- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:33 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >My article made my points, so I won't rewrite it here. You are of course >not required to agree. You are free to live in crowded cites--near "soft >targets." You are welcome to lobby for world peace and for economic changes >to lessen terrorism. > >(I think this is mostly hopeless. No matter how "nice" conditions get, for >game-theoretic reasons there will be some groups seeking changes.) I am not sure who is right in this debate. I know that the "why can't we all just get along?" crowd is asking a stupid question. There are lots of reasons people can't get along and there have been enough "top-down" imposed social changes this century to suggest that "changing society" won't preserve the peace. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Tim's pessimism is warranted. This argument that cities will become completely unlivable and the only way to survive is to move out into less populated areas has been going on in the libertarian, survivalist, and right-wing-nut communities since the 1960s. The magazines Vonulife and Libertarian Connection used to talk a lot about the relative merits of Nomadism or Troglodytism, suitcase nukes, and such. Those who took the advice and moved into caves in 1969 have sure had an uncomfortable 30 years. Mel Tappan (author of Survival Guns) may have died from a heart attack which he could have survived had he not moved into the boonies. I note as well that Tim is not all that far away from civilization and its discontents. North Dakota or Labrador would be better choices if separation were really desired. Those of us in the Techno-Libertarian Panglossian Community argue that it is at least possible that the spread of markets will serve to bend the world's population to bourgeois values before nanotech gives everyone the power to destroy the world. Note that markets (like networks) can expand faster than outside observers can believe once a critical mass of participants is achieved. We see that happening all around the world in the case of both markets and networks. Even hard cases like Africa and the Middle East will find themselves swept up in a short time (by historical standards). It's hard to get people who are making lots of dough to strap dynamite to their bodies and go blow up a bus. Then Larry said: >>because it is a fact of life, is erroneous in my view. it is a common >>libertarian argument that goes, "criminality is everywhere, so why try >>to stop it?" a rather juvenile ideology. In all my years of reading and listening to libertarian agitprop, I've never heard this argument. And back to Tim: >(And my point about moving out of cities referred to what *I* am doing; >others are of course free to mingle in crowded markets, hoping that the >bombs won't come that day. Others are free to send their children to day >care centers located in likely targets for ZOG's enemies to bomb, and so >on.) Kids sent to day care centers operated by the federal government or schools operated by local governments are going to be in a bad way in any case whether or not they are blown up or shot (as in Stockton and Scotland). I *love* the Volvo ads which feature mom driving her kids to school in a Volvo with all of its safety features and then turing the kids over to the government for indoctrination. Much better she should drive them to private schools in a Chevy Corvair. They'll live longer (certainly in the spiritual sense of "live"). DCF

