- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: How's that again?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

adam(a)lighthouse.homeport.org writes: | I disagree with your thoughts, and find you annoying and | unwilling to answer substantitive questions raised about your plans. | Furthermore, most of your posts are way too long. Your posts more annoying, and too short.

2 1

Re: How's that again?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:37 PM 3/12/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 05:40 PM 3/12/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >>Revise your statement to: >>"doesn't want anyone who hasn't spent a few years in law school to pass >>judgement on pending legislation and the effect of supreme court decision >>thereon..." >>and you'd be right on the money. > >I'm not a lawyer, though I've played a politician on TV. I'll grant you >that lawyers and other trained legal professionals can do a far better >job of finding and analyzing cases than amateurs like myself, though I suspect >a month or two's experience with Lexis would be enough to let many >of "the rest of us" outsearch the average lawyer of 50 years ago >who had to rely on his or her wits alone. But if the average intellegent >person _can't_ evaluate a law and have a reasonable chance of figuring >out what it says and what it means, there's something seriously wrong >with the way new laws are written, as well as enforced. Well said. If more people lambasted this "Black Unicorn" fellow for his legal-elitist ways, he'd actually be forced to either shut up or use reasoned argument to support his odd position. Laws, as I understand it, used to be written so that ordinary people could understand them. That's the way it ought to be today, but isn't, precisely because the elitists have had their way for so long. There used to be a saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." The presumption was that you had a responsibility to know what the law said, and that most people could understand what it said, and if you didn't take the time to know it you were guilty despite this. Today, that saying is laughably out of date: When people like "Black Unicorn" claim that ordinary people haven't the skills to evaluate any law or proposed law, it is obvious that he and his ilk is a major portion of the problem. >(I suppose I've complained enough that there _is_ something >seriously wrong them that I'm not adding any new weight here; >if the author of a portion of a law can get up on the Senate floor >and say that he realizes that part of the law he's proposed is >unconstitutional and unenforceable, and that this doesn't bother him*, >I guess it's no surprise that one of the more-or-less "good guys" >in the Senate can propose a law so ambiguously worded that it >looks good on the face until a good lawyer takes the time to rip >it apart - maybe Leahy will read some of Junger's review?) The system is sick, perhaps irretrievably so. Dr. Strangelove (in the movie of the same name) stated that "deterrence is the art of making the enemy FEAR to attack." I think the main problem (and the most direct solution) to the "politician-problem" in this country is to make government agents FEAR to do the wrong thing. >> And I confirm again that I'm an elitist legal snob. >> At least I know what I'm talking about. > >[* Is it true that the reason Election Day is on the _second_ >Tuesday of November is to guarantee it never falls on Guy Fawkes' Day?] It's going to take a lot more than gunpowder to solve this problem. Although that would be a good start... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:35 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the >>overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly >>thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it >>would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get >>rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents >>come to mind, of course. >> >The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business >takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive. >The tyrant would be the owner of the industry. The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" situations, where: 1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. (Those people who still think military spending is really necessary obviously haven't read AP.) 2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the non-government private sector. 3. The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies. 4. Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would receive in the private sector. Ironically, in this case an "apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading: It would be wrong to compare a middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the private-sector would do it post-AP. >If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, >with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, >like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some >recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these >few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in >oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax. Now, nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that individual wants to see done. But I think it'll be amazing how many of those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily. Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government engages in two activities, "A" and "B." Further suppose government taxes from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas." It is traditionally thought that Alphas like spending on "A", but hate spending on "B". Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending on "A". Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply fund only "A", while Betas" would donate money for activity "B". Assuming the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that things could go on as they already do. But no. The reality is that "Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are similarly forced. Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued for, pre-AP. In practice, those services people like will continue, but it is highly unlikely that they will be supply by organizations which evolve from those currently called "governments." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

cryptography and encryption
by Bernardo B. Terrado 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Could I interchange them. I know that the latter is under the former, but I'm still confused. Hope you'll understand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Some people they might say that I'm hard to get to know. I go my own sweet way, well that maybe so. Something about the crowd that makes me walk alone. I never had a need in me to be the party's life and soul. It's me Bernie. metaphone(a)altavista.net ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

