- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Remailers - What exists?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Question: Which remailers can be run without root? Which remailers can be run best on the most systems? Which remailers are easiest to set up? --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote: > I figure it's the fact that 'principles' are involved that is confusing > everybody, no room to move like there is with relativism. Bottem line, he > held a public office, while in that office he should commit *NO* crime or > else he should loose that office. There was no abmiguity there in the minds > of the founding fathers and there shouldn't be in yours either. If this > confuses you then take it as an indication that you have a axiomatic > contradiction in your world view and need to rethink things in a serious > way. > > As Jefferson said, if you hold a public office your public property. > > Nail the son of a bitch to the wall, he did the crime let him do the time. > > It's a pitty he doesn't have this sort of empathy for all those people he's > put in jail for consensual crimes during his tenure. The man has a base > double standard, let him pay for it. I agree totally, but this has a somewhat deeper point. The idiots in government sign into law all sorts of unconstitutional or nonsensical legislation. As far as I'm concerned, it ought to be a law that for *ANY* crime they commit they are thrown out of office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Of course it would never happen, but if it were to happen I think we'd see massive repeals of all this bogus legislation. "Senator, you have an encrypted file on your laptop. As per the Domestic Cryptography Prohibition Act, I am here to seize your computer, the office it is in, freeze your assets, and take you into custody. You will be ejected from the Senate, effective immediately. If convicted, you will spend the next five years at hard labor." "But...But I didn't know it was there! It was a virus which put it there!" "Ignorance of your violations of the law are no excuse. It says so in that Act." "Who is the idiot who passed this?!" "You introduced it, sir. It was something about protecting the children and how anybody who uses cryptography is a pedophile or something like that." Later that night, on the news: "Senator X was ejected from the Senate, arrested, jailed, and charged today with unlawful possession of random numbers. Later it was announced that former Senator X was charged with trafficing in child pornography." The next day: "In a daring no-knock morning raid, a flurry of automatic weapons fire occured and former Senator X's family was killed in the exchange. An FBI agent was quoted as saying, 'She was wielding an assault baby and we had to take her down.'" "It has just been announced that former Senator X is being charged under the Domestric Cryptography Prohibition Act, which he sponsored, with 'crypto in a crime.' This carries an additional penalty of 10 years. When asked what crime the cryptography was used in, an FBI representative answered, 'Given what Senator X argued on the floor of the senate when he introduced this bill, we're sure there is child pornography there somewhere. Like he said, the only reason to use cryptography is if you have something to hide, like child pornography or plans for widespread global armageddon. Because he used cryptography, we don't know where or what that porn is, but we're sure it's there somewhere.'" Three years later: "Former Senator X was convicted today of one count of 'crypto in a crime,' five counts of possession of cryptography without a license, eight counts of child porn (one for each encrypted file), and one count of intent to use weapons of mass destruction. In a swift action, he was sentenced to six consecutive life terms, to be served at hard labor." "Jim, isn't all this agaist the Bill of Rights?" "Well, Tom, it used to be, but since they repealed it..." *fade to black*

1 0

Re: Anarchy Online
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"cp(a)panix.com" "Charles Platt" 24-MAY-1996 20:49:17.28 To: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Rich Graves" CC: IN%"declan(a)well.com" "Declan McCullagh", IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: Anarchy Online Received: from toad.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I53IQ90DU88WW6WB(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Fri, 24 May 1996 20:49 EDT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA19674 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 14:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA19649 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Fri, 24 May 1996 14:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cp@localhost) by panix.com (8.7.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id RAA16576; Fri, 24 May 1996 17:35:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 17:35:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cp(a)panix.com> Subject: RE: Anarchy Online In-reply-to: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960524131950.29645M-100000(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com To: Rich Graves <llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960524173225.12653D-100000(a)panix.com> X-Envelope-to: eallensmith Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk >On Fri, 24 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote: >> Oh, I have no doubt that he believes everything you tell him. So, Charles, >> do you think I'm a net.loon, and why? Please reply publicly on >> cypherpunks. I'd like E. Allen Smith and Jim Bell to read this. >Your wish is my command, but--who are they? I am not particularly sure why Rich named either me or Jim Bell as particular recipients of this message. If you're curious as to what my viewpoint is, I would suggest reading over various CuDigest issues that show up as having messages from EALLENSMITH or E. Allen Smith on them (the mbcl.rutgers.edu sometimes fluctuates). >Actually Rich it took me a while to remember you. The Zundel affair didn't >loom large in my life (because I wasn't part of it, I guess). I assumed >you had long since moved on to more important matters. I have no idea >whether you are a net.loon. But I am sorry if I misspelled your name in my >book, and indeed as soon as I get offline here, I'm going to do a word >search. We're making the text into pages right now, so the time is right. I would guess Rich is referring to that Declan was actually the second person to put up a mirror and publicize it; Rich was the first. (I may not be completely accurate in this; not being one of the participants, I didn't exactly follow the Rich-Declan discussion on the subject here on cypherpunks that closely.) Interesting book from what I've read of it; I will read farther when I have time. -Allen

