- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Are there laws against remailing messages?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I've changed the thread title.] At 2:17 PM 5/21/96, Jim Choate wrote: >In pondering the last few days of discussion it occurs to me that a test >might be possible. In short: > >Is it legal for a business to anonymously remail physical mail? ... >I would also like to point out (the obvious I admit) that the founding >fathers apparently embarced anonymous distribution via their 'publius' >handle. It seems to me that a federal prosecutor would have a hard time >claiming there was no precedence for such actions. Such a claim to my way >of thinking would be fundamental in any attempted prosecution for anonymous >remailing. Also, as far as I can find out, there was no persecution of the >newspapers for printing this material anonymously, they apparently were not >held to task for the content. This seems to indicate that English commen law >of that day (and its descendants here today) embraced anonymous speech as >well. Several points: * The Supreme Court formally decided many years ago that leaflets, fliers, articles, handouts, etc., cannot be required to be identified. (Some state had tried to require that leaflets be identifed with the name of the author or distributing group. I don't have the case name handy, but it's pretty famous and is cited in all the books on cyberspace law...I may even have a mention of it by name in the Cyphernomicon.) * This ruling, which is certainly fully consistent with the First Amendment, should of course apply to electronic forms of leaflets, fliers, articles, handouts, etc. Unless, of course, there is an upheld interpretation that the Net is different from print media, which I think it clearly is not. * As to laws against receiving a letter and then resending it to somone else...how could that be a crime? What I receive in my mail is my business. What I do with what I receive in the mail is also my business. Demanding that I process letters or notes to me in certain ways and not in other ways would be interfering with my communications. (Quibblers will likely cite FCC and election campaign laws as a counterexample. Wrongly, I think. Another debate.) * Now if I start doing this remailing on a large-scale basis, various business regulations, tax laws, etc., obviously come into effect. "Remailings Etc." will have to satisfy various regulators, tax collectors, OSHA inspectors, etc...all the things that make it so hard to start a small business in America. However, I can't think of any obvious laws which ban receiving a package or letter, removing the outer addressing, removing the payment, and then resending it. (Not saying there aren't such regulations, though I think they are clearly unconstitutional. The "regulate commerce" language which is frequently cited as justification for meddling in business should not be able to turn a business into a lawbreaker for doing what individuals can do.) In summary, what I receive in my mail, physical or electronic, is for me to do with as I wish. This includes sending it on to another site, commenting on it (*), etc. (* A finesse I thought of a few years ago is this: If remailing is ever banned or if remailers are held liable, use _quotes_. That is, I say: ---- To: foo(a)bar.baz From: Tim-Remailer(a)black.net Subject: Ever seen anything like this? Somebody sent me this: <message> ---- Now, what's a law against remailers going to do? Hold me liable for passing a message on and asking for comment? (Yes, I think this is a pretty transparently cute ploy to circumvent laws about remailings. But it shows, I think, the can of worms that gets opened should such a law ever get passed and then upheld. It would place limits not only on what one could "remail without comment," but on what one could _include_ in one's own messages!) --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: The Crisis with Remailers
