- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

encryption key switching,would it work?
by ccat＠netcom.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

I'm wondering if there is any particular reason why an encrypted message might not be encrypted with several different keys,within the same message, divided by time.Perhaps synchronized clocks or time stamping might be used to toggle the encryption parameters.This technology might be able to defeat the brute force decryption technologies described in the paper mentioned yesterday. The only way that one might decrypt the message is to know the _exact_ time at wich the algorhythm was switched.In other words, what to prevent people from using _numerous_ keys during _one_ session,with the _times_ of switching remaining secret? Combined with a robust "one time pad" method,like triple DES,this technology might be particularly resistant to casual decryption attempts based on knowledge of the algorhythm? I know little about different encryption methods.. is there any reason this wouldnt work,besides the necessary complexity of the information contained in the key? -Chris - Chris Beaumont nutrient cafe wholesale ccat(a)netcom.com MIME mail graciously accepted ccat(a)casa.stanford.edu public key available via finger

2 1

Re: Spooks reading the list
by lefty＠apple.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

An anonymous "contributor" writes > >In fact, there is at least one NSA agent on this list. Whether >he/she is on our side or not, who knows? This message, a defense of >the NSA, was posted here not long ago. I don't know if anyone else >noticed this at the time, but take a look: > >*From: IN%"remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu" 28-AUG-1993 06:02:47.29 >*To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" >*CC: >*Subj: NSA & the Crypto-Zionist Myth of "Public Key"! > >* {Deletia} >* >*Excuse me, but I'm getting tired of this silly paranoia. NSA >*is not Evil Incarnate Central, and we are not fighting a Valiant War > == > >We? WE! Do you suppose that was a Freudian slip, or did he mean to >say it like that? Whoever he is, he works for the NSA. Did anyone else >notice this at the time? In this context, "we" clearly refers to the Cypherpunks, fighting a "Valiant War" _against_ the NSA. I think you sound like a paranoid loon. -- Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Armed gangs stealing chips from warehouses
by tcmay＠netcom.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

I saw on "Clarinet," the news service, a couple of A.P. reports on armed attacks on chip warehouses. The latest was yesterday when a van pulled up to the loading dock at Wyle, a distributor in Santa Clara (across from Intel). Two armed men forced everyone in the area to the floor, while they went straight for the Intel microprocessors and filled a large bag. An investigator called this type of crime the wave of the future, and said something to the effect that "chips will be the coke of the 90s." Also talk of black markets and how computer networks are being used to coordinate things. So, if you see folks using BlackNet for advertising Intel chips.... (I regret that I cannot post the Clarinet article, as Clarinet has fairly draconian policies about reposting its articles--even though I never signed a contract. Still, Cypherunks should be aware of this....I've seen at least one Clarinet article reposted here on this list, and this could expose the list to actions.) --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

2 1

Let's stick to the topic, folks...
by Andrew Corradini/SBDC 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

For purely practical reasons, could we all please try to limit stuff that'd end up on soda.berkeley.edu in the "rants" directory? ;-) This is a MAILING LIST, not a newsgroup, and some of us have pretty limited space available. Debating constitutional issues, splitting hairs over the difference between libertarianism and anarchism (let ALONE "strong" vs. "weak" anarchy!) is best done in an alt.politics-type setting, no? I didn't subscribe to the list to see 7-level-deep nested quotes arguing over whether anarchy is fundamentally unstable; I suspect most others on the list didn't either. As I understood, and understand, the thrust of the group deals with the TECHNOLOGY and TECHNIQUES involved in the application of cryptography to privacy-related issues and the free distribution of "information", whether dirty pictures, money, or a poem you just wrote to your loved one. NOT the philosophy. Please, for bandwidth's sake, would people please take their back-n-forth's.... *private*?! ;-) (pun fully intended) (deep breath, relax shoulder tension, stepping down from soapbox) Thanks, y'all. I feel much better now. Andrew

