- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: So how does the crypto crackdown go?
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> > As Hal knows, but some newer members of the list may not, I discuss the > possibility of a ban on strong (unescrowed) crypto at some, ahem, length > in > > http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm > > Although the article is more than 18 months old, the law hasn't changed > in any material way as far as I know. > > Bottom line: they probably can't do it under the constitution, but it's a > closer call than it should be. This is a very helpful and thorough analysis. However it does not address the possibility of a ban on the sale/distribution of strong crypto, rather than a ban on its use. There are several reasons why I think the former is more likely: - PRECEDENT FROM ITARS The current bans on export of encryption software limit the distribution of the software itself, not of encrypted messages. Extending this ban to domestic distribution would imply banning distribution but not use of crypto software. - NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE The privacy issues would be much less relevant because it is no longer a matter of just what you do in the privacy of your own home. - OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS The Clinton administration's original veiled warning, quoted in Michael's paper, denied that "every American, as a matter of right, is entitled to an unbreakable commercial encryption product." Noting the use of "commercial" this suggests a ban on sales rather than use. - COMMERCIAL REGULATION Not being a lawyer, I can only speculate that the interstate commerce clause would give more justification for a ban on distribution than on use. - FOOT IN THE DOOR Conceivably such a ban, if successful, would provide new arguments for advancing to the second stage of a ban on usage after some time. The impact of the usage ban would be less due to the lack of access most people would have to such software, and the (arguably) demonstrated effectiveness of the government approved software almost everyone would be using by that time. - BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING We have long speculated that the government's real interest is in making mass surveillance more practical, with the stated concerns about criminals being merely a convenient cover. Commercial restrictions would be consistent with such motives since they would have more impact on the innocent many than the motivated few. A ban on sales and distribution could still be opposed on First Amendment grounds, especially if it becomes established that software is speech. Still there are many restrictions possible on commercial speech so even a favorable precedent in this area would not preclude some regulation of software distribution. We could also argue that such a ban is de facto equivalent to restrictions on use, since most people would not then have access to privacy preserving software. In that case the many excellent arguments which Michael brings forward to oppose such restrictions would be relevant. And what would be the implications for freeware crypto? Could distribution of such software be subject to regulation in the same way as commercial programs? Then there are the issues relating to speech about crypto which are currently being litigated. Presumably domestic restrictions on such speech would have to reach a much higher standard of demonstrated need than restrictions on export. For these reasons I think that domestic regulations on the sales and distribution of strong crypto would not be a sure thing for the government, but would be a lot easier for them than restricting use. This suggests that it is a likely direction for them to take after the next terrorist attack. Hal

1 0

take me off your mailing list
by FWJZ05A＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe cypherpunks

1 0

take me off your mailing list
by FWJZ05A＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe cypherpunks