by Lance Cottrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > At 6:16 PM 5/21/96, Lance Cottrell wrote: > > >I had thought of that. Unfortunately, if the coin is of a special form > >which identifies the message as being a cover message, then they are of no > >use against the attacker who is running a remailer. The cover messages > >really have to be indistinguishable from real messages, even to the > >remailers. One could do some kind of accounting, where every remailer would > >refund to the traffic generators their share of the postage, but there is a > >lot of trust required for that system since it is impossible (very > >difficult) to verify. > > First, it's not clear to me that "The cover messages really have to be > indistinguishable from real messages, even to the remailers." > > The "slug messages" will be indistinguishable to all outside observers. I think the "enemy controled remailer" is an important part of the threat model. In many ways it is easier to do than to monitor all the traffic. > Only by colluding with other remailers will Alice be able to tell Bob, > Charles, etc. which were slugs and which were not. True, but it is folly to think that only one remailer would be compromised. > Second, I was thinking of the model in which all remailer usage is by > tokens or slugs, anyway, in which case Alice would not know if an incoming > message was by a "paying customer" or by one of the other remailers. There has been a lot of discussion of this. It is difficult to make slugs which can be purchased in bulk (since you want to buy them using anonymous mail), can not be used to connect messages from a one person, and do not infringe on Chaum's patents. It is not acceptable for a remailer to see a message and know which other messages came from that same person. If it is ever the first remailer, it knows who you are. If it is the last, it knows who you mailed to. There has been discussion of secondary markets for the slugs, but I don't think it is going to happen. > This discussion belongs on the list, not in private e-mail. Oops, I must have hit the wrong key. I ment to have a copy go to the list. > --Tim -Lance ------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)infonex.com President Infonex Internet Services http://www.Infonex.com -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Remailer extensions
by Jay Quinby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 09:17 AM 5/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Hi all, >> >>In pondering the last few days of discussion it occurs to me that a test >>might be possible. In short: >> >>Is it legal for a business to anonymously remail physical mail? >> >>The process I propose is as follows: >> >>1. Some party mails an envelope to 'Remailers-R-Us'. >> >>2. Inside that envelope is the real mail addressed and stamped along >> with say a $1 money order for processing. >> >>3. The people at Remailers-R-Us simply take the dollar and deposit it >> in the bank while depositing the letter they received in the local >> mail drop. This is my first post to the list. Aren't there mail drops already in operation that do just this? I seem to recall that the only way to get QSL cards (non-radio folks bear with me) from pirate SW stations was to go via their mail drops. The section of Monitoring Times magazine that deals in pirate radio has a list of mail drops used by the stations (or it used to, anyway). Seems like I saw them in the classifieds of Rolling Stone or some such place. -JQ |<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>| |James Quinby | Atlanta, GA | PADI/153KHz-896MHz/PGP262/EADBGE| Phl4:8-13| |jquinby(a)fivepaces.com (work) | Own a 45 MPH couch potato:- | |jrq(a)ix.netcom.com (home) | Adopt a greyhound today. Write for details.| |<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>| |Public key fingerprint: 9ACC4C28478018E1 372DC06A9452A477, MIT's keyserver| |*****Opinions expressed are mine. They are *not* those of my employer*****| |<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>|

