- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

VIA Releases Source To Custom WASTE Client (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
by Eugen Leitl 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

----- Forwarded message from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org -----

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by Tyler Durden 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

"Then what are you doing here? This list is for discussing and implementing cypherpunk concepts. If you deny them, you should go elsewhere to pursue your goals." Tsk tsk...this sounds like Orthodoxy to me. Part of the benefit of an anarchy is to support otherwise-suppressed forms of existence and states of mind. If Variola can't at least suggest these ideas here, then Cypherpunks has become Cypherfacist. While I personally still believe that Crypto and other technologies will be enough ("The meek shall inherit the earth"), that's by no means obvious yet. Variola and May and others are the little nagging voices that force one to consider whether physical measures will be necessary and/or called for. -TD >From: An Metet <anmetet(a)freedom.gmsociety.org> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: On Killing Blaster >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:29:06 -0400 > >Major Variola writes: > > > Language is how you manipulate people from a distance. Much > > more convenient than hitting them. > > > > Crypto *can* keep bits free. And so maybe language. > > > > But Men with Guns control physical reality, which limits what > > those bits can do. Read the archives on the problems with > > linking "credits" to dollars or physical merchandise. > >Fine; you are questioning the feasibility of the cypherpunk model for >achieving freedom through cryptographic anonymity. It is true that >power in the physical world can, in principle, prevent the operation >of the information infrastructure necessary for the cypherpunk dream >to be realized. Whether it can do so without also impairing "good" >information transfers to an unacceptable level remains to be seen. > >But suppose you're right; suppose men with guns keep crypto anarchy from >working, and the only recourse is to use force of your own. Then what are >you doing here? This list is for discussing and implementing cypherpunk >concepts. If you deny them, you should go elsewhere to pursue your goals. > >The practical problem with using force is that people will fight back. >And there are far more of them than you. In a democratic system, >government policies have widespread support. If you start knocking off >California legislators you will soon find the massive might of the State >directed against your health and well being. Your goals of anarchy and >freedom are never going to be popular enough to let you win by using >force in this way. > >Some have said they want to use cypherpunk technology to facilitate >their plans for using force to fight the oppressors. They can set up >assassination markets; or more simply, hire hitmen anonymously using >ecash. In this way they can bring force to bear without risk. > >But this reasoning is self-contradictory. If force is necessary, it >is because cypherpunk technology has failed. As you predict, "Men with >Guns" will be controlling the bits via their control of physical reality. >There will be no anonymous assassination markets to help you pursue your >violent goals. > >But the reverse is true as well: if and when such markets come to exist, >it can only be because the cypherpunk dream has succeeded beyond our >wildest hopes. A world in which such applications exist despite the >most stringent efforts on the part of the State to eradicate them is one >in which cypherpunks have truly succeeded in burrowing so deep into the >information infrastructure that they can never be stopped. It is a world >in which anonymity is preserved, one where contracts and payment systems >have been developed for even the most risky and uncertain enterprises. > >If cypherpunk technology works to this degree, then it will open up >tremendous new opportunities for people to evade the power of government. >The one overwhelming trend as we move into the 21st century is the power >of information. This is why governments more and more are trying to crack >down and limit its propagation. If cypherpunk technologies are able to >transcend these restrictions, as is implied by the potential existence of >assassination markets, there is essentially no limit to what they can do. > >The physical world is going to be increasingly less important as we go >forward. What counts is the flow of information. That is what needs >to be protected and made free from interference. If we can achieve >that, the physical world won't much matter. You won't need your guns, >and assassination markets, if they exist, won't be a force for freedom, >but merely another hazard of the physical world, that most people avoid >as much as possible. > _________________________________________________________________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by Tyler Durden 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

"Where are you going to buy your hardware from, that it can't be shut down? How are you going to hide your TX from the DXing white vans?" Well, you made some interesting points. Actually, it would seem that some of the Islamic regimes as well as mainland China have been at least partially successful in blocking 'objectionable' content. So in a state where the forces that be have made a fairly complete victory, it just might be possible I guess to close down objectionable physical bits. So I guess that still has to be weighed against the value of human life. My point was that "Needs Killing" is something that should be considered fairly carefully...acted upon only when there's really no alternative. (But then again, you may have only been talking. You ever kill anyone Variola?) -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: On Killing Blaster >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:03:30 -0700 > >At 04:26 PM 4/11/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: > >"When faced with force, you reply with force when you can." > > > >Nah. This isn't even true in a fistfight, except when the guy you're > >fighting is a) significantly smaller than you, and b) less trained. >More > >often than not, if someone attacks you, it's because they either have >or > >perceive themselves to have an overwhelmingly superior force. > >See "asymetric warfare" > >Sometimes a stronger adversary decides its not worth it. See Lebanon >and a few hundred dead Marines. See Vietnam. > >(Speaking of which, I heard McCain arguing that if we leave .iq >the place becomes a hotbed of 'terrorism'. Anyone remember the >Domino theory?) > >And of course, if it's possible to > >diarm your opponent without actually killing or maiming him, that's > >sometimes far more appropriate... > >No, then he'll sue you. > > >As someone said better than myself, Crypto is one little tool in an >aresenal > >against "Men with Guns"...in the end Men With Guns will probably try to > > >shoot away bits, but it's not going to work too well. > >You forget that there are no bits which are not physical. Physical >things reside on land leased from the State (try not paying your >real estate taxes). All cables make a landing somewhere. > >Meanwhile, P2P, WiFi, > >Crypto,and lots of other stuff will slowly start to chip away at things >on > >the edges, until the core is exposed. > >Where are you going to buy your hardware from, that it can't be >shut down? How are you going to hide your TX from the DXing >white vans? > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/dir…

