- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Many Important Items in the News
by karn＠qualcomm.com 25 Mar '93

25 Mar '93

>(Cypherpunks remailers may want to change the "Nobody" and "Anonymous" tags >to names that are less screenable, less susceptible to censorship by >ARMM-type programs. Using a rotating list of fictional or historical names >may be an approach, but I'm sure we can think of many ways to bypass >ARMM-type cancellers.) I'm not sure I like this idea. In my own discussions with people on this issue, I've found that "filterability" (for lack of a better term) overcomes *many* (if not all) of the standard objections to anonymous email. I see email anonymity as directly analogous to Caller-ID in the telephone network. Historically, telephony and email have taken competely opposite tacks on the caller privacy issue: telephone calls have always been anonymous while the Internet has effectively had "Caller ID" with no blocking. Caller ID changes the former assumption, while the anonymous remailer changes the latter. A consensus seems to be emerging on Caller ID: it's a good thing, *provided* there's a way to block it. In other words, the calling and called parties must agree on whether or not the caller will identify himself. If they don't agree, the call won't go through. Because the Caller ID messages explicitly state when the caller's number is blocked (as opposed to simply being unavailable for other reasons), it would be straightforward to build a call filter box that would disable your ringer and return an error message to any caller that invokes caller ID blocking. ("I'm sorry, the number you have reached will not accept anonymous calls. If you wish to reach this party, please unblock caller ID and try your call again.") I think this approach strikes an eminently reasonable balance between the privacy interests of the two parties. Personally, I would not use such a box unless I was actually having problems with anonymous crank calls. But a single woman living alone might well feel differently. The important thing is to let each individual make that decision for him/herself, not to impose one policy on the entire world. I think this is also exactly the right solution for email. The policy for the Internet should be that anonymous email is perfectly okay as long as it is clearly labeled as such. Then anyone who doesn't want to receive it can automatically remove it from their incoming mail without ever having to set eyes on it. This allows anonymous email to flourish wherever the recipients consent to receiving it, while it could not be used (for very long, anyway) to harass a nonconsenting recipient. More elaborate filters could be constructed that would accept anonymous email only when it had been signed by certain specific RSA keys. This would let consenting parties communicate by means of pseudonyms, without having to open themselves up to anonymous harassment from the entire net. What do you think? Phil

