only--*only*--aspect of AG that I can respect is the fact that he can read at at least an 8th grade level. Fuck. For those of us that understand that our Constitutional Rights(tm) may hang in the balance (for, oh, say the next 20 years or so), I can't say that having an illiterate moron in The Office is a reassuring idea--I mean, I thought that at least the Puppet Masters weren't such lamerz. Thank <your favorite entity here> that whomever takes the Oval office, he'll swear in with his proverbial intestines around his proverbial ankles. Evisceration2000 /jonathan

1 0

CDR: Re: Atlanta Fed on a Theory of Financial Privacy
by R. A. Hettinga 17 Nov '00

17 Nov '00

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

CDR: Here they are again, hopefully untruncated this time (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Nov '00

17 Nov '00

Doh. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:23:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard(a)vrx.news> Reply-To: orange(a)dns.list To: orange(a)ns1.vrx.net Subject: Here they are again, hopefully untruncated this time Aurbach "How I would decide TLDS if I were seated" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=ica nn-111500&start=10-31-32 Me: ".XXX" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=ica nn-111500&start=10-35-51 Peter Dengate Thrush: "We (cctlds) may look for other root servers" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=ica nn-111500&start=10-39-10 -- Richard J. Sexton richard(a)vrx.web +1 (613) 473-1719 http://dns.vrx.list/tech/rootzone richard%vrx.web(a)vrx.net

1 0

CDR: Highlights of the ICANN meeting (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Nov '00

17 Nov '00

____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:01:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard(a)vrx.news> Reply-To: orange(a)dns.list To: orange(a)ns1.vrx.net Subject: Highlights of the ICANN meeting Aurbach "How I would decide TLDS if I were seated" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=ica nn-111500&start=10-31-32 Me: ".XXX" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=ica nn-111500&start=10-35-51 Peter Dengate Thrush: "We (cctlds) may look for other root servers" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=ica nn-111500&start=10-39-10 -- Richard J. Sexton richard(a)vrx.web +1 (613) 473-1719 http://dns.vrx.list/tech/rootzone richard%vrx.web(a)vrx.net

1 0

CDR: ICANNt have privacy with whois
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 17 Nov '00

17 Nov '00

Public Records Questioned on Web By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer MARINA DEL REY, Calif.--As more individuals build their own Web sites, some privacy advocates now question requirements that the site owners disclose their personal contact information. Names, e-mail addresses, postal addresses and telephone numbers for more than 24 million domain names are stored in databases called Whois. The information is available to anyone with an Internet connection. Its like a global phone directory -without the option for an unlisted number. "Sacrificing your privacy should not be a condition of access to the domain space," said Alan Davidson, staff counsel with the Center for Democracy and Technology. Most people may not care and would list their contact information anyway, just like most telephone customers now list their numbers. But Davidson said Internet users ought to have a choice -for instance, they may want to stay anonymous if they are human rights advocates and other dissidents fearful of repercussion from oppressive governments. Ellen Rony, author of the Domain Name Handbook, said she knew of someone stalked based on information from the databases. On the other hand, she said, the tool proves helpful for researchers to gauge the origins and veracity of Web sites, and the stalking incident appears an aberration. "I can see both sides," she said. "Historically, Whois is always public." The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which oversees the master record keeper of Web addresses and the domain registration companies, currently requires disclosure of contact information for holders of .com, .net and .org names. Andrew McLaughlin, ICANNs chief policy officer, said the organization may have to revisit Whois policies next year, but it is not on the agenda for its annual meeting this week. Part of the drive comes from the European Union, which passed a law prohibiting the transfer of data to the United States and other non-EU countries that dont meet EU standards for protecting personal information. Back in the 1980s, when the Whois database was developed, Internet privacy wasnt a big deal. The Internet was mostly a research tool for government and universities. "We all knew each other," said Karl Auerbach, a longtime Internet user who was recently elected to ICANN. But these days, Auerbach said, that same Whois database creates unwanted e-mail and unsolicited phone calls. Davidson said times have changed, and the Internet must change as well. "Now, you have regular people using it and theres a much greater need to protect privacy," he said. Registration companies offer access to the databases in order to let users determine whether the domain names they want are available. But when a name is taken, the registrar often links to the records for that name as well. The idea is to help users contact the names owner for possible purchase, even though the databases originally helped computer administrators contact one another when networks go awry. Lawyers also use the databases to check on names that may tread on their clients trademark rights. Steven J. Metalitz, vice president for the International Intellectual Property Alliance, said such open access is important to deter abusers. At VeriSign Global Registry Services, which runs the databases for .com, .net and .org, Vice President Chuck Gomes said technology may settle the issue in the next year or two. New tools, he said, could help meet the needs of law enforcement officials and trademark owners while protecting privacy for individuals in other circumstances. In the meantime, the records remain open, and many of the proposals for new domain suffixes call for open Whois databases as well. "Its the model thats out there," said John Kane, head of a marketing task force for Afilias, which is seeking a .web suffix. "Its a public resource. You dont own a domain name. You own the right to use it." http://www.latimes.com/wires/20001115/tCB00V0232.html

2 1