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by An Metet 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Major Variola writes: > Language is how you manipulate people from a distance. Much > more convenient than hitting them. > > Crypto *can* keep bits free. And so maybe language. > > But Men with Guns control physical reality, which limits what > those bits can do. Read the archives on the problems with > linking "credits" to dollars or physical merchandise. Fine; you are questioning the feasibility of the cypherpunk model for achieving freedom through cryptographic anonymity. It is true that power in the physical world can, in principle, prevent the operation of the information infrastructure necessary for the cypherpunk dream to be realized. Whether it can do so without also impairing "good" information transfers to an unacceptable level remains to be seen. But suppose you're right; suppose men with guns keep crypto anarchy from working, and the only recourse is to use force of your own. Then what are you doing here? This list is for discussing and implementing cypherpunk concepts. If you deny them, you should go elsewhere to pursue your goals. The practical problem with using force is that people will fight back. And there are far more of them than you. In a democratic system, government policies have widespread support. If you start knocking off California legislators you will soon find the massive might of the State directed against your health and well being. Your goals of anarchy and freedom are never going to be popular enough to let you win by using force in this way. Some have said they want to use cypherpunk technology to facilitate their plans for using force to fight the oppressors. They can set up assassination markets; or more simply, hire hitmen anonymously using ecash. In this way they can bring force to bear without risk. But this reasoning is self-contradictory. If force is necessary, it is because cypherpunk technology has failed. As you predict, "Men with Guns" will be controlling the bits via their control of physical reality. There will be no anonymous assassination markets to help you pursue your violent goals. But the reverse is true as well: if and when such markets come to exist, it can only be because the cypherpunk dream has succeeded beyond our wildest hopes. A world in which such applications exist despite the most stringent efforts on the part of the State to eradicate them is one in which cypherpunks have truly succeeded in burrowing so deep into the information infrastructure that they can never be stopped. It is a world in which anonymity is preserved, one where contracts and payment systems have been developed for even the most risky and uncertain enterprises. If cypherpunk technology works to this degree, then it will open up tremendous new opportunities for people to evade the power of government. The one overwhelming trend as we move into the 21st century is the power of information. This is why governments more and more are trying to crack down and limit its propagation. If cypherpunk technologies are able to transcend these restrictions, as is implied by the potential existence of assassination markets, there is essentially no limit to what they can do. The physical world is going to be increasingly less important as we go forward. What counts is the flow of information. That is what needs to be protected and made free from interference. If we can achieve that, the physical world won't much matter. You won't need your guns, and assassination markets, if they exist, won't be a force for freedom, but merely another hazard of the physical world, that most people avoid as much as possible.

1 0

Re: Fornicalia Lawmaker Moves to Block Gmail
by An Metet 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

> Really, what's the difference between scanning the message in order to, > say, render HTML tags it may contain, and scanning it in order to > generate targetted advertising based on keywords it contains? That's irrelevant. These arguments that Gmail is just like other services are nothing but red herrings. Surely cypherpunks should understand that the recipient of a message can do whatever he wants with it. He can save it to disk, he can share it with his friends, or he can contract with Gmail to add targeted advertising. It's contrary to everything cypherpunks stand for to suggest that the sender of a message should have some power or authority over what happens to it once it is in the receiver's hands. Even if Gmail were completely new and nothing like it had ever existed in the world before, it would be perfectly acceptable for mail recipients to use the service. That follows from their inherent freedom to use the information under their control. Please save these tired arguments by analogy for another forum. Cypherpunks agree on the basic desirability of individual freedom, and that is enough to settle the question.