1 0

Re: Children's Privacy Act
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" "Declan B. McCullagh" 24-MAY-1996 23:16:49.32 >From a strict libertarian standpoint, it may implicate property rights. >I won't argue that. >But I tend to think of my (and individual) privacy rights as ones that >should receive greater attention than a businesses "privacy rights." If >they have mailing list info on me, I'd like to know where they got it. Well, it's either from someone you chose to hand it over to... or from someone you didn't. In the first case, it's your problem. In the second case, then you've got a claim. We have no disagreement on that governments and other coercive institutions shouldn't be allowed to collect more information than necessary, or to release any such information to an uninvolved third party. As Hal pointed out, we also have no disagreement with trying to reduce the level of information that you give out by accident or for the sake of convenience - e.g., credit cards. -Allen

1 0

Re: Still more on the Digicash protocol
by Andrew Loewenstern 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David A Wagner writes: > >Tough!? It's trivial for an active attacker, in the stream cipher case. > >He just xors some bits: no clever cryptanalysis needed. (Or did you mean > >it's tough to mount an active attack? I agree: that requires significant > >knowledge or motivation.) Rev. Mark Grant responds: > Exactly.. once you have an active attack set up, it's trivial, but > setting that up is quite hard. But setting up an active attack is probably a hell of a lot easier than breaking 128-bit RC-4 (or even 64-bit). andrew

1 0

Re: Layman's explanation for limits on escrowed encryption ...
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 15:07:57.78 >On Wed, 22 May 1996, Ernest Hua wrote: >> Could someone with some knowledge of NSA/DoS/FBI intentions please >> explain why key length limitations are necessary for escrowed >> encryption? >To deal with the possibility that someone might slip through the cracks of >the escrow process. >Insurance. Hmm.... what were the normal key-length recommendations again? This appears to imply that the NSA can break at least 64-bit, and probably 80-bit, encryption. How does this translate into public key lengths? E.g., how many normal bits is a 1024-bit PGP key equivalent to? -Allen