1 0

FREE: warning to "sci" anonymous posters
by internaut＠aol.com 24 Mar '93

24 Mar '93

Sir, I find the contents of your warning message (appended below) to be an outrageous affront to the right of Freedom of Speech granted to all Americans in the Constitution. In fact, if you take a moment to think globally, your proposals are detrimental to the future freedom of all Citizens of the World. I think that you *yourself* should be warned that there are many of us watching your actions with great interest - and some of us have very long memories when such repressive actions are considered. particularly vexing is the idea that ANY anonymous mail might be censored - this might edit out EXACTLY the voices of criticism that make out Nation and our Internet great. Any newsgroup that can't accept the fundamental right anonymous posting should have the option of IGNORING them, but not removing them. People who want to censor speech in such a knee-jerk way have no place in public with other free people. If the reasoned opinion of any upstanding Citizen of the Internet or the US has any effect on your actions, I strongly urge you to stop this practice (if you have begun using it) and to never, ever begin it (if you have not yet). Someday you may want to vote in a US election. You'll probably want to cast a secret ballot, won't you? This is only one small example of the fundamental role of anonymity in our great Democracy. We don't need this brand of "enforcement" example on the Internet, and we don't need berobed Ku Klux Klan members lynching people to remind minorities to "behave." Erode these freedoms, and you may one day be unable to cast a ballot without being photographed and fingerprinted - it wouldn't be a very satisfactory way to run a Democracy, would it? You might scoff at my example, but one can build a mountain from many pebbles, and your action is a large chunk of stone in the mountain of Thought Bondage. I prefer to believe that you are a well-educated, thoughtful person who can see the Orwellian Thought Control inherent in this idea. i refer to imagine that you will not only reconsider such actions and vow to never follow those censorial urges, but also actively persuade others of such restrictive opinions to reconsider and stop their actions. A good Golden Rule to follow is: "Don't limit anyone's Freedom of Speech or you might be next one to be silenced!" Do the Right Thing! dave > As I promised yesterday, I emailed each recent anonomous poster >in the "sci" hierarchy a note explaining what may happen this >weekend. > >Dick >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Dear anonymous poster, > > You may not be aware of the discussion in news.admin.policy >concerning the propriety of posting anonymously to newsgroups which >have not invited such postings. As someone who has posted anonymously >to the "sci" hierarchy recently, you should read it. > > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin(a)anon.penet.fi, >does not soon block anonymous postings to the "sci" hierarchy, then >I will activate an "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script >that will cancel postings to this hierarchy from his server. This is >intended to restore the pre-Julf status quo, at least temporarily, >over the weekend. > > Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this. I have not >read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they were out >of line in any way other than being anonymous. I have nothing against >anonymous postings to groups that have decided to accept such >postings, nor do I object to any newsgroup deciding to do this. I >*do* object to Julf's permitting his server to post to newsgroups >without any effort to determine whether the readers of those newsgroups >want to permit anonymous postings. > > You have several possible courses of action if you wish to post >to the "sci" hierarchy while the "Automated Retroactive Minimal >Moderation" is in effect: > >*1 convince Julf to accept the "Petersen Proposal" for default > settings for different hierarchies. I promise to turn off the > ARMM script as soon as I hear that he will do this (or anything > reasonably responsive). > >*2 convince the readers of the newsgroup to which you want to post > that anonymous postings should be accepted in that newsgroup. > I can think of several valid reasons that may prompt such a desire, > but the decision should be made by the readers of the newsgroup, not > imposed by a single person such as Julf, or me. I promise to > abide by whatever decision the newsgroup makes. This does not > need to be a formal vote. A straw vote with a clear majority will > suffice. > >*3 have a friend post for you, use a different anonymous server, > or, if all else fails, post under your own name. People used to > do this, you know. :-) > > If none of these suit you, then simply be patient, and wait until >Monday. I intend to run ARMM, if I run it at all, for less than 48 >hours... this time. This is merely intended to be a demonstration >that an effective enforcement mechanism for blocking postings from a >particular site can work. > > I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you. >My argument is with Julf and is about the default setting for entire >hierarchies; it is not with you or your particular postings.

1 0

anon.penet.fi bites the dust
by ssandfort＠attmail.com 24 Mar '93

24 Mar '93

_________________________________________________________________ FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johan Helsingius (Julf) writes: ". . . a very well-known and extremely highly regarded net personality managed to contact exactly the right people to create a situation where it is politically impossible for me to continue running the service." Excuse me. Why aren't the names of the "net personality" and "exactly the right people" given in this post? Did they request anonymity? Of course, you wouldn't want to get them mad. They might punish you by . . . by, oh, I don't know . . . maybe shutting down your anonymous remailers? Couldn't have that, could we? S a n d y ssandfort(a)attmail.com "A slave is one who waits for someone else to free him." -- Rosellen Brown -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Call for Submissions: Autonomedia
by dmandl＠shearson.com 24 Mar '93

24 Mar '93

Please feel free to distribute the following to anyone you think might be interested. Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS Dear Friends, Autonomedia is preparing an anthology of essays and possible visual material for a book (and electronic media) on the issues surrounding communications, intellectual property, work, and new information technologies. We anticipate a publication date at the end of this year. Among the many topics we hope to address: The anti-copyright movement State information-control mechanisms "Plunderphonics" and sound sampling Immediatism Plagiarism Cypherpunk and crypto anarchy Hacking and cracking The politics of "academic freedom" Virtual prisons and digital leashes Class struggle on the high-tech front Phone sex and computer porn Obsolescent media and "product" The politics of mail art and free radio Future tech Network TV, cable, and narrowcasting Laws and borders, globalism Aesthetics of appropriation after post-modernism Electronic banking, digital cash, the end of "money" Visual imaging and electronic pictography Virtual reality and electronic spectacularity Data piracy: computer viruses, high tech luddism, etc. Anonymity and digital identities Genetics as commercial medium Primitivism and the anti-technology movement The legacy and future of phone phreaking Body politics, angelic capital, mormons in space Robots and computerized industrial production Media ecology and media diets Surveillance and popular defense "Information economy" Cybergnosis This list is meant to be suggestive, not exhaustive. Query us with your suggestions as soon as possible. We hope to make contact with all possible contributors by the start of summer, with a final deadline of October 1, 1993, for submissions. Wherever feasible, please send submissions on computer disk (ASCII or any word processing format in any platform) as well as by paper copy. We appreciate any help you may be able to offer in this endeavor. AUTONOMEDIA COLLECTIVE P.O. Box 568 Williamsburg Station Brooklyn, NY 11211-0568 USA email: jafhc(a)cunyvm.cuny.edu or dmandl(a)shearson.com Fax: 718-387-6471 --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