1 0

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:34 AM 11/13/1996, Mullen Patrick wrote: > Sounds like another attempt to raise the cost of using the Net, nothing more. I am curious which conspiracy you believe I am participating in, other than the Great Cypherpunk Conspiracy, that is. Keep in mind that nobody is forced to participate. > Sure, paying postage (Is $1 really necessary? Why email when snailmail's > cheaper??) may reduce general spamming done by local punks, but it does > nothing > against corporations which already spend millions on snailmail spamming. Many people would be happy to read spam mail at $1 a piece. Assuming you can scan at a very conservative 3 messages/minute, that's $180/hr. you can make in the privacy of their own home. Not enough for you? Raise the rate. One dollar is a nice schelling point. That's why I chose it for my example. In practice the people involved are welcome to choose any amount in any currency they like. > Also, > what happens when your long-lost friend comes across your addy and tries to > email you? Surely you don't want to charge postage for an otherwise free > service to him/er. Maintaining a list of "accepted sources" would be a hassle > not many people would accept. Absent highly intrusive global net monitoring techniques, that's what they are going to have to do anyway. E-mail is inexpensive. The advertiser can justify the expense even if generates a small number of leads. Expect more spam. The alternative to filtering the mail in some way is to create Internet licenses for every participant which may be revoked for infractions. These licenses would have to be global. Big Brother is Watching. Advertisers do not have a monopoly on spam. Many people - especially women - complain about harrassing mail they receive. > Slight variation is to generate a list of "toll these entities." A smaller > list > (hopefully :-), and generally easier because then it defaults to no-bill. Or, > to accomodate superstars/actors/etc, generate files like rhosts.accept > rhosts.deny in UNIX. That way, the user may use either/both types of > filtering. How will you construct your "toll these entities" list yet accept mail from any remailer? Why will spammers not figure out remailers? > Again, the average user wouldn't want to deal with this hassle, everyone's > mail > software would have to be rewritten, and I basically oppose any ideas that > cost me money for something I already get for free... :-) No, everybody's mail software would not have to be rewritten. That was the idea. For instance, it would be easy for users of Unix systems to use procmail to pre-filter their mail for whatever program they like. Nota bene: the remailer operator is not offering to filter the users mail. "Free" is not always the best choice. I would gladly pay $10/month to receive the cypherpunks list if it meant that messages were delivered immediately when sent. (I believe these delays hamper the discussion.) As it is, I can't complain because I am a recipient of John Gilmore's charity. I would be interested to hear more about your solution to this problem: People spam other people who don't like spam but like to receive anonymous messages. I would prefer to see solutions in keeping with the Cypherpunks spirit; that is, no use of force, no use of law, and no loss of anonymity will be acceptable. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

2 1

Dossier on Tim May is Easily Obtainable
by smith＠sctc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The thorough investigator respects the value of physical records and interviews with those actually present. Bit rot is a tricky thing, and so are simple string matches. At 7:15 PM 11/12/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >To illustrate, let me call up my BlackNet Dossier Service entry on you. >www.black.net... I'll just pick _part_ of your entry, from exactly 30 years >ago: >[,,,,much stuff about Mr. Smith elided....] >So, Mr. Smith...is the dossier entry basically correct? Perhaps that was the Rick Smith in the class behind or before me who is or is not shown in yearbook photos with that blonde cheerleader. Or perhaps it was another Rick Smith who does or does not appear in yearbook photographs in the company of various brunette females. Could it have been the Rick Smith whose house got struck by lightning in our town a few weeks back? Or the Rick Smith who just got a building permit? Are these all the same person? Nope. On the other hand, a review of physical records from that important era of the mid 1960s *does* indicate the existence of one and only one young Timothy Christopher May in the vicinity of Langley, Va. Interviews with [SOURCE DELETED] indicate that this young Timothy Christopher May was known for a clever and abrasive style of discourse. Investigators note that the exact same style of discourse appears in the postings of one "Tim May" who is associated with that subversive cabal known as "cypherpunks." The interviews also indicate that young Timothy Christopher May was observed on numerous occasions to be reading Scientific American in the school library and didn't always "share." E-mail messages authored by "Tim May" and intercepted by [SOURCE DELETED] state that he has read Scientific American on numerous occasions. At this time there is no evidence as to whether or not "Tim May" willingly shares his magazines with others, though some investigators argue that it is unlikely. Records retrieved from [SOURCE DELETED] also show that the young Timothy Christopher May exploited his interest in physics for destructive purposes, like elaborate pranks involving fictious weaponry and national security information. [INFORMATION DELETED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS -- ORCON U31 -- OADR FOR RECLASSIFICATION] However, more careful investigators have uncovered evidence to suggest that this was not entirely a prank. Records from [SOURCE DELETED] indicate that the young Timothy Christopher May purchased a huge gap magnet from Edmund Scientific Company and also produced science fair project titled "Ball Lightning: A Stable Plasma?" Investigators suspect the timing of these events is not a coincidence. Unfortunately, the photographs of young Timothy Christopher May being escorted out of Earth Science class by agents of the Office of Naval Intelligence have somehow been tampered with and are difficult to reconstruct. Perhaps with modern technology... Hmmm, similarities in name, interests, style of discourse, and a history of technological subversion. Is this the same individual, thirty years later? Gentle readers, you decide. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com