1 0

Re: Leahy bill, legalize crypto
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:18 PM 3/13/96, James A. Donald wrote: >Any crypto bill that we could realistically get out of Washington will >substantially reduce liberty. The best that we can hope for is for >Washington to forget about crypto until it is too late to stop. This is our best hope at this point: that Washington moves on to other things as the campaign heats up and forgets about crypto. One reason Washington pushed for the Wiretap Act (aka Digital Telephony) was because digital switches have made conventional methods of wiretapping and pen registers harder and harder to do. (I'm not a phone phreaker expert, as some of you no doubt are, so I don't know the details of how wiretaps were done prior to the advent of digital switches...I picture wires connected to the back of PBX systems, and I presume the ESS systems and their ilk changed this dramatically.) However--and here's the kicker!--they blew it. If you look at Louis Freeh's testimony before Congress a couple of years ago (which I did in detail, as I scanned and OCRed it for Whit Diffie, who may make it available soon) he was clearly worried about the phone system becoming so complex and "so digital" that FBI surveillance capabilities would fall behind the technology curve. So, he and his supporters (including the EFF) pushed for the Wiretap Act. (No money has yet been allocated, last I heard, so the $500 million supposedly to reimburse the telcos for providing wiretap capability, hasn't happened.) The main way they blew it is that the Wiretap Act ostensibly does not cover end-to-end encryption, especially as computers are used in place of telephones. And as Internet voice systems become widespread, especially with transparent, easy-to-use encryption (Nautilus, PGPhone, etc., in a couple of version iterations), even some goombah in Little Sicily will be able to communicate securely and essentially unbreakably. That they are realizing this, belatedly (although hints of this recognition can be found in Freeh's comments to Congress), may be why a couple of moves are occurring: - a fast-track review by the FCC to determine if "Internet voice" services are to be regulated, controlled, enacted, redacted, and impacted. (The traditional phonecos are the ones squealing most loudly, but others are expressing concern over the "anarchy" of unlicensed Internet applications.) - the Leahy Bill, which would as various analysts have noted make disclosure of keys mandatory, would protect the legitimate needs of law enforcement, blah blah blah. Speculatively, I can see something coming on the horizon. Suppose the FCC, under the Telecommuications Act, the Leahy Act (or whatever), and the Digital Telephony Act, extended to the Internet the same general restrictions on cryptography that currently apply to the airwaves? Suppose encryption is allowed, but only with key escrow? While I can think of various problems with enforcement--the very points many of us have raised over the past several years--I can also see this as having wide support. And it might pass constitutional muster (for the same reasons the FCC jurisdiction over airwaves and the ban on encryption by ham operators, got approval. Sure, I understand that Internet bandwidth is not the same as the "public airwaves," but this subtlety may not be enough to stop the parallel from being successfully drawn. Especially if the phone companies and other threatened players are pushing hard for the FCC to step in and regulate. Food for thought. --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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by eric＠remailer.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been engaged in a background discussion with some folks about how to treat a new protocol, when to speak, etc. Elements of that discussion have become relevant to the list widely. The situation is thus. Ian Goldberg et al. have developed a protocol for simultaneous payer and payee anonymity. It appears to be novel, albeit not entirely unanticipated. The protocol works with the existing bank signing oracle and could interoperate with Mark Twain's current system. The suggestion was made, paraphrasing -- couldn't we just not talk about this too loudly yet? ... NO! Perhaps the single most important lesson I've learned from cypherpunks is that code alone doesn't cut it. Not code alone, not code widely distributed, not even code widely used. Some measure of toleration in society for activities conducted in private is _necessary_ for long term success. Not convenient, not easier, but necessary. The whole Clipper situation testifies to this. Unless there is a public concensus that people generally should be able to use their own cryptography, then such use will become marginalized. Legislatures will outlaw, the public will disapprove, and vigilantes will hunt down improper use. That, in my book, means we've lost. Code is clearly still necessary. Code demonstrates what actually happens. To write code is to invoke and evoke the latent and insufficiently articulated desires for privacy in the world at large. Similarly with anonymous transactions. Unless a similar concensus exists, we will have another marginal activity. Again, I count this a loss. Backlash will result from later disclosure that the payment systems we generally as cypherpunks have undisclosed properties, that we as a loose group have dissimulated and even lied outright about the capabilities of the systems we advocate. This backlash will wipe away many gains we might have made and eliminate the possibility of future ones. The backlash will be justified, because it will be the natural result of a demonstration of bad faith. One such demonstration now, and who would know when the next was coming, or that we had not hoarded encrypted agendas all along in our hearts? And then, since we would not be believed, all the propaganda of our opponents will triumph. The Four Horsepersons will come trotting out in grand inquisitional spectacle, and there will be no counterpoint, because the devil's advocate will have been discovered to have been guilty himself. It is foolishness itself to deceive a public which is substantially in favor of the program of complete privacy. We must appeal to the public that finally will decide, not to some officials today who have power and tomorrow who will not. Clipper itself was not defeated by constructive engagement with the Clinton wiretap administration. Clipper was defeated by a general call to arms. Therefore, shout out to the world that payee anonymity is possible with ecash(TM)! Eric