1 0

Re: nada against the gubbamess...
by doug＠netcom4.netcom.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

loki(a)convex1.TCS.Tulane.EDU (the mischeivious god) said: >Any way question to that point about about elections... > >Who would be ble to be candidates...just anybody ???that would be >almost as bad as our present system...which has people with no relevant >experience except in bullshit and fait de con. Sorry to say that you're a bit confused. The question was how to provide justice under anarchy. I said something about voting. You jumped to the assumption that I was talking about voting for government elections. This is not the case. I was talking about voting on issues of justice, as in a jury. You may want to reread my post with this in mind. As for voting for government in cyberspace, it all depends on the other assumptions. Should there be a virtual government? Should voting for physical-world governments take place on the net? Etc, etc. There is currently no active discussion going on about any of this, so there is no framework for commenting on voting for such things. Doug

1 0

The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
by Anonymous 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

On Sun, 12 Sep 93 00:54:18 PDT, <uunet!alumni.cco.caltech.edu!nobody> wrote - > Some comments on the relationship between anarchy and > privacy: > > 1. There have been some recent posts suggesting that > privacy is not fundamentally subversive of > government, and that cypherpunks should emphasize > the privacy and keep quite about the anarchy. I > find these arguments disingenuous in the extreme, > and strategically unsound as well. Bullshit. Privacy is not inherently subversive at all. If you take the time to browse back through the Bill of Rights, you might recognize this paragraph - ARTICLE IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > 3. The government has shown by its behavior that it > believes that privacy is fundamentally subversive. This is not necessarily true. I agree that Big Brother has gone to the extreme to violate individual privacy in the modern day, but just how does this tie into anarchy? To solely entwine these two idealisms is, in my opinion, a bankrupt strategy. I believe in strong crypto, I believe in privacy. Pinch-hitting for anarchy will damage work for privacy causes. > 4. I personally find privacy, in itself, only mildly > interesting. As a tool to undermine the government, > I find it VERY EXCITING INDEED. Excitement does not define the deed or the end result. Get your cheap thrills at someone else's expense. > 5. Cypherpunks' mission is to evangelize the use of > privacy. Sell the sizzle, not the steak! Privacy > is the steak. The sizzle is the possibility of > GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING. "Getting away" with privacy is an oxymoron in itself. Privacy should be something that we all have and enjoy as individuals, not simply as guaranteed under the Constitution, but as a human right that is owed each of us globally. I'll stand by you in a fight for privacy, but I won't be party to anarchic idealisms that I believe will do more damage to the privacy cause in the long run.

1 0

nada
by nobody＠alumni.cco.caltech.edu 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

Some comments on the relationship between anarchy and privacy: 1. There have been some recent posts suggesting that privacy is not fundamentally subversive of government, and that cypherpunks should emphasize the privacy and keep quite about the anarchy. I find these arguments disingenuous in the extreme, and strategically unsound as well. 2. Cypherpunks believe that privacy is fundamentally subversive. Come on, folks, whom do you want privacy FROM, if not your own government? Otherwise there's no logical objection to the key-escrow, trust-big-brother schemes. 3. The government has shown by its behavior that it believes that privacy is fundamentally subversive. 4. I personally find privacy, in itself, only mildly interesting. As a tool to undermine the government, I find it VERY EXCITING INDEED. 5. Cypherpunks' mission is to evangelize the use of privacy. Sell the sizzle, not the steak! Privacy is the steak. The sizzle is the possibility of GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING.

3 2

Re: nada against the gubbamess...
by doug＠netcom4.netcom.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