1 0

Re: Exon Countdown Clock and farewell messages
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:59 AM 11/8/96 -0800, Michael Page wrote and Rich Graves forwarded: >> ... >> >We would attempt to send it via a Email, but the respected Senator does not >> >have Email. (The Irony). >> ... To Which, on Mon, 11 Nov 1996, I wrote: >> There is no irony here, Mr. Exon tried to control the internet for the very >> reason that he didn't understand it and one of his granddaughters did. >> Perhaps if he did understand the internet then he wouldn't be a threat. >> Remember, people fear that which they don't understand. To which, at 07:57 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I disagree. I think people understand the printing press and still want >to control it. Morality police are morality police, no matter what the >medium or how well they understand it. A valid point, and Exon may have had designs of media control the whole time. The methods he used and the arguments he stated, however, suggested to me, that he was someone who did not comprehend the technology. Those who he was able to sway with the dossier of .GIF's certainly were ignorant, many of them were turned by that one display of images.

1 0

[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[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. 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? ------ 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.

10 18

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

17 Dec '03

> I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of > meaningless political rants. Is this another way of saying you do not understand, since you can attribute no meaning? > * "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. It never ceases to amaze me how human beings think in terms of indoctrination and repetition. (Isn't that repetitive too?) In this example, previous works are cited as reasons why a current work is or is not something. As most people in probability theory can tell you, the chance of something being true has nothing to do with the results of previous trials. In other words, your record is irrelavent. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. > * 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. And you say you aren't comparing the net to a home or club? Aren't mailing lists on the net? Aren't you comparing them to a club? Or are you merely being unclear about your comparisons? > * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis > from posting. What seems to be often isn't. I am not asserting any such thing. In fact, Mr. Gilmore hasn't done anything of note since Vulis still gets mail off the list...it's more symbolic. Interestingly enough, the only "damage" I see is to Mr. Gilmore's reputation. This is hardly a loss in my opinion, but I assume it means something to a reporter... > * 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. It does not have to be the case for you to see the intended point, which you apparently missed. I'll say it again: Ownership should not be a license for censorship. > Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force > Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? No. That would be the same thing in a different guise. Please read my article again and attempt to comprehend what I am saying. It would truly help your comprehension if you failed to react in a Pavlovian manner to it. > 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. The clue to be gotten is yours. I never implied or intended such a misunderstanding. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A philosopher called on Nasrudin and found him away from home. Infuriated, he wrote 'Stupid Oaf' on his door. As soon as Nasrudin got home and saw this, he rushed to the philosopher's house. "I'd forgotten", he said, "that you were to call. And I apologize for not having been at home. I remembered our appointment as soon as I saw that you'd left your name on my door..."

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

> It's not a way of saying I don't understand. Instead, I find your > viewpoint incomprehensible and internally inconsistent. Which, of course, means that there is nothing to understand...for you. However, I do observe that there are meanings in things I, myself, find both incomprehensible and inconsistent. Just because I am unable to understand does not mean that there is no understanding to be had. I am not that important. Are you? > In fact, you Freedom Knight folks seem to be closet censors yourself. Why > do you support not carrying newsgroups like alt.config? I never have supported or opposed alt.config. I have said that it is meaningless, but that was after I understood its purpose. ;-) > Yes, ownership gives you a license to censor. I'm going to have a party in > my home a few weeks from now. If I don't like what someone is doing, I'll > kick 'em out. I won't do it lightly, but I will fight for my right to do > so. Of course, you may invite anyone you choose, since a party is usually had by inviting people whom you select. If you invite them and then subsequently kick them out when they do things you do not want them to do, I will chastise -you- (if I am present) for your lack of judgement in whom to invite. Their behavior would merely something to learn from, yours would be fashionably dishonorable. BTW, "Kicking them out" is not censorship. A party and a mailing list are usually two different things. The former may include the latter, but the latter is not anything like the former. > Oh, and I plan to subscribe to the freedom-knights mailing list and infest > it the way Vulis did cypherpunks. Every hour, on the hour, a crontab > script will flood it with rants about Dave (fart) Hayes. You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike you or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my list. > What will you do then? Even if you did such a thing, I have a mail filter. Your messages would be unceremoniously discarded. Have you learned nothing from USENET? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Ask the American public if they want an FBI Wiretax and they'll say 'no.' If you ask them do they want a feature on their phone that helps the FBI find their missing child they'll say, 'Yes.'" - FBI Directory Louis Freeh, on Digital Telephony, US House (Subcmte. on Telecommunications & Finance) hearing on the Digital Telephony bill, 09/13/94).