1 0

The Path to Anonymity
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to anonymous and AJ the exemplary report: Privacy-enhancing Technolgies: The Path to Anonymity Registratiekamer, The Netherlands Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, Canada August 1995 Volume I Volume II is available at: http://www.replay.com/mirror/privacy/ _________________________________________________________ Introduction [Excerpts] The Dutch Data Protection Authority (the Registratiekamer) and the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Province of Ontario, Canada (IPC) are both privacy protection agencies that oversee compliance with their respective juridiction's privacy laws. The Registratiekamer and IPC decided to pool their resources and collaborate in the production of a report exploring privacy technologies that permit transactions to be conducted anonymously. The first international paper of this type includes a survey of companies that might be expected to offer such technologies, and organizations that might use them. In addition to anonymous transactions, the range of security features commercially available for use and the types of services actually being used by various organizations were also examined (see 2.1 Survey methodology). The Registratiekamer and IPC felt that a joint report outlining the practices followed in their respective jurisdictions would shed some light on this little-studied but extremely important area where the future of privacy-protection in an electronic world may lie. Consumer polls have repeatedly shown that individuals value their privacy and are concerned with its potential loss when so much of their personal information is routinely stored in computer databases, over which they have no control. Protecting one's identity goes hand in hand with preserving one's ability to remain *anonymous* -- a key component of privacy. While advances in information and communications technology have fuelled the ability of organizations to keep massive amounts of personal data, this has increasingly jeopardized the privacy of those whose information is being collected. Minimizing identifying data would restore privacy considerably, but would still permit the collection of needed information. When assessing the need for identifiable data during the course of a transaction, the key question one must start with is: how much personal information/data is truly required for the proper functioning of the information system involving this transaction? This question must also be asked at the outset -- prior to the design and development of any new system. But this is not the case today. This question is rarely asked at all since there is such a clear preference in favour of collection identifiable data, 'the more the better'. However, with the growth of networked communications and the ability to link a wide number of diverse databases electronically, people will become more and more reluctant to leave behind a trail of identifiable data. What is needed is a paradigm shift away from a 'more is better' mindset to a minimalist one. Is it possible to minimize the amount of identifiable data presently collected and stored in information systems, but still meet the needs of those collecting the information? We believe that it is. The technology needed to achieve this goal exists today. We will describe some of the privacy technologies that permit one to engage in transactions without revealing one's identity by introducing the concept of an *identity protector*. The notion of *pseudonymity* will also be introduced as an integral part of protecting one's identity. These technologies are available now and within our reach; what is needed is the will to implement privacy technologies over the tracking technologies that are in use today. When organizations are asked what measures they have in place to protect privacy, they usually point to their efforts at keeping information secure. While the use of security measures to prevent unauthorized access to personal data is a very important component of privacy, it does not equal privacy protection. The latter is a much broader concept which starts with the questioning of the initial collection of the information to ensure there is a good reason for doing so and that its uses will be restricted to legitimate ones that the data subject has been advised of. Once the data has been collected, security and confidentiality become paramount. Effective security and confidentiality will depend on the implementation of measures to create a secure environment. Alternatively, instead of restricting the focus to security alone, a more comprehensive approach would be to seek out ways in which technology may be used to enhance the protection of informational privacy or data protection. We use the term *privacy technologies* to refer to a variety of technologies that safeguard personal privacy by minimizing or eliminating the collection of identifiable data. Not only are measures that safeguard privacy becoming an important mark of quality, but increasingly, consumers are demanding that organizations pay attention to their privacy concerns. Social acceptance of demands for one's personal information, without adequate assurances of protection, appears to be on the decline. Not only do consumers wish to maintain control over their personal data and be informed of its uses, but insufficient protection will be reason enough for consumers to take their business elsewhere -- to companies that follow privacy-protective practices. -----

