- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

[CRYPTO] web-of-trust, signatures, and anonymity
by Ted Garrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ok, People... Let's say that I receive a message via a mailing list from an entity. This message is signed with a PGP public key. Being that I am interested in some of the ideas proposed by this entity, I respond to the message, but I fat-finger my mailer and it sends out the message unsigned. However, my .signature is reasonably automated and my public key id is included there. I obtain the the public key associated with the original entity from the keyservers and the signature verifies, but the key on the servers is not signed. Concurrently, I receive a message in response to a message I sent to this entity, which comes to me encrypted with my public key and signed with the private key paired off to the public key I obtained for this entity from a keyserver. Being a believer in anonymity, I feel that whatever person, machine, or thing which placed the key on the keyserver and kindly responded to my message is reasonably expected to be the owner of the private key associated with the public key I obtained. Is this a fallacy? Am I wrong to sign the public key I got from the keyserver and return said key to the address purported to be the entity of ownership? What the entity does with the signature is, in my opinion up to it. Is it unrealistic to assign the probability of two entities being able to generate signatures for the same public key as close to zero? (consider that this is a 2047 bit key) Am I opening myself to attacks? By this, I mean to ask whether or not MY key is in any way possibly compromised in the exchange described. I keep a separate and 'unpublished' keypair to be used for physically met individuals. The public key of this keypair is NEVER sent by any means other than physically. This key signs only the keys of the people I meet in person or have extensive telephone conversations with. While people who recieve the signature of this key also get a copy of it, I only distribute this key to those I trust not to disseminate it further. - --- "Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMowSJc1+l8EKBK5FAQEg2Af/agcalrlyDK+Ku+Qq7cnODOJjFIcsDAjh LLuA6KG2DeDQUiAH72uL5WgdiHQaZroAhqRsFGDic3zmc0YGDQkI4W2KTTsVFi08 ubcX9JCnOGuDWxLIwvBdCX/FxDsPyrhTeEUNjjkXp+5k+BdxzLTfbUgbnLgM/BGJ wD3Bq+evmTr86ul0SLUs3KL5h0488LhalPYTKtm9hdO9f3K01kz5W+FLUK3lXKJb YH2e2Ob2Nr/uSH6ElluSMVGtU09i+s40uloqokzAyB7NuTStSCupqUw0nHQKFIY7 Or8uwmZF6c7ivtacstViZ7/6xM0km7wmoyWsee3gxe63LH/Mqr25/A== =0HFl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

It is getting easier
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From an infowar article on the list] >(ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the >World-Wide-Web. >This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any >domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. > >Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet >browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). >The program will >then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location >on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected >time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have >been delayed. >The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which >uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove If I remember correctly, some of the newer transponders used on commercial aircraft actually transmit GPS data back to the controller in real time. I wonder how long it will be before the FAA will include such information in their database. "To obtain the position of any passenger flight in the US within 10 meters, click here." -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred

1 0

Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > I know 3.0 uses discrete log cryptography but whether it will be > El Gamal or DH or other I don`t know. I would imagine in the end it > would come down to a question of what is unpatented first and I have > no idea on the patent date for El Gamal (is it even patented?) but DH > hasn`t long to go.... According to Schneier, ElGamal isn't patented, but claimed to be covered by the Diffie-Hellman patent, which expires 29 April 1997. Bert-Jaap

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:22 ìì 14/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: > Intelligence + money + time * will = Result > Some + 0 + a bit * some = A server with 4 or 5 mailing lists. Indeed! But I tend to use them for A.I. Research, and there is little left of 'em for them mailing listes ya knaw! :-) :-) > For every "tentacle" of the Vast Media Conglomerates, there is >some loose nut with a photocopier (or access to Kinko's). Thank Goddess! :-) >> Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral >> Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, >> and many many many other things all over the world. > > WHO is nuts? The American and European public, i.e. _we_ who trust those people! :-) >> P.S. Even if you offered me a million dollars I'd stay away from >> your country. My sanity is much more valuable. :-) >> (The Immigration Authorities in the U.S. have missed the point: >> We DON'T want to come to you guys. It's the last thing we'd want!) > > One of these days reality is going to hit you like a runaway >freight train. You mean my check for $ 1.000.000 is... coming? :-) Cheers George P.S. The reasons I'd decline the check are simply the difficulties in having to (1) hide from your authorities as an 'illegal immigrant', (2) having to work for someone else as opposed to myself (as I do over here) andf (3) having to hire a psychiatrist sooner or later! All this maan, is more costly than $ 1.000.000. And... yes, I _am_ nutts! (Aren't we all? ;-) )