REMAIL: Anon.penet.fi no
by Hal 23 Mar '93

23 Mar '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down. > But of course this political situation is mainly caused by the abuse of the > network that a very small minority of anon users engaged in. This small > group of immature and thoughtless individuals (mainly users from US > universities) caused much aggravation and negative feelings towards the > service. This is especially unfortunate considering these people really are > a minuscule minority of anon users. The latest statistics from the service > show 18203 registered users, 3500 messages per day on the average, and > postings to 576 newsgroups. Of these users, I have received complaints > involving postings from 57 anonymous users, and, of these, been forced to > block only 8 users who continued their abuse despite a warning from me. This is truly tragic. Julf has endured weeks of attacks and now The Powers That Be have managed to shut down this widely used service. In the debates we've had here about anonymous posting, we have distinguished two problems: volume abuse and content abuse. Volume abuse is the use of the remailers to send "mail bombs", excessivelly large or numerous messages to an individual designed to fill his mailbox, or to similarly bombard newsgroups with large numbers of messages. Most of us have agreed that this is a legitimate problem, and various mechanisms have been discussed to address this. Content abuse is more problematical; it basically refers to someone posting a message whose contents someone else objects to. The traditions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the U.S. make it difficult to argue in favor of restrictions based on message content. Despite this, I have the impression that most of the objectionable messages Johan refers to actually were objected to based on their content. It's not that people were bombarding newsgroups with excessive numbers of messages, it's that they were posting things that (some) people didn't want them to post. It would be useful if Johan, after he has a chance to rest up a bit from the recent political battles, could take the time to summarize information about "abusive" posts. To what extent are the problems due to message contents, versus size or frequency, for example? Are there any patterns that can be gleaned about what material people most object to? In particular, it would be interesting to know whether there was material posted which was arguably illegal versus just in bad taste (in someone's opinion). This kind of information would be useful for the next time someone is willing to brave the net censors and start another anonymous posting service. Hal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.1 iQCVAgUBK69QWKgTA69YIUw3AQHl7gP9H4iOSInpXNnpC8UGlrUlIXyQAX5m5ude 5Gn8tK9qgo0QRpwCMyVnYf3W+5Zpr5GVZJ53TrArODwpqW49mfFg2NmAX3npq9jo Bx9Etmhj2M0krJZ0WAF3TBTx/cmfrStBJA1+dpjeacjuGhAD7b8518TFqFRlGbRB sIlEd6laEgA= =FH2l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Idea
by djwright 23 Mar '93

23 Mar '93

Although the material is interesting, my mailbox is getting flooded.. perhaps the mail should be compiled into a newsletter or 'zine format and mailed monthly. Phrack magazine is sent with an automated mailer.. If you want more information.. send requests to root(a)stormking.com. Please seriously consider this, the bulk of mail vs. my time to deal with the volume of little messages is limited, and it is much better if it's a monthly o r weekly newsletter which I can download and browse at my leisure. It really is not much work to have a program dump all the mail into a file, then another program send out the file monthly.