1 0

Re: Fornicalia Lawmaker Moves to Block Gmail
by Gil Hamilton 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Justin <justin-cypherpunks(a)soze.net> writes: >Riad S. Wahby (2004-04-13 01:49Z) wrote: > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040412/wr_nm/tech_google_dc_1 > > > A private interaction between two consenting parties has absolutely > > nothing to do with the state, period. The bitch supporting this shit > > should be removed from office forthwith. > >It's not just a private interaction between two consenting parties. >It's a contract that grants power to a third party eliminating >traditional legal guarantees of quasi-privacy in communication from >sender to recipient, one of which is not a party to the contract. No privacy is lost in the gmail system; no information about either party is disclosed to any third party. The information contained in the message still remains private to the sender and recipient (well, to the extent that any web-based mail can be considered "private"). Exactly what "traditional legal guarantees" do you think would be lost in the gmail system? >There's no guarantee the average sender would know that mail to gmail is >intercepted and parsed. So what? The average sender doesn't understand that mail is "intercepted and parsed" by each SMTP or POP server encountered in the path from sender to recipient. Or that their message is written to the hard disk of each of those systems as well. What the average sender understands is irrelevant unless there is some bearing on his expectation of privacy in the message contents. Really, what's the difference between scanning the message in order to, say, render HTML tags it may contain, and scanning it in order to generate targetted advertising based on keywords it contains? The latter could also be considered as merely part of the rendering process. - GH _________________________________________________________________ Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by Major Variola (ret) 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

At 04:26 PM 4/11/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >"When faced with force, you reply with force when you can." > >Nah. This isn't even true in a fistfight, except when the guy you're >fighting is a) significantly smaller than you, and b) less trained. More >often than not, if someone attacks you, it's because they either have or >perceive themselves to have an overwhelmingly superior force. See "asymetric warfare" Sometimes a stronger adversary decides its not worth it. See Lebanon and a few hundred dead Marines. See Vietnam. (Speaking of which, I heard McCain arguing that if we leave .iq the place becomes a hotbed of 'terrorism'. Anyone remember the Domino theory?) And of course, if it's possible to >diarm your opponent without actually killing or maiming him, that's >sometimes far more appropriate... No, then he'll sue you. >As someone said better than myself, Crypto is one little tool in an aresenal >against "Men with Guns"...in the end Men With Guns will probably try to >shoot away bits, but it's not going to work too well. You forget that there are no bits which are not physical. Physical things reside on land leased from the State (try not paying your real estate taxes). All cables make a landing somewhere. Meanwhile, P2P, WiFi, >Crypto,and lots of other stuff will slowly start to chip away at things on >the edges, until the core is exposed. Where are you going to buy your hardware from, that it can't be shut down? How are you going to hide your TX from the DXing white vans?

2 1

American Airlines is an info whore too
by Major Variola (ret.) 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

American Airlines admits disclosing passenger data WASHINGTON (AFP) - A contractor for American Airlines has admitted to sharing personal passenger information with the US government and other companies, thrusting the world's largest carrier into a bitter controversy over rights to privacy in the post-September 11 world. The disclosure, certain to alarm civil libertarians, made American the third leading US airline caught disseminating private data behind the back of its customers in the name of fighting terrorism. <snip> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&u=/afp/20040411/pl_afp/us_at…

1 0

Re: Hierarchy, Force Monopoly, and Geodesic Societies
by Tyler Durden 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