1 0

I confess [Was: Who was that Masked Cypherpunk?]
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >OK, fess up. Who was it who amended the anti-key-escrow language of the >Libertarian Party Platform live on CSPAN? Specific reference to >cypherpunks. 'Twas me, the guardian of the *original* definition of the fine old term "escrow" against the slick denizens of Newspeak. I have found this Libertarian convention to be a super-fun experience, and I will be demonstrating PGP, Private Idaho, and lots of other fun stuff on Saturday at 3PM. All are invited to attend. Watch for "Pennies for Perot" this afternoon! ;) JMR -- Dade Chairman and Florida Delegate. Regards, Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy "It is long past time to end the laughable presumption that voters who can easily cope with the choices offered at Burger King are somehow 'confused' by more than two choices at the voting booth." -- me [From my Miami Herald article.] "Truth is stranger than fiction, especially when 'truth' is being defined by the O.J. Simpson Defense Team." -- Dave Barry 6/16/96 ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 <mailto:liberty@gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray Coming soon, "Pennies For Perot" page! CYA with http://www.anonymizer.com ___________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMd1Ii21lp8bpvW01AQEBWAQAoWqyLNe921Dx9HXbMFVoW2ReNGp0Qo6r mZd3FvNcJDw4bOeI434sekDwAEg9G2SiCCnBMBFrilZnKscMZpZp0XdNV6+b52FN MtyYW9yYQSRRgixjf3+j6O6jecPynztdugnnWY7Y8jWcb3ukipYYt4cQAVL13sX4 Aknxd4DXtzc= =lvW8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Net and Terrorism.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:29 AM 7/5/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 2:37 AM 7/5/96, vinnie moscaritolo wrote: > >>>There is no cure for the "revolutionary" terrorists .. >>> If we do not even print their obit, there is no glory! >> >>Tim, you are asking for the liberal media to act responsibly.. what were >>you thinking? > >I did not write that. > >However, I wouldn't think that "not printing their obit" is acting >responsibly. As far as I'm concerned, I want the full news, or at least >some reasonable approximation of it, not propaganda. >--Tim May Well, whoever wrote those two lines above, he hit upon something I've long believed: The ability to force other people to (in effect) ignore dissent up to and including "terrorism" is extraordinarily valuable. Remember the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear, does it make a sound?" Scientifically, the answer's obvious. But _politically_ it isn't so obvious: If an act of "terrorism" occurs and the government can cover it up (or merely cover up the terroristic cause), the government is probably actually better off (considering _only_ the government's own interests) ignoring it and not exposing an embarrassing vulnerability, or possibly an embarrassing guilt, which induced the terrorist to attack. The government would probably have much preferred, for example, for 160+ people to be killed in an airliner that just happened to disappear off the radar screen and fall into the ocean, than the bombing in Oklahoma City, because the latter incident puts a powerful onus on the government to "do something" while an unexplained event (or one where the cause is covered up) has no such imperative. And I'm not talking primarily of retribution or punishment, either: Today, the government's under some pressure to simply stop doing things that would be expected to lead to retribution, like Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the government's misbehavior is highlighted by incidents such as the OKC bombing. In addition, a potential "terrorist" is less likely to try something if the government is likely to be able to cover it up. Ironically, this probably tends to induce such people to do things (like huge bombings) which _can't_ be covered up, rather than smaller, more individualized strikes. That makes the non-governmental public less safe, which is a serious conflict of interest between the government and the citizenry. I consider it axiomatic that whoever bombed the OKC building, he would have preferred killing one to two dozen people most responsible for Waco or Ruby Ridge than those who actually died. The public has every reason to prefer this alterative as well. The only people who can be expected to disapprove are government employees, who don't want to be held responsible (legally or "illegally") for what they did. If anything, I think the public would be far better off if there was a mechanism to allow even these "terrorists" to speak directly to the public, without censorship by the governments or heightened risk of capture. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:37 PM 7/5/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >On the other hand, I'm not sure that Tim's pessimism is warranted. This >argument that cities will become completely unlivable and the only way to >survive is to move out into less populated areas has been going on in the >libertarian, survivalist, and right-wing-nut communities since the 1960s. >The magazines Vonulife and Libertarian Connection used to talk a lot about >the relative merits of Nomadism or Troglodytism, suitcase nukes, and such. > >Those who took the advice and moved into caves in 1969 have sure had an >uncomfortable 30 years. Mel Tappan (author of Survival Guns) may have died >from a heart attack which he could have survived had he not moved into the >boonies. I note as well that Tim is not all that far away from civilization >and its discontents. North Dakota or Labrador would be better choices if >separation were really desired. Duncan, I said no such thing. Puh-leeeese. :-} What I _said_ was that _my_ response to increasing crime, the growing threat of serious terrorist actions, and the generally ratcage-like nature of large urban areas has been to move away from such urban centers. (Not that towns like Santa Cruz are crime-free. But they are not prime targets, when more tempting, fatter, softer targets are so nearby.) I've never said cities are "completely unlivable," just that, for me, better options exist. And in the vein of Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World," I think a better response to terrorist actions is not to crack down further on civil liberties, but to decentralize. Personally, if not nationally. A variant which might be called "How I Found Security in an Insecure World." >And back to Tim: > >>(And my point about moving out of cities referred to what *I* am doing; >>others are of course free to mingle in crowded markets, hoping that the >>bombs won't come that day. Others are free to send their children to day >>care centers located in likely targets for ZOG's enemies to bomb, and so >>on.) Well, there it is. You quote my clarification to Detweiler's mischaracterizations. I'm not saying that cities are unlivable for all, just that concentratios draw attackers of various sorts, and I expect such attacks to increase in the future. And small cities are not unlivable, either. Last night, for example, I celebrated the Fourth at a free Beach Boardwalk concert with the Drifters. Fine music, resonating even in the Rap Generation's skulls, judging by the wild reaction from tens of thousands of folks crowded on the beach... (Now _that_ was a "soft target," in which a lobbed grenade could've taken out 20 or 40 people....Lots of such soft targets, and little that even a police state can do to stop it. Personal avoidance, by whatever measures one deems important, are the best bet.) If there's any meta-point I'm making is that people are best served by making their own security arrangements, be it home protection, financial security, health security, or the security from rioters, criminals, and terrorists being talked about here. Turning over increased powers to a government to do these things is a recipe for failure, at very high costs (economic and civil liberties costs). --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Lack of PGP signatures
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark M. <markm(a)voicenet.com> wrote: >I didn't say that binaries couldn't be signed. I said they couldn't be >*clear*-signed. There is a difference between clearsigning and creating a >signature certificate that is either concatenated with the data or written >to a separate file. If somebody who doesn't have PGP gets a file that is >signed by PGP, the file is completely useless to that person. > My mistake. I guess I still don't understand your point however. Of what use is a signature on a file to someone who cannot check its validity? It seems to me that a separate signature file for a binary would serve the same purpose ("gee, it LOOKS like somebody signed it"). Clay *************************************************************************** Clay Olbon II * Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer * PGP262 public key on web page Dynetics, Inc. * http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html ***************************************************************** TANSTAAFL