5 4

Legal Net Monthly Newsletter
by fergp＠sytex.com 23 Mar '93

23 Mar '93

Opinion, editorial and news worthy submissions are currently being (sought and) accepted for a new start-up electronic news journal. This monthly compilation will be called 'The Legal Net Monthly Newsletter' and will focus on the legal and ethical aspects of computer networking. Legal Net Monthly will be a non-biased, open forum electronic newsletter keeping in step with the networking environment of the '90's and will be availble by E-Mail subscription. Legal Net Monthly is aiming to release it's first issue on May 1st, 1993. Articles on the following topics are especially welcome: o Defining "Criminal Mischief" on the Nets o Authoring/Distributing Computer Viruses: Legal Implications o Legislative news around the world Send all sumissions, subscription requests and correspondence to: fergp(a)sytex.com Paul Ferguson | "Sincerity is fine, but it's no Network Integration Consultant | excuse for stupidity." Centreville, Virginia USA | -- Anonymous fergp(a)sytex.com (Internet) | sytex.com!fergp (UUNet) | 1:109/229 (FidoNet) | PGP 2.2 public encryption key available upon request.

1 0

Re: HIDE: embedded msgs in grphics & snd
by Duncan Frissell 23 Mar '93

23 Mar '93

>>>For exactly this reason, I don't think that this is a very good >>>idea. The discussion here started as a search for a way to make >>>encrypted data not look like encrypted data. (Once it becomes illegal). I tell you three times, I tell you three times, I tell you three times... The Feds are *not* going to outlaw encryption. They believe in encryption. They even have official bodies designed to encourage encryption. They are not even going to outlaw encryption they can't break. They are internally split on the issue. By the time they got around to actually *doing* anything, we will have been online with a fully encrypted communications system for years. They can't move fast enough. They lack the overall control of the networks to implement such a proposal. There would be First Amendment challenges. In order for such regulation to be enacted, there would have to be a collective appreciation of the risk that encryption poses to the world's States (it risks their destruction but we won't tell them that). This is too much of a high order abstraction for a collective decision making process to handle. We've had powerful encryption techniques for a while in any case. One-time pads are more than 100 years old, aren't they. "Publication" in the international realm is not subject to local laws in any case. International publications routinely carry ads for goods or services that would be illegal to sell in the individual countries reached. Sometimes a country like Singapore will censor a publication like the Asian Wall Street Journal. Ridiculous since it can be read online. Outlawing encryption is a form of censorship and censorship will prove increasingly difficult as time goes on. If they can't keep crack cocaine out of Sing Sing, how can they keep PGP out of my computer (or computers under my control somewhere in the world). The enforcement problems are staggering. What about sentencing. What is the social damage involved in my sending my wife a 2.5K encrypted file. Pretty petty offense. Even if encryption was generally outlawed, anyone involved a privileged communication (spouses, attorney-client, physician-patient, priest-penitent, etc.) could continue to use the technology since assuring privacy is one of the technical requirements of exercising such a privilege. Say, what if I as an attorney operate an anonymous remailer. <G> I know that privilege probably wouldn't attach because I wasn't a party to the communications but it would make for some entertaining litigation. No one has yet answered my legal question of several months ago. If you have an unbroken coded message, how does the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that it is a coded message. Even if it has identifying headers and footers, that say "PGP 2.2" you can claim that you just put them on to random noise for fun in order to tweak the noses of the authorities. Duncan Frissell