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:19 ðì 15/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: (in the end)... > That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the >requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they >have already built. Hey man, do they sell "FREEDOM KITS" in American Supermarkets? :-) ROTFL! (and started saying): [...] >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain >> American patriotic organizations?) > > It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, >refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. You mean that if... Dr. Dimitri Vulis hires a Mafia-man to kill ya, (to silence you) this wouldn't be censorship, since it would not be "Official" ? :-) >Mr. >Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF >sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. OK, any bombs thrown in the offices of the Ecological Party are not official censorship either. It was _unofficial_ censorship by... "Motor Oil Corporation" trying to stop the Flow of Information (about their oil leakages polluting the Mediterranean Sea)... See what I mean? > He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses >(which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right. If I own a building and invite you to an open meeting inside this building do I own what you _say_ or your rights to _say_ it? > "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and >who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine >dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected >in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine >should print any writings submitted to it. See my other posting about why the "Editorial" analogy has serious flaws. I don't see 'em mailing listes hangin' over the kiosk in the centre of town, ya know. Nor does the list-ownere make his bread out of 'em. And finally, we readers aren't as stupid as to forget that we are also the WRITERS of them mailing listes! :-) :-) >> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider >> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications >> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership >> and communciation they espouse? > > How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least >a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own >mailing list. Bulshit! If this happened, nobody would exist to allow us to express ourselvers. Even if we build own "Resistance Movement" (or an alternative kind of Internet) the damage would be serious and irreversible! Are you telling us that setting up an entire _PRESS_ is fairly easy? Listen man, it's not. My printer (who printed the boxes for my software) will tell you this! He'll also explain why my major competitor in Greece owns an entire Printing/Publishing house just for Computer Manuals (Singular S.A.). Setting up a mailing list is not _that_ easy, but it's still much more intricate and difficult than accepting the Basic Principles of Free Expression: DON'T KICK OUT GUESTS YOU INVITE TO "OPEN MEETINGS". (In the Internet or anywhere else in fact). If you don't like 'em guests don't invite them in the first place, or don't call your meetings "OPEN". e.g. Just as aga tolerates me and vice versa, so should Gilmore tolerate Dimitri Vulis. Cheers George

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote: > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:08 -0500 > From: Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> > To: aga <aga(a)dhp.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News > > >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote: > > >> Mark > >> - -- > >> finger -l for PGP key > >> PGP encrypted mail prefered. > > To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote: > > >Why? Are you a criminal? > >What are you hiding behind your PGP? > > Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy > is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that. > It just "looks" that way on the net. I do live-fucking, newsgroup flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally, and OPENLY on the InterNet. The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, so stop being so paranoid. -aga

3 7

Re: One Big Telecoms Company
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:02 PM 11/14/96 -0800, Dave Del Torto wrote: >Um, a _better_ one, now that government monopolies are largely out of the >way, leaving significant infrastructure for them to use? There's this one >little company called MCI, see, and there's this _other_ little company >called BT, and... There are now 150 Long Distance telephone companies in the US vs 1 when I was a kid. There are now 5 or 6 broadcast and 150 cable TV networks in the US vs 3 when I was a kid. There will soon be 5 cellular and PCS companies in NYC vs 0 when I was a kid. There are now 6000 ISPs vs 0 when I was a kid. DCF

3 2

Re: Well-regulated
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >>Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well- >>regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh. >> > >Declan should rest his point here. the cpunk list is notorious >for being way astray. yet cpunks continuously argue against >anyone with a moderator type role. could there be some correlation >between lack of moderation/leadership on the list and the >piles of noise that people incessantly complain about? of >course I'm insane for suggesting this. Vlad, "Well-regulated" means different things to different mind-sets. As do "leadership," "moderator" and "anarchy." All can be fulfilled in diametrically opposite ways: benevolent suppression of assent to attain uninspired unanimity or pissed respect for your opponents skill at insulting you and your ideas, sexual preferences, hair style, even, ahem, code and writing abilities. What you call "way astray" about cypherpunks I would call "healthy waywardness of stray cats." I say, let the wild cats grow and wail backalley of the spiffy facades and green lawns; let them disturb sly cultivators of the currently fashionable, marketable career-boosting management of the Internet herd. That's my critique of the 1st Amend mongers (spit): too narrow- minded about freedom of speech, they always give themselves away by fanaticism about proper grammar and spelling and behavior, well, you know, demanding polymorphous heathens do it like missionaries who think tongues are only for talking. Heed the complicity of God and Mammon, one person's butthole is another person's way to heaven on earth. As missionaries admit about the joys of exotic lands and stray cat codes and wailing discourse. The Occident is a prig, and overly addicted to a tight-laced definitions of propriety, heirarchy and rank. That's "well-regulated" at its worst and meanest and murderous and censorious.