2 1

Re: Moviepunks [NOISE]
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Didn't see either of those flicks, but saw "The Cable Guy" a week ago. Actually has more 'net relevance, even though no one there uses the 'net. If you imagine the utopian 'everything delivered by cable' (phone, TV, 'net, video games, shopping, etc.) and mix with the power a psychotic and corrupt cable installer has, the plot has potential. (It's actualisation was something else, though.) The movie is apparently such a flop that it turned out the group of friends I was with were the only people who wanted to see it that day, so we had the theatre all to ourselves. A rare opportunity indeed... I only with the movie was worse than it actually was so we could have made it into a kind of MST3K thing... but it actually held our interest. Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Shrink-Wrap Lic. uphelo by courts. From Edupage, 4 July 1996
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 17:27:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Edupage Editors <educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu> Subject: Edupage, 4 July 1996 ***************************************************************** Edupage, 4 July 1996. Edupage, a summary of news items on information technology, is provided three times each week as a service by Educom, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. ***************************************************************** [..] "SHRINK-WRAP" LICENSES OKAYED BY COURT The validity of the "shrink-wrap" licenses that many software publishers rely on for copyright protection was bolstered by a recent appellate court ruling in Chicago. Last month, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's finding that shrink-wrap agreements were unenforceable. Plaintiffs in the case, ProCD vs. Zeidenberg et al., charged the defendants with distributing the software program via the Internet. The defendants had argued that they couldn't be held to the license terms because they'd had no chance to negotiate or object to parts of the agreement. They also said the license agreement should be printed on the outside of the box, where it could be read before purchasing. The latest ruling found this suggestion to be an onerous burden, but did say the box must have a notice saying there's a licensing agreement inside, and that buyers should be able to return the software if they don't agree to the license once they read it. (Investor's Business Daily 3 Jul 96 A5)