loki(a)convex1.TCS.Tulane.EDU (the mischeivious god) said: >nobody(a)alumni.cco.caltech.edu (I think) said: >> 1. There have been some recent posts suggesting that >> privacy is not fundamentally subversive of >> government, and that cypherpunks should emphasize >> the privacy and keep quite about the anarchy. I >> find these arguments disingenuous in the extreme, >> and strategically unsound as well. > >no doubt....I have a question for everyone though. How does anarchy >deal with justice and who would be the ones to provide this service. That's one of the problems with absolute anarchy; it's unstable. Most "anarchists" believe in relative anarchy rather than absolute; some would call that simply "libertarian", but others dislike that label because a lot of libertarians are less extreme in their views. Regardless of fine distinctions in labelling, it is possible to come up with schemes for things like justice that do not involve centralized monolithic government, anyway. As I recall, Ursula LeGuin had justice provided by ad hoc peer review committees, for instance. Snow Crash had it provided by franchised companies that were called "governments", but that sure didn't resemble today's governments in most details. One scheme for future cyberspace would involve digital voting by established reputable personas (anonymous or not) and enforcement via stakes involving digital cash and/or digital reputation. Although building and establishing reputation would require some kind of investment of time and energy, it's difficult to maintain a "one physical body one vote" scheme. Randomized selection of juries might assist in that in a statistical sense. (I arrived late at the cypherpunk meeting Saturday, but from the printed agenda it looks like some aspects of that had been discussed?) As for the original point about whether cypherpunks should be quiet about anarchy or not, this is a question of PR and of politics (of course). If you're talking to a person with libertarian or anarchist leanings, then that would be a selling point. If you're talking to the press, who will in turn be talking to everyone including Peoria, the game is to be more moderate while still offering the sizzle. For instance, even mainstream Republicans and Democrats from the bible belt may distrust the IRS and the CIA enough to want some protection from *them*. But they may not sympathize with people who say that we need protection from the government overall. It's a selling game. It's also worth keeping in mind that there are a variety of political views among cypherpunks, and it would be dishonest to paint all cypherpunks as being in absolute agreement about all aspects of politics. >Also is society outside of our Ivory tower cases with twin cooling fans ready >for an anarchical harmony??? Not a chance. But the sizzle might sell anyway, if it's packaged right. Doug -- Doug Merritt doug(a)netcom.com Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife HC_III Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci SF GA VR CASE TLAs

1 0

is the list still going?
by jdblair＠nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

I haven't gotten a mailing for quite a few days. Is something wrong? -john

1 0

EC isn't great for privacy either...
by remail＠tamsun.tamu.edu 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

> Wow! And "Gulp." I may have to get my European Community passport > sooner than I had planned. Does Martinique have a Net connection? Don't rush out to get your EC passport yet. Below I have included some exerpts from the EC Information Technology Security Document (ITSEC, aka Green Book). The referenced sections are from the "Confidentiality" section. I have put "..."'s where I have skipped over material and all upper case words are emphasis that I have added. For those who don't want to read it all, the gist of it is that the EC folks are also interested in maintaining the government's ability to intercept private communications. There is also talk about licensing businesses to use good confidentiality services. Btw. There is also a mention of PGP which I have left. Its the paragraph right before the one that mentions Clipper! --Begin Enclosure \subsection{Privacy enhancement issues} \subsubsection{Perception of requirements for privacy enhancement} \SeiLa{Issue} Confidentiality is, at times, essential for the good functioning of administrations, business and human relations. ... Most business and private users of communication systems are aware of the conflict between their confidentiality requirements and national security issues which require the possibility to intercept the communication in a way regulated by national laws. They accept the national authorities ability for this interception provided there are adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorised interception even by government employees. ... {\bf Service provision} The extent to which confidentiality services are provided for a specific business or citizen could depend on a system of LICENSES or certificates. A particular business might qualify for a CONFIDENTIALITY LICENSE depending on its internal procedures and activities. A general (minimum) level of confidentiality could be provided to all users. It should be possible for certain user groups or businesses to use other confidential services (egproprietary) than the standard ones provided. There are strong indications of emerging ``bottom up'' solutions for these needs (eg the Pretty Good Privacy offering on Internet, beginning 1993). Other initiatives (eg the announcement of the ``Clipper Chip'', 16 April 1993) illustrate the growing awareness of governments of the needs of their citizens for confidentiality services. ... If a public confidentiality scheme is offered, organised crime could also subscribe to such a scheme, but as it would include provisions for legal intercept, it would hardly be attractive. One would expect that such users would continue to find their own solutions as will the classified domain. An open and public service offering a credible level of confidentiality would therefore provide for the honest user, while not worsening the situation with respect to public order or national security. The combination of international communication and national security regulations require a common framework for confidentiality services, which on the one hand interoperate within all Community Member States as well as with countries outside the Community which themselves may establish their confidentiality services. This requires either an overlay approach or gateways which link the different national or regional services. These gateways are only required where multinational agreements for co-operation on national security concerns is not yet established. In this case these gateways may provide at least an interim solution. --End Enclosure

3 2