1 0

Re: Long-Lived Remailers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:31 PM 5/21/96, David E. Smith wrote: >Unless Alice will automatically rotate between some random set >of Bob1, Bob2, Bob3... It also wouldn't be too difficult >to set up a message that goes through several points before >emerging at a randomly-chosen exitpoint, including a >completely independent remailer. Sure, Alice can always herself add remailer steps. I explicitly mentioned this in my message last night, when I wrote: "(Hal, to use him as the example, could start using his own choice of remailer hops to accomplish much the same result. We've talked about this for a long time, too...." But this is just using more remailers. We know this works. What Mark Grant was suggesting was something different, a kind of "disposable final emanation point," designed to go away easily under legal pressures. --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: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:55 PM 5/21/96 -0500, snow wrote: >On Mon, 20 May 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > >> the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root. >> "kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies >> that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and >> you solve all problems automatically" > > It is more the MAD theory brought down to the personal level. With all due respect, I think that comparison is a bit flawed. MAD (mutual assured destruction) is based on a model where you know the enemy (country) attacking you, in the national model by sophisticated radar systems. It is also based on the (reasonable) assumption that there is no way to pre-emptively attack in such a way as to defeat the ability of the enemy to counter-attack. With AP, and a world populated by 5 billion people, there is no way to know, for sure, who is targeting you. You may _guess_, and you may be right, but such a guess must be based on external information that you've received elsewhere. With AP, you CAN attack and destroy an individual in such a way he doesn't know who hit him. A crook who has victimized many people would be an excellent example of a target who can't know, because he has many enemies. A person who has just jilted a rich lover and has no other enemies would be the opposite. I contend that the kind of targets which are the most "deserving" will tend to be those who don't know who's targeting them. Those that are least deserving will have a good clue about who's giving them the finger. Since such prices are publicly known, a donor would have to be particularly careful about targeting a generally good, well-liked person, if that person could reasonably guess who's naming him. This is one of the many reasons I have a fair degree of confidence that AP will do a lot of good, and very little bad. > The >government has the power and authority to kill anyone of us, AP brings out >into the open the fact that WE ALL HAVE THAT POWER. KIlling people is >(physically) very easy, AP turns the THREAT back on those who hold the >power. This I agree with. But remember that the ability to combine the desires of thousands of people counts for something as well. If the only time you had to worry is if one individual was mad enough to see you dead, and would either do it himself or pay the whole bill himself, you'd feel relatively safe. If, on the other hand, the cost could be split up 10,000 ways or more, you'd better not be a crook! >Note: I don't necessarily think that AP is a good idea. I think >that people should do their own dirty work. In practice, I think this would be comparatively common as well. What currently deters such "take the law into your own hands" is the fact that police (being, essentially, in the business of protection) don't want you to provide for yourself by protecting yourself. They make it hard on people, in the same way they did with Bernard Goetz, the guy who shot four muggers on the New York city subway system. Once AP gets rid of the police, it will be much easier to protect yourself and not risk jail time, etc. Superficially, a person might argue that the lack of police would also make it easier for the muggers. However, a "professional mugger" would make a LOT of enemies, and it wouldn't take long before he's dead. He'd only have to be caught once. Any victim of any mugger would be happy to donate to see him gone. >> such is the total moral perversion of the thinking behind >> "assassination politics". most of the adherents work from the >> following argument, nicely summarized by JFA above: >> 1. the government is corrupt >> 2. therefore, it is okay to kill people who further that corruption. >> wow, what brilliant logic. > > How about this: > Goverments, and the people in them are corrupt. This corruption, >caused by acts of these people, lead to oppression and death. By THEIR >MORALITY oppression and killing are ok, so it is ok to use their tools >agaisnt them. In part 7 I use somewhat different justification. I believe that a person should be able to use whatever level is force is necessry to get rid of the transgression, with no upper limit. In any case, I think that government corruption is way more than enough to justify whatever level of counter-attack is needed. >> there is a trite saying, "two wrongs do not make a right" (trite >> because most have mastered the simple truth of it in their pre-teen >> years). a concept not grasped by some second-graders. some >> require a lifetime of lessons to comprehend it in the end.. > > Putting people in cages is wrong. > Stealing is wrong. > Is putting people in cages for stealing wrong? Yes; I've noticed that people who oppose AP generally don't want to address the question of self-defense issues. >> carefully the errors of those who have come before you. write >> a long treatise with lots of footnotes to past assassination >> difficulties and how you would advance past them. I tell >> you flat out that any respectable assassin would be quite embarrassed >> to be associated with you at the moment because of your arrogance >> and ignorance. > > I might be wrong here, but I don't think that Mr. Bell actually >wants anyone actually shot, Shot? Not necessarily. Let's not forget about blown up, poisoned, stabbed, beheaded, etc. B^) > well, maybe he does, but what he wants is to >have the same power over members of governments than they have over him. Right. Moreover, I believe that governments simply cannot exist as we know them under these circumstances. Besides, they won't be necessary. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 18-MAY-1996 14:43:54.95 >Well, this depends on what we assume a signature does. Quite. I've been considering what the _current_ (as opposed to the proposed) system of keys actually does. Signing a key says two things: A. I think that everyone who has the corresponding private key is willing, or was willing at some point, for all the others also with the private key to encrypt and decrypt using it. E.g., it hasn't been stolen; I'd thus be more willing to sign a security-conscious person's key (e.g., Perry) than a security-unconscious person's key (e.g., my mother). B. If there's a true email address attached, unless I'm doing this as a joke, I think that at least one entity capable of receiving (and probably sending) mail at that address has the corresponding private key. Neither of these appear to imply much patronage, unless Senators aren't allowed to send letters of reference for security-related jobs. (I'd think the Army could consult a Senator on whether to give someone a clearance...) -Allen

