- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:51 AM 11/8/1996, jim bell wrote: >At 06:25 PM 11/7/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 5:12 PM 11/7/1996, jim bell wrote: >>> BTW, some of your confusion is probably based is the false assumptions in >>> your last sentence above. "..wide use of strong cryptography results in >>> widely unpopular activities such as sarin attacks and political >>> assassinations." >> No, you're confused, but it's probably my fault. We don't really know >> what cryptoanarchy will be like. We all have ideas about it. Some >> we share and some we don't. But we won't really know until we see it >> happen. > Well, uh, with all due respect, but while it's obviously true that we won't > know EXACTLY how it'll be, that doesn't mean that no portion of we imagine > will come true. At last some respect! (I agree with your point.) > This is particularly true on the big issues. For example, you hypothesized > that "wide use of strong cryptography resuts in widely unpopular activities > such as sarin attacks and political activities. I pointed out, almost > certainly correctly, that these are wrong: Yes, I think they are probably wrong. But, not everybody shares our view. Some people claim that we should not be allowed to communicate privately because of the terrible things that would happen if cryptoanarchy were to develop. But, these people want to make it illegal now (a big hassle) long before it is clear that we are going to have these problems. Imagine for a moment that LSD was just invented. Somebody then pointed out that it was possible to randomly dose people without their knowledge. The amounts required are virtually indetectible until it is too late. This is certainly possible, but in practice it almost never happens. I can only think of one incident I have heard about where somebody took a recreational drug involuntarily, and that was an accident. A lot of the things we talk about are that way. If they are not, it is entirely possible to put a stop to them, should there be broad popular support to do so. > 1. To believe that use in cryptography will result in greater numbers of > random attacks on innocent civilians. As I pointed out, the exact opposite > should be true: A greater ability to target the guilty means less reason to > kill the innocent. I imagine the guilty will never figure out that a pre-emptive attack on the innocent would be advisable. > 2. To believe that political assassination will be unpopular even if the > ordinary citizen has an effective say in who's going to die. Why don't you take an off-list poll of core cypherpunks and see how many of them share your view? I suspect not many. If not even cypherpunks are open to the idea, how many voters will be? > In other words, based on my understanding these beliefs are diametrically > opposed to the truth. Not simply a difference in extent, we're talking a > 180-degree change. > Your response is a sheepish, "but we won't really know until we see it > happen." Harrumph! What happened to my "all due respect"? ;-) >> My whole point is based on the proposition that the doomsayers are right. > Which doomsayers? What version of "doom"? Take a look at this essay by D. Denning: http://www.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/Future.html Denning writes: > A few years ago, the phrase crypto anarchy was coined to suggest the > impending arrival of a Brave New World in which governments, as we > know them, have crumbled, disappeared, and been replaced by virtual > communities of individuals doing as they wish without interference. > Proponents argue that crypto anarchy is the inevitable -- and highly > desirable -- outcome of the release of public key cryptography into > the world. With this technology, they say, it will be impossible for > governments to control information, compile dossiers, conduct > wiretaps, regulate economic arrangements, and even collect taxes. > Individuals will be liberated from coercion by their physical > neighbors and by governments. This view has been argued recently by > Tim May [1]. > Behind the anarchists' vision