1 0

Why I shall never undescribe
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Bovine Remailer <haystack(a)cow.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Foulmouthed Timothy May rehashes his lies like a rabid parrot >choking on a stale mantra stuck in its poisonous beak. Where else today can one find such prose? Nay poetry! And they say poetry is dead!

1 0

RE: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by Stephen Boursy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: aga Sent: Thursday, November 14, 1996 8:30 AM To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org Cc: Dave Hayes; InterNet Freedom Council; Declan McCullagh; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace! On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:12:50 -0800 (PST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > To: Dave Hayes <dave(a)kachina.jetcafe.org> > Cc: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News > > I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of > meaningless political rants. > Jealousy rears it's ugly head. You just wish you had the credibility that Dave Hayes has. Declan has no credibility but quite honestly it doesn't seem to be worth much effort on the Freedom Knight list to debate the censorous fool. Let's keep our energies in that regard to the public forum where exposure to this type of nonsense will do the most good. > * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out > http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my > recent articles. Political safety? Hardly. > This Declan_McCullagh is a long-time cabal.member, so his critique of a Freedom-Knight like Dave Hayes is to be given short shrift. And again-he's not worth the effort debating privately. As far as the mailing list goes I'm sure we can get forwards from some kind soul and just post the whole thing publically on usenet for free and open discussion. > * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." > Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a > computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private > club. There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities > exist. Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not > (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. > None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list. When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. Well then let's put their precious censored mailing list in the public domain. > * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis > from posting. > > * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned > *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about > this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the > case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force > Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? > No, he is saying that people can use an e-mail filter and not listen to Vulis if they want to. It was a very simple thing; are you too uneducated to know how to use an e-mail filter? Any idiot can use an email filter-he knows that. Again-on our mailing list he's not worth the effort-let's take the subject and their mailing list to usenet. Steve > By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of > Usenet," a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. > Wrong! The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should NOT be controlled by John Gilmore! This just goes to show the real facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it. Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell. They are disgrace to the entire InterNet community. I run 6 different mailing lists, and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me. The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller. > -Declan > -aga.admin InterNet Freedom Council > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.] > > > > > Cypher-Censored > > > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > > > Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. > > > > You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes > > reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them > > in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and > > substituting issues which only hold themselves in place. > > > > [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in > > this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate > > at the level of understanding of those who use them.] > > > > > Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a > > > forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis > > > the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks > > > continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The > > > incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can > > > prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only > > > government controls on expression can be called "censorship." > > > > "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the > > interactor. > > yes, and all you need is a simple mail filter. > > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what > > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of > > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain > > sources of input. > > > > In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even > > desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people > > then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive > > input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering > > mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even > > programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one > > interacts with. > > > > Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly > > cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from > > cyberspace are either: > > > > -quite clueless about the tools at their disposal > > -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input > > or -in need of large amounts of attention from others > > > > Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in > > learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but > > ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such > > cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for > > censorship. > > > > A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial > > that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. > > More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need > > is not and should never be a reason for censorship. > > > > Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this > > better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example: > > > > > Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list > > > last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the > > > 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty > > > daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. > > > > "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted > > this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared > > standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. > > > > > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with > > > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can > > > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a > > > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no > > > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And > > > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing > > > list with different rules. > > > > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization > > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. > > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you > > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice > > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain > > American patriotic organizations?) > > > > What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? > > Here we witness another example: > > > > > But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised > > > that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's > > > actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or > > > private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If > > > your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility > > > to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others. > > > > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually > > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this > > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. > > > > The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or > > agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those > > who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of > > expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found > > in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is > > just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this > > truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to > > sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies: > > > > > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing > > > lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. > > > Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that > > > exercise the highest degree of editorial control. > > > > Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one > > small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value > > to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of > > people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people > > who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase > > by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? > > > > > For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an > > > act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with > > > this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed > > > to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. > > > They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my > > > machine was guaranteed by the Constitution." > > > > It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's > > forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all > > *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he > > lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to > > encounter speech that you *want* to censor. > > > > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider > > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications > > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership > > and communciation they espouse? Indeed. The EFF is a disgrace to the entire InterNet. The EFF is definitely a censorship organization, and it should never be trusted again. > > ------ > > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org > > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet > > > > Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable > > of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed > > by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death. > > > > >

9 11