3 2

Financial Cryptography and the Theory of International Relations
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:32:34 -0500 From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Financial Cryptography and the Theory of International Relations X-Sender: rah(a)pop.tiac.net To: IRTHEORY_LIST <irtheory_list(a)unimelb.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Somebody asked me, regarding my posting here of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston meeting announcement (DCSB: Money Laundering -- The Headless Horseman of the Infocalypse): >Yes, I would like you to explain. Just what does this have to do with the >theory of international relations? People like the attorney "Black Unicorn" are interested in the international application of the technology of strong cryptography; in particular, strong financial cryptography. See <http://www.vmeng.com/rah/>, for pointers to more information on this, which I include here by reference. The short answer is, what happens if nation states can't fund themselves anymore because the cheapest transaction method available (cheaper by several orders of magnitude in lowered transaction and distribution costs) involves anonymous digital "cash" settlement? To quote something someone said in a Harvard Law seminar list a couple of years ago, "What happens when taxes become a tip?". The strongest financial cryptography protocols (like those invented by David Chaum of Digicash, or Mark Manasse of DEC, or Adi Shamir of RSA) use no book-entries whatsoever, which means no audit trails, which in turn means no book-entry taxes, like, say, those on income, or capital gains, or sales. In addition, what happens when we can effect the sale of financial assets with the digital equivalent of old-fashioned bearer certificates, which use the same cryptographic technology? The centralization of capital markets may become a thing of the past. Centralized markets for *anything* may become a thing of the past. The nation-state's ability to reallocate income, criminally, ala Amin or Mobutu, or otherwise, is severely limited in this scenario, certainly. :-). With anonymous voting protocols, you can have anonymous (or, more correctly, perfectly pseudonymous) control of financial assets. Possible damage to one's reputation (pseudonymous or not) works just fine to prevent the non-repudiation of cash-settled transactions, so the power of nation states aren't even necessary to regulate commerce, really. The only thing left that nation states do is physical security, or the "rational" application of force, which can probably be handled privately, particularly if nation states can't command the payment of taxes for this service anyway. Which brings me to the current discussion here about the imploding pseudo-states of Africa. What we're witnessing right now is the re-emergence of tribal groups as the common political denominator. Nation states based on those groups are likely. However, I also expect that this process of literal dis-integration will continue, but recursively, as it becomes more and more possible for ordinary people to use information (like asset pricing, the returns on those assets, or the technical knowlege to profitably control those assets) once only found at the top of large industrial hierarchies like multinatioal corporations and nation states. That information will be applied to smaller and smaller economic units as processor prices continue to fall. That is, large groups of the same ethnic nationality will be created on the rubble of the old colonial boundries, which the cold war propped up for the last 50 years. However, those large groups will continue to factionalize as access to western-style economic activity increases. The continuing ubiquity of the internet can only increase this process, especially if the promise of financial cryptography survives the test of economic reality. I expect that as financial technology like the above is introduced, the ability of political and business elites to hold together large hierarchical entities, like the modern nation-state or multinational corporation, will continue to deminish. The ability for anyone to get paid for their work, no matter where they are, and to work where they live, probably in a peer-to-peer economic relationship with the buyer of their work, who may well live on the other side of the world, will create much less reliance on geography as capital, which were the hallmarks both agrarianism and industrialism. Both of which, by the way, created cities, and then the nation state, in the first place. Whew. Clear as mud. Oh, well. Besides stirring things up more than a little bit, does that answer your question? ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/ --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0