is a belief that a guarantee of > absolute privacy and anonymous transactions would make for a civil > society based on a libertarian free market. They ally themselves > with Jefferson and Hayek who would be horrified at the suggestion > that a society with no government control would be either civil or > free. Adam Ferguson once said "Liberty or Freedom is not, as the > origin of the name may seem to imply, an exemption from all > restraints, but rather the most effectual applications of every just > restraint to all members of a free society whether they be > magistrates or subjects." Hayek opens The Fatal Conceit, The Errors > of Socialism (The University of Chicago Press, 1988, ed. W.W. > Bartley III) with Ferguson's quote. > Although May limply asserts that anarchy does not mean lawlessness > and social disorder, the absence of government would lead to exactly > these states of chaos. Leaving aside Denning's snide (and evasive) remark about Tim, if her assessment of cryptoanarchy is correct, that will become clear in due time. There is no reason at all to think that it cannot be rolled back in the unlikely event that a disaster results. I would comment parenthetically that Denning's understanding of Jefferson is limited. Jefferson once said he preferred a free press to government. Jefferson once said that he thought a revolution every twenty years was healthy for a society. Jefferson was an accomplished mathematician. Jefferson invented a pretty good cipher. Jefferson was a cypherpunk to the marrow! >> I believe D. Denning has suggested that cryptoanarchy will result in >> the breakdown of our society. > I suppose that depends a lot on what a person means by the phrase, "our > society." Used as you (and maybe she, as well) this sounds like a > code-word. To a statist, "society" is basically the stratification system > that has developed to let one group of people control another. By that > standard, cryptoanarchy WILL "result in the breakdown of our society." But > that's all for the good. While I may not have paraphrased Denning and her (few) cohorts as accurately as I would have liked, I think your question is better directed towards them. Presumably when Denning says "social disorder" she is not thinking of disorderly relationships such as choosing your own job, or friends, or spouse, or whatever. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:58 AM 11/8/1996, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > Strong vs. weak crypto isn't the real issue - for most business use, > weak crypto is obviously unacceptable, but strong crypto with GAK > is ok as long as it doesn't interfere with use (and as long as the > government bureaucrats don't sell too many keys.) We often say that the government is a security weak point and that this makes GAK impractical. However, this is not true. If the holders of the government keys were individually responsible for their release, they would not be released very often. That is, in order to use cryptography you must purchase an expensive encryption license. That pays the salary of a certified "key escrow agent" who is the only person who can decrypt your messages. What stops him from revealing your keys to unauthorized parties? It's his business. If that's not enough, you back it up with criminal penalties for disclosure. And, hiring this person is no different from hiring an employee for your company. There are already similar activities. Lawyers are nominally employees of the state. Employees of Swiss banks can go to jail for violating their secrecy laws. > The government might be able to stop new Netscape versions from > using strong crypto - threatening to confiscate the company's > ill-gotten gains from aiding and abetting money launderers might help, > and threatening to confiscate PCs that use unapproved crypto. > But it's tough to use a widespread threat like that on popular > software once it's out there. I agree, if the software is popular. But, if the fears of the GAKers and the dreams of certain cypherpunks are real, such software will not be popular. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