1 0

Re: rsync and md4
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:05 AM 7/1/96 -0400, David F. Ogren wrote: > I stand by my statements. When you are deep in a hole, it is time to quit digging. > The problems that you bring up have to do with situations > where an active attacker develops a slightly different > pair of documents with the same hash. > > Although this is highly undesirable characteristic for a > hash function, [...] No kidding. Current state of the art is that MD4 is broken for signing documents prepared by other people, and MD5 may be broken soon, but MD4 is not broken as proof of authorship. So if everyone was using MD4 for PGP signing, which they are not, it would still not be a problem for most people. But it would be a problem for authors of software, who should know that a security bug that sinks only *some* people is still a security bug. Therefore no author of software should employ MD5 or MD4 in new software, but existing users of software that employs MD5 and MD4 should not panic. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: I confess [Was: Who was that Masked Cypherpunk?]
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:56 PM 7/5/96 -0400, Jim Ray wrote: >'Twas me, the guardian of the *original* definition of the fine old >term "escrow" against the slick denizens of Newspeak. I have found >this Libertarian convention to be a super-fun experience, and I will >be demonstrating PGP, Private Idaho, and lots of other fun stuff on >Saturday at 3PM. All are invited to attend. Since no one has mentioned exactly what happened at the LP Convention, I will relate it from memory and JR can correct me. They were going to vote on adopting a platform plank that upheld the right of everybody to use any crypto they wanted and export it an everything and also opposing the proposal for a requirement that people use a key escrow system set up by the government. JR offered an amendment which changed the language to refer to "so-called Key Escrow (actually government access to keys GAK)" and he also explained that "escrow" is where you place something with a trusted third party and the government is neither trusted nor a third party. He mentioned cypherpunks live on CSPAN. Maybe when JR finished the Con he can post the original proposed language of the LPs plank and the final language as amended. DCF

2 1

Re: Net and Terrorism
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Addressed to: CyberEyes <cyberia(a)cam.org> Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> CyberEyes <cyberia(a)cam.org> pontificated at 07/05/96 12:29pm -0400 = On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, attila wrote: = = > "denied zones" (we were never there) is no longer in vogue. however, we = > will probably see that again in parts of the world as many cultures do = > not have the basic respect for life we do. = = What is your last comment supposed to mean exactly? Just because = some Islamic militants decide to kill a few people in a terrorist attack = does not mean that the entire believer population of Islam does not have = respect for life. Just who is "we"? Americans? Europeans? All = industrialized nations? Every country except those Third World ones? Uh... = I don't see your point very clearly here... The only culture I can think = of that might now have respect for life are cannibals, and they DO have = respect for life in a way, they don't kill each other (I don't think), and = they do it because it's their lifestyle, but they don't perform = cannibalistic acts out of malice. Correct me here if I'm wrong. = let me phrase it another way: there are circumstances where the lives of 'n' innocent people are of less consequence than the enemy --in other words, try to keep collateral damage to a minimum, but get the target before he executes more harm (this applies to hostage situations, as well) in general, this does not mean wipe out an entire 100 story building to find a single sniper, but sometimes a commander is faced with the choice: send a team in with a 10% chance of accomplishing the mission (i.e. the team is killed or the target escapes) or waste the village. until you have experience the death of men in combat, you will never understand this principle. I certainly did not, and even as a graduate of Harvard and an active member of the LDS Church, I found it only takes once to _clearly_ understand that it is 'to kill or be killed.' don't sit in your ivory tower and pontificate until you walk the mile in my shoes. I also had the responsibility for as many as 1600 additional 'black shirts' in a fire zone --think about it. oh, sure, I (or anyone else) will never convince you --but maybe you will think about it. war is hell, son; and war zones are somewhere beyond. if you go, just pray that you come back understanding that and not with scrambled eggs for brains. -attila -- "Don't hunt wild game, hunt lawyers! They provide better sport, suffer from severe overpopulation; and, they taste just like chicken!!

1 0