3 3

RE: Truth is equivalent to law?
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jim Choate What you and others offer is a bipolar anthropocentic example of the schism our rapid technology has generated in our lives. ...................................................................... Well you may be right and this may be The Absolute Truth, but I'm not saying anymore because it's hurting my brain to think about it. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Children's Privacy Act
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:15 AM 5/25/96, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >But I tend to think of my (and individual) privacy rights as ones that >should receive greater attention than a businesses "privacy rights." If >they have mailing list info on me, I'd like to know where they got it. Well, I'd like a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to them. And I think the confusion between "business rights" and "individual rights" is part of the problem here. That is, I don't see any significant distinction, nor does the Constitution say anything about rights being different. At least not for the rights usually considered to be the central rights. Thus, there is not free speech for individuals, but not for the owner of a company. (There are many quibbles that can be made, about the alleged right of government to regulate business, interstate commerce, etc. And about the various laws that demonstrably apply to businesses, but not to individuals (OSHA, business taxes, etc.). And, regrettably, the government has placed limits on the advertising that companies--or presumably individuals--can do.) Not to sound rude to either Declan or Rich, but here's the bottom line: If I have compiled records, dossiers, etc., as I most assuredly have (got to fill up those MO disks with something), this is "my" information. Mine in the sense that others can't dictate to me what I do with it. What Rich or Declan "wants" is beside the point. --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: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 22:52:03.64 >Remailers on the attack points (first in chain, last in chain) simply MUST >be disposable as tissue. They must be run as anonymously as possible, >with as little connection to the ISP's assets as possible and immediately >disposable. They must be easy to set up, runable without root and there >must be a much more efficent tracking mechanism. (Mr. Levin has done a >terrific job, but even more needs to be done). Why the first in chain? If the anti-traffic-analysis provisions are working properly, it should be impossible to prove that a given first remailer was the first remailer for any particular message. I had thought that even civil courts required that you be the person who committed some act, not the person who _might_ have committed some act. Otherwise, all the remailers are in danger. This is even if someone tries an entrapment by sending through some illegal material - if the courts accept that they should be allowed to do this, then all the remailers they chained are going to be hit. >This wanton suing, as I think we all know, is an abuse of the copyright >protections and their intent. The only way to really deal with it is make >remailers unassailable. Doing that with tricky dick type legal arguments >will, in my view, eventually fail. Ultimately, I have to agree. Protect the remailers as much as possible with the legal arguments... but don't depend on them. The government in general has no motivation to protect the remailers. They've got a motivation to protect ISPs, and thus may put in protections for them regarding liability. >It only takes ONE operator to get a tiny ($2500-$10,000) fine or judgement >and that will be the end of most of the mailers. Poof. What, pray tell, is the result of a judgement in which the person manifestedly doesn't have the money to pay? I couldn't pay a 10,000 dollar judgement; I don't have that much money. I would guess it'd be some form of attachment of income; this wouldn't get them much... >This we cannot allow. Quite. >I wouldn't go this far. It is an excellent argument for picking juries >that are experts with regard to the subject at hand. One step in this direction would be requiring some level of education from juries. If the defendant is someone with a college degree, require the jurors to have a college degree. If the defendant is someone with a Ph.D., require the jurors to have a Ph.D. or similarly high equivalent (J.D., M.D., etcetera). While this doesn't mean that the jury will necessarily know what's being talked about (I've given presentations to _graduate_ school seminars in which I went well over the heads of everyone in the class - including the professor - after spending maybe four weeks working on the project), it does increase the chance that they're at least teachable. >In my view trying to balance bias rather than eliminate it is much more >effective. Modification of jury selection? Removal of some of the preemptory challenges? Hmm... some challenges are for cause, as I recall. Unless it's a particulary egregious case of such, I'd suggest allowing the other side to override such with expenditure of a preemptory challenge. >If harassing mail is the issue, I can see how this might help in terms of >image. I don't think its a complete solution however. >Again, I think the attack points have to be protected. Agreed. -Allen

2 1

Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01.03 PM 5/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >If the Libyans are so bad (and they probably are) then why shouldn't the >public in other countries be entitled to pool their contributions and take >their government down? I believe I understand the basic concepts of AP - perhaps not the far-reaching implications, but the fundamentals. I've thought about it, and I am against this system. What will happen when you've killed off all of the politicians/gov't employees who haven't quit? Do you really think this will make things better? Anarchy simply won't work with people. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? I'm sure some people haven't. I will explain my reasoning. In Lord of the Flies (a novel by William Golding) a group of British schoolboys are deposited on a desert island. They have been evacuated from England because of a nuclear war. There are no adults. A responsible few try to maintain the rules and order of society to which they all are accustomed, but they are symbolically "AP'ed" out of power when the anarchists of the group break away and form their own tribe. To make a long story short, they revert to animal sacrifice, and human sacrifice, before the story closes. Very unsettling, no? The defects of society can be traced back to the defects in the individual. A direct quote from the author, who is not infallible, or even a reputable authority on the flaws and merits of humanity, but still, who is to say that once our notably corrupt governments are gone, the corruption in ourselves won't surface? Who is to say that we are any better than the government? They had to come from somewhere - the public, obviously. Have any of you AP proponents considered that perhaps our oh-so-corrupt government officials are simply the best that our amoral, decaying populace has to offer? What would we gain by rubbing them out? The point I make is that in elected governments (and I realize, not all are so lucky) the elected people are, most likely, the best of what the public has to offer. Who can blame them for being corrupt? Doesn't all power corrupt? I believe so. Maybe the current form of government isn't perfect, or even great, but it is still much better than anything that could possibly result from anonymous terrorism, which is really what AP is, isn't it? Peace can only be achieved by understanding, not through force or fear. >(okay, this is a rhetorical question...) Oops. Well. It's too late now... :-) David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMaZ4tRguzHDTdpL5AQEW3gP+OvHHoPxJnFQUahCsjYcQaRJ2FV6eJA7F s0BQ0jSvJCsGjMCEzT+bsNpErSNVxIafuq5AkMJQFhQHkhxUrPl/eqtBhomh5YV1 6CD5VGL0y030zmdzDBhLpJjLjKIkMzAC1DIdLmWCXZRyHDCD00KRdyRup72XZAqQ Ka3Klr8JOBQ= =LXi/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1