His and Her Anarchies
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Copyright c 1996, The Globe and Mail Company r U.S. election reveals his and her politics Educated women have different agenda By Graham Fraser Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton's re-election has shone a spotlight on a widening difference in views between men and women in the United States, particularly among those with a university education. "Men and women, if college educated, agree about very little," Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, told a conference organized by the Brookings Institution yesterday. "Men and women would have elected a different president, a different Senate, and a different House of Representatives," Ms. Lake said. She pointed out that "men and women are coming to some pretty different conclusions" about the role of government and the importance of social programs. Polling has shown that women believe the government can play a positive role in solving social problems, while men feel that government is a problem, and that it is a good day when they have not been hurt by it, Ms. Lake said. "On our side of the aisle, we're beginning to wonder what a college education does for a man," she said. ... http://web.theglobeandmail.com/web/cgi-bin/ DisplayPage?SITE=web&KEY=961108.GlobeFront.UGUYSM

1 0

[NOISE] A modest :-) proposal
by Derek Bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To make things more crypto-relevant, I suggest a new source of noise should be analysed for crypto-security: this list. Of course, this should be done with an *un*filtered version of the list as filtering decreases noise. Derek http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc <- my public key available here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAgUBMoNp+FXdSMogwMcZAQFt3gP/WzfxzkOvc7gcTS2RL6Eiv3/hztGzdg6n PCC8xroKl+UZ6U9w/5EioB2GrEexc7QpcfWozqYqIeEfy8ZJlvKLU25/1cpWZrCe NrWWi+lsUanMUWn1JdkdjKFyEuHZl/E4FLjp9Fyy6C15scWJzeoISPKlSjru1qv7 A8pp3lyG/84= =u5Gn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Australia's Advance Bank Promises Christmas Ecash 10/25/96
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:20:02 -0500 >From: reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu (Joseph M. Reagle Jr.) >To: reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu >Subject: Australia's Advance Bank Promises Christmas Ecash 10/25/96 > > > >SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA 1996 OCT 25 (NB) -- By Stuart Kennedy, Computer Daily >News. Come Christmas, electronic cash should begin jingling around the >Australian side of the global Internet. The Sydney-based Advance Bank >has signed on for Netherlands-based DigiCash's "Ecash" system and >expects to be issuing Australian denominated Ecash by the end of the >year. > >The deal puts Advance a further step ahead of its Australian rivals in >the Internet-based banking transaction game. Most other Australian banks >are still dabbling with information-only Web pages while Advance has >been offering its customers Internet-transacted account information, >account transfers, bill payments and now Ecash. > >It also makes Advance the first bank in the Asia Pacific region to >employ an Internet-based digital money system and Australian currency >the fourth in the world to get the digital treatment, DigiCash claims. > >Other DigiCash licensees are Mark Twain Bank (US), Deutsche Bank >(Germany), Merita Bank (Finland) and Posten (Sweden). > >"We would like to see more than one Australian bank take up the system. >We have been talking to other (Australian) banks, " says DigiCash >Australia's managing director, Andreas Furche, who has also had chats >with the Australian Reserve Bank over the implications of Ecash for the >Australian economy. > >The big task for Advance (and affiliate BankSA) is convincing merchants >to sign up for the new electronic cash system which could catalyze an >Australian online economy. > >This week Advance's Web pages were already featuring electronic sign-up >forms for merchants. The bank has yet to finalize transaction charges >for the system, but costs should be lower than the credit card >transactions currently used for most Net-based retail commerce. > >Digicash established its Australian operation in March. The corporation >claims the Ecash system provides transactions that are as secure and >secret as interbank transactions. A user draws money from an account >and stores it in software as "Ecash." When a purchase is agreed, Ecash >transfers electronic "coins" from the PC, sealed into an electronic >"envelope" which goes to the nominated bank for authentication. > >The bank cannot see the details of the transaction. Once authenticated, >the payment goes to the payee, who receives a credit. > >(19961025) > > > _______________________ Regards, What we hope ever to do with ease, we must learn first to do with diligence. -Samuel Johnson reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: slander and call for lawyers. :)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:28 PM 10/25/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Pledge partners, how say >you? I am quite willing to transfer my pledge of $50 (which was given in the hope that the event would attract Attila, not Dimitri) to Ray's legal defense fund. I want to be clear that this transfer is only valid for defense. If the fund will be used to legally attack Dimitri, I'd like my money back. That falls in the category of inviting the courts to rule on net-disputes, something I would like to discourage. (Attacking Dimitri seems also to fall into the category of bullshit suits, something else I would like to discourage.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Tired of Dole/Clinton? | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | Vote 3rd party. I'm | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Voting for Harry Browne | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

3 3

Jonatahan Wallace on ISP-TV Monday Night
by ISP-TV Main Contact 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** ISP-TV Program Announcement: Jonathan Wallace Interview *** *** Monday, Oct. 28 *** *** 9:00 PM ET *** Jonathan Wallace will be the guest on this week's "Real Time" interview series. Wallace is co-author of the book "Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace", which describes the genesis of the Communications Decency Act. Wallace is also editor of the Ethical Spectacle, a web newsletter discussing ethics, law, politics, and their intersection. This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.247.33, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://www.digex.net/isptv/members.html See URL http://www.digex.net/isptv for more information about the ISP-TV Network To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm

1 0

Lawyers, companies to create Internet legal group
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ______________________________________________________________________ > Schoolhouse Videos and CD's > ______________________________________________________________________ > 21 companies offer financial support for Internet legal policy group > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright © 1996 Nando.net > Copyright © 1996 Scripps-McClatchy Western > TACOMA, Wash (Oct 2, 1996 00:18 a.m. EDT) -- A year ago, a group of > lawyers gathered in Seattle to launch an organization they hoped would > help set legal policies for the Internet. > On Tuesday, that group announced the formal financial support of 21 > international companies -- from Microsoft to Netscape, from British > Telecom to Bell Canada. These companies and the researchers employed > by the newly named "Internet Law & Policy Forum," hope to set Internet > guidelines for governments and industry on such issues as copyright, > content and commerce. [...] > This group hopes to help answer those questions and others by > researching and pooling policies from governments, companies and legal > experts. Then researchers will propose guidelines for others to > follow. If companies with such competing interests as AT&T and MCI, > and Mastercard and Visa can agree on Internet guidelines, Gidari's > group hopes governments will let industry regulate itself, he said > Tuesday. > "It should make government less interested in addressing an issue by a > law when they can see people are acting responsibly without it," he > said. "It diffuses the need to do something. It's a lot harder to > legislate when the problem is being addressed." An apparantly good motive... although that self-censorship is no better than normal censorship is something to consider. [...] > Corporate sponsors are America Online, AT&T, Americatel Corp., Bell > Canada, BBN Corp., British Telecom, CiscoSystems Inc., Deutsche > Telekom, General Electric Information Services, General Magic, Hong > Kong Telecom, IBM, Mastercard International, MCI Communications Corp., > Microsoft, Netscape, Omnes -- a Schlumberger//Cable & Wireless Co., > Oracle Corp., Premenos Technology Corp., Telus Corp. and Visa > International. > During the last year, working groups focused on two areas. They looked > at how to certify signatures and information used in electronic > commerce and what to do about unacceptable materials on the Internet. > The results will be presented at a conference the London conference. > The group will be led by Jeffrey Ritter, a United Nations expert who > now works for ECLIPS, a research program on the laws and policies of > electronic commerce located at the Ohio Supercomputer Center. He > helped found the forum with Gidari and Peter Harter, public policy > counsel for Netscape. Anybody at Netscape know much about this third guy? The United Nations connection of the first one doesn't seem encouraging... the UN is heavy on national sovreignty and lacking in civil liberties, especially economic ones. > "Without an established framework, the Internet faces a confusing and > potentially disabling range of national laws seeking to govern a > global environment," Ritter said. "The Internet Law & Policy Forum > offers the potential for a neutral venue in which the collaborative > resources of those parties that are helping to drive the Internet > forward can be focused to achieve genuine progress in resolving legal > and policy issues." > Copyright © 1996 Nando.net

1 0

Re: appropriate
by Joel N. Weber II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Jim Blandy wrote: > > >so what exactly is appropriate here? Discussions of the appropriateness > >of discussing appropriateness? > > > >Or the appropriateness of discussing appropraiteness with messpellings or > >when you are aslleep??????? > > I'm sorry, this post is not appropriate for this mailing list. Please > send it elsewhere. cypherpunks(a)toad.com, for example. Could you please explain what _IS_ appropriate, then? Why is this list not moderated to remove inapproriate posts? nemo http://www.nether.net/~jnw2 <nemo(a)koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us> <devnull(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "...For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." -- Mathew 9:13

1 0

Re: Secure Internet-based Electronic Commerce: The View from Outside the US
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oops - when I posted the previous announcement I gave the file the .html extension out of force of habit, the URL should in fact be http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut01/paper.txt (you can also get to it using the previous URL, but your browser will wrap the text. To fix this, either load it as text or use the .txt URL). Peter.

1 0