1 0

FWEE! premature testing
by deltorto＠aol.com 23 Mar '93

23 Mar '93

Dewds, Just a thought on Tim May's anonymous baptism by Stealth-fire of the WB! project: Tim: though I appreciate your enthusiasm, could you *please* wait until there is something in place to actually _test_ before you test it? I know you really wanted to post that nifty F-117A thing you OCR'd _somewhere_ but that was not particularly helpful. It's not like I'm unaware of this issue. Remember, we're still in Phase One (design & data collection) now. Help with the design and data collection before you go off on your own and try to show where the holes are or have some fun with it. Later on, you can be very helpful if you want to play the Devil's Online Advocate. [Also, could you please spell my name correctly for the NSA's records? It's David Del Torto (not Deltorto). I promise not to spell your name "TiM aye" so they can come and get you too.] Someone suggested a set of WB guidelines should be posted. I began this process, and will continue next week after CFP. I ask your patience while I educate myself. CFP News: I had a *very* interesting/enlightening discussion with Nicholas Johnson, the former head of the FCC (under Johnson) last night about the WB! project - he loves the idea and is willing to help out "somehow." Also, Ralph Nader's organization is interested in what we're up to. Jim Settle (FBI Computer Crime Squad) is also surprisingly supportive of the idea. Also, believe it or not, a fellow from the CIA likes the idea and posits that, if done "correctly," the system can 'perhaps be somewhat protected' from posting by pranksters/attackers with bogus revelations - it might require someone to preview postings (I would like to DE-nominate myself and suggest that MAYBE a small review group be set up - let's discuss this, tell me what you think is a good idea). I believe that the implementation of a simple WB Key system can assist in this as well (refer to an earlier posting of mine). Of course, this would require widespread dissemination of encryption software for anyone needing that option. Dorothy Denning is there: does anyone have a question for her? A statement? I can post her email address after tonight if y'all like. More Later, Gotta Run... dave (Del Torto)

2 1

REMAIL: Anon.penet.fi no more
by jthomas＠coconut.mitre.org 23 Mar '93

23 Mar '93

You probably have seen this already, but it's certainly of relevance to cypherpunks: > Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,alt.sexual.abuse.reco very,alt.support,alt.transgendered,soc.motss > Path: linus.mitre.org!linus!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa .gov!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!fuug!penet!julf > From: julf(a)penet.fi (Ze Julf) > Subject: Anon.penet.fi no more > Organization: No! > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 15:03:59 GMT > Message-ID: <1993Mar23.150359.16883(a)penet.fi> > Lines: 54 > > The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down. Postings to > netnews and mail to arbitrary addresses has been blocked. To enable users > who know each other only by their anon ID's to arrange alternate > communication paths, mail to anonymous users will still be supported for > two weeks. After this period all database entries will be deleted. > > Due to the lawsuit-intensive climate in the US, many anonymous services have > been short-lived. By setting up anon.penet.fi in Finland, I hoped to create > a more stable service. Anon.penet.fi managed to stay in operation for almost > five months. The service was protected from most of the usual problems that > had forced other services to shut down. But there are always going to be > ways to stop something as controversial as an anon service. In this case, a > very well-known and extremely highly regarded net personality managed to > contact exactly the right people to create a situation where it is > politically impossible for me to continue running the service. > > But of course this political situation is mainly caused by the abuse of the > network that a very small minority of anon users engaged in. This small > group of immature and thoughtless individuals (mainly users from US > universities) caused much aggravation and negative feelings towards the > service. This is especially unfortunate considering these people really are > a minuscule minority of anon users. The latest statistics from the service > show 18203 registered users, 3500 messages per day on the average, and > postings to 576 newsgroups. Of these users, I have received complaints > involving postings from 57 anonymous users, and, of these, been forced to > block only 8 users who continued their abuse despite a warning from me. > > In retrospect I realize that I have been guilty to keeping a far too low > profile on the network, prefering to deal with the abuse cases privately > instead of making strong public statements. Unfortunately I realized this > only a couple of days before being forced to shut down the service, but the > results of a single posting to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d gave very > positive results. I take full blaim for my failure to realize the > psychological effects of a strongly stated, publicly visible display of > policy with regards to the abuse cases. For this I have to apologize to the > whole net community. > > On the other hand I am deeply concerned by the fact that the strongest > opposition to the service didn't come from users but from network > administrators. I don't think sysadmins have a god-given mandate to > dictate what's good for the users and what's not. A lot of users have > contacted me to thank me for the service, describing situations where > anonymity has been crucial, but I could never have imagined in my wildest > dreams. At the same time quite a few network administrators have made > comments like "I can't imagine any valid use for anonymity on the net" and > "The only use for anonymity is to harrass and terrorize the net". > > Nevertheless, I really want to apologize both to all the users on the > network who have suffered from the abusive misuse of the server, and to all > the users who have come to rely on the service. Again, I take full > responsibility for what has happened. > > Julf > Very sad, rather scary. Sorry to hear this, Julf. Joe

1 0