1 0

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 21-MAY-1996 04:37:46.63 >(ObCaveat: I personally think a free society cannot/should not outlaw >discrimination in any form, save that by government.) Agreed. >By the way, this issue has some echoes of another technogical issue: the >use of neural nets for loan approval software. Turns out that when a bunch >of things are entered into a NN loan package, including the all-important >default rate, the applicant's age, income, race, sex, education, employment ^^^^ >history, credit history, etc., that NN loan packages "end up" rejecting >many black applicants, more so than white or Asian applicants. (The NN >"concluded" that blacks were higher risks for default than whites/Asians.) >Even if no human being ever entered his or her biases and prejudices, the >NN spit out this result. >I recall there being talk about requiring "equality of outcomes," and that >such NNs might have to have deliberately-biased inputs fed in, but I don't >know what ever happened to this issue. The obvious solution in the above case is not to feed in the race information for governmental decision-making. I recall a similar issue when NN's were used for college admissions... while they didn't feed in the applicant's race, they did feed in the applicant's name, and the length of it turned out to have some correlations. (Why they were feeding in the name in the first place is another question entirely, although NN's and GA's tend to work the best when you don't understand the system at hand - which also tends to mean that you shouldn't try to interpret what information is necessary.) >In any case, I think this sort of issue, and the semi-related issue of >"discrimination via key signatures," to be likely important issues in the >courts in the coming years. It's related to that of the outlawing of IQ testing because of (I'd say for environmental reasons) blacks having lower IQ scores on average. The civil rights crowd are arguing for the PC egalitarian viewpoint that everyone _should_ be the exact same in capabilities (for some absurd view of "fairness"), and so want people treated the exact same despite obvious differences and the validity of such tests. -Allen

1 0

Re:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 21 May 96 at 19:43, Bad Message trolled: > ! Theses peoples refuse to register their guns, although it is > ! mandatory in canada (to be registered within 7(?) years...) > > There has been total firearm registration since 1968. Absolute BS. Since the late seventies, the mandatory registration of all firearms purchased is in effect and you must hold a valid (in french) A.A.A.F. But you did not have to report firearms you already owned. But with our new law, you *have* to register them within 7 years. And apparently, you have to show proof of ownership of a registered firearm to buy ammunitions. But I must read about this aspect a little more... jfa DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 I reserve the right to post publicly any private e-mail sent to me. Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

1 0

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:35 PM 5/21/96 -0400, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 18-MAY-1996 21:54:01.23 > >>This is exactly analogous to slanderous attack on someone's reputation. As >>soon as people realize that the mere fact that a key has a signature does >>not mean that the key-owner solicited the signature, the problem goes away. > > This is interesting in light of social networks analysis as applied >to the web of trust (one interesting web-reference on such analysis is at >http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/~lk/netvis.html; as well as some examples - use >a graphics-capable web browser - it has some links to a FTP site with >programs). One method of such analysis uses what is sometimes called "gravity;" >under it, positions move to be close to those to which they are linked. This >can be one-way or two-way; the above fact may imply that signing someone's key >should move one closer to that person - and not the other way around. Of >course, when analyzing the result, one should keep in mind that one may not >have beneficial intent when signing a key; LD's signatures are examples. Thus, >closeness on such a network may imply a high degree of relationship, but not >a high degree of _positive_ relationship. Perhaps what is needed is anti-gravity for those signitures that are not desired by the key owner. The resulting map should show the closeness of the relationship. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 AM 5/22/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > Would you suspect that having more warning labels (before & after, >not just in the headers) would help with any negative reputation thus >generated? Probably not. Does it really matter how many times I tell you "I'm not being a jerk" if everything I send you is in fact jerky? (FBI and "this is not an assault", anyone?) Pointing people at legitimate uses of anonymity, as various folks have suggested, is undoubtedly a good idea. Would anyone care to suggest a few newsgroups where the vast majority of anonymous posts have really good reasons for being so? In cases where there's been serious abuse of remailers that's been caught and dealt with, some PR on the part of remailer operators might go a long way toward helping things. "Yes, this person was doing loathsome things, but we put a stop to it [insert details here." >put into public view... I see no reason to give lawyers more of a privilege >than religious/psychiatric individuals. Ditto. Likewise, I liked the instance last year of a student applying for the mail logs of the local (state?) government. It is Good for rulers to feel the same weight of the rules they impose on others. -- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

2 1