Jim Dixon wrote... >>A) Two links to the same ISP: In terms of redundancy for the purposes of >>being fault tolerant, only one of the multiple links is ever used. With >You don't understand and you are quite wrong. >If one AS has more than one link to another AS, there are often very good >reasons for it, and both links are used. If network A peers with network >B in both Paris and New York, both will generally dump traffic for the >other network at the nearest connection. He's not wrong, he's merely kinda confused on this issue. Any big link (T1/DS1/DS3/STS-3c...) into an ISP provided by the telecom service provider is almost certainly protected via SONET. SONET architectures can provide various forms of protection (not all utilize redudant compies of the data...UPSR and Linear 1+1 do, BLSR is different). Of course, the router does not see that redundancy and can not make use of it. The multiple links that do exist (each of which protected behind the scenes by the telecom service provider) can be utilized by the router. If one of those links goes down (perhaps it was unprotected "extra traffic" in a BLSR and there was a fiber cut), the router will just send the stuff through the other link. -TD >From: Jim Dixon <jdd(a)dixons.org> >To: sunder <sunder(a)sunder.net> >CC: <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: Hierarchy, Force Monopoly, and Geodesic Societies >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:41:14 +0100 (BST) > >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, sunder wrote: > > > > The term is used because most or all trees in the region where the >English > > > language originated are shaped just like that: they have a single >trunk > > > which forks into branches which may themselves fork and so on. These > > > branches do not connect back to one another. > > > > I believe the real issue here is one of being able to stretch your mind > > into seeing things from different points of view. This is the reason I > > brought in the quasi-mystical quote about the sphere whose center is > > everywhere. > >Someone comes to me and says: "the Internet is a tree". Then he points me >at a graph of inter-AS (Autonomous System) connections to illustrate his >point. That graph includes all of those seemingly redundant connections >that make it _not_ a tree. These seemingly redundant connections are in >fact a high proportion of all connections. That is to say, the graph is >accurate and his statement wasn't. > >You can see the Internet in many ways. You can run a single traceroute >and see it as a line. You can ping broadcast on your LAN and see it as a >chorus line. > >If you understand what you are looking at, you can run traceroutes and see >stable rings: hot potato routing at work, where the packets go out one way >and come back another. > >Then again, I have spoken to hundreds? thousands? of people who think that >the Internet _is_ the World Wide Web. > > > Let's explain why we have multiple connections and what types of these >you > > can expect. There are two common types of multiple connections: > > > > A) Two links to the same ISP: In terms of redundancy for the purposes >of > > being fault tolerant, only one of the multiple links is ever used. With > >You don't understand and you are quite wrong. > >If one AS has more than one link to another AS, there are often very good >reasons for it, and both links are used. If network A peers with network >B in both Paris and New York, both will generally dump traffic for the >other network at the nearest connection. Why? Well, on the one hand, >there is no reason to carry packets originating in Paris and destined for >a host in Paris all the way to New York. On the other hand, many or most >networks employ hot potato routing, meaning that if network A picks up a >packet for network B in Paris, it dumps it on network B as soon as it can, >to minimize costs, wherever the destination might be. Some networks, >concerned with quality of service, adopt the opposite strategy, and carry >packets as far as possible within their own network. > > > most ISP's, when you negotiate a contract for a backup connection, it's > > with the understanding that you'll only use it when the main one goes >down. > >I don't think that you have any evidence for this assertion about what >characterizes 'most' backup agreements. I do know that most networks >regard this sort of statistical information as highly confidential. > > > B) You have multiple connections to different ISP's (possibly with >peering > > contracts, etc.) In this case when a node at your location tries to > > contact some other node on the internet, it's traffic doesn't go over >ALL > > of your connections - it takes only a single path. [Ok, if your routers > > are correcting for an outage, then perhaps you'll see different paths >being > > taken, but this is just the routing tables/routers settling or >converging.] > >The world is more complicated than this. Much more. > > > If both case A and case B, a single node in your location will see the > > entire internet as a tree with the root of that tree being the default > > gateway. (i.e. go back to doing traceroutes.) In the case of a > > multi-homed machine, or machine that participates in routing, it itself > > becomes the root of the tree. > >There are tens of thousands of machines on the Internet that don't have >a default gateway. > >Machines that participate in backbone routing have multiple connections >and aren't the root of a tree in any normal sense of the word. There is >no parent-child relationship between such routers: they are peers. >These peers participate in a highly complex graph which dances >continuously. The result is that routing has a large stochastic >component: if you can understand what you are looking at, you often see >traceroutes involving packets jumping sometimes one way, sometimes >another. > >To make things even more difficult to understand, an increasing amount of >traffic flows through MPLS tunnels, which are invisible to traceroutes. > > > Once you eliminate cycles, and you do so in real life, you go back to a > > tree. You only see the alternate paths used when failover or routing > > errors occur. > >This just isn't true. Hot potato routing is the most easily understood >example: traffic goes out one way and back another. It does this because >the ASs involved have set their policy that way. > >Backbone routers have lots of knobs to configure traffic flow. Some of >these allow you to throttle it, some allow you to split flows according to >traffic type, some allow to to split flows statistically, some allow you >to drop packets statistically. And some allow you to ignore pings and >traceroutes ;-) > > > At the same time, I also disagree with you. If your POV is a single >host, > > it sees the internet as a tree. > >Sorry. I have spent too many long hours probing the Internet from >single hosts to accept this. If you understand what you are looking >at, you see something much more complicated than a tree. > > > In fact, one of the properties of trees is > > that you "pick up" any leaf node and designate it as the root. > >There are different types of trees. Most discussions of 'trees' are >about rooted trees, which are directed acyclic graphs with one and only >one root. However, all trees are acyclic. The Internet isn't. > >Of course, most of this discussion revolves around one word: "is". If you >said "the Internet _can be seen_ as a tree", few would disagree with you, >especially if you allowed for the fact that that tree is continuously >changing its shape. But "the Internet _is_ a tree"? That's simply an >error. > >-- >Jim Dixon jdd(a)dixons.org tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 >http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage >http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure > _________________________________________________________________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/

1 0

my periodic rant on quantum crypto
by R. A. Hettinga 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0