1 0

Re:LACC: PC Phones Home?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:41 AM 3/14/96, Jim McCoy wrote: >A few questions: > >1- How does the PC know where it is? >2- How does the PC know it has been stolen? The Web reveals all: 1. If the PC has been _reported_ stolen by the owner, any call from that PC triggers a phone trace, says the company. 2. See #1 (the key is that owner must call and report a particular PC stolen). >Since this is a software product I am assuming that the answer to #1 >is the use of CallerID on the line when the software calls, which is >defeated by the use of line blocking by the thief. The obvious answer >to #2 seems to me to have the system call the CompuTrace office at >odd intervals to see if it has been reported stolen yet... > >Obvious solution for potential thieves: wipe the disks and reinstall >an OS once you steal a PC. This should be done anyway to remove any >bits of data which might identify the original owner. These points assume the thief is relatively sophisticated and that the thief is aware that the CompuTrace system is installed. I suspect that neither is likely, at least not until the system gets sufficient publicity so that the first thing thieves and purchasers of suspected-to-be-hot PCs do is to make plans to avoid this (reformat disks, etc.). I think the scenario I described in my earlier post on this topic covers about 97% of all PC thefts: relatively unsophisticated thieves who warehouse the merchandise until buyers are found. The buyers, in turn, are also relatively unsophisticated. They may be immigrant businesses looking for a really good deal on PCs, they may be school systems strapped for cash, they may be your mother buying her first PC at a flea market. And they may be any of us, buying a surplus PC. In none of these cases is the user likely to take steps to disable Caller ID (and the company may actually do old-fashioned tracing). >Conclusion: Yet another useless piece of software riding the >computer security bandwagon. I'm not convinced it's software I would want to buy, but it fills a niche, I think. And it's definitely not the snake oil we've seen recently, as it makes no outrageous technical claims and seems to be going after a limited market. --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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Democracy...
by Richard.Bragg＠ssa.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mmotyka(a)lsil.com on 16/09/98 20:02:22 Please respond to mmotyka(a)lsil.com To: Richard Bragg/UK/SSA_EUROPE cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Democracy... >> However, if you believe in something to be life changing and >> beneficial to both the >individual and society you'll want or be >> compelled to "pass it on". > >Altruistic on the surface. Regarding religion though, why do I always >get the feeling that when implemented and empowered it is judgemental >and intolerant of those who do not fall properly in line? > Because religion is dead. It is a set of man made rules interpreting what God has said. I do not want to live in a "religious" society any more than you do. Theocracy (rule by the church, small "c") is never a good idea. Deocracy??? (rule by God) is. God has already given us His instructions for healthy life and society. Most of our laws are based on them but we keep weakening them to account for our own failings and desires. >> What I wanted to illustrate is that there are absolutes, to say there >> are no obsolutes is in itself an absolute and so is self defeating. > >All right Mr. Logic, you're so sharp, give me ONE example of a *moral* >absolute. > It is wrong to abuse children. I reckon this is built in to just about all of us. It is in our nature to protect and defend our children. No matter where your are in the world this applies. Our differing cultures make some things acceptable to one and not to others but the underlying nature is still there. Also we may differ how we accomplish this. >> We must have absolutes. >> >We do: speed of light, mass of the electron, probably, but behavior? We >have behaviors that facilitate our persistance and propagation as a >species at ever increasing densities. Operating outside the boundaries >is neither right nor wrong, simply different. Not necessarily without >consequences, but simply different. Your yardstick is an hallucination >to which you cling to forlornly like a kitten clinging to a stick in a >raging river. > >Mike > >ps - is 'forlornly' really a word? I think so, but it looks odd today. Actually the speed of light varies depending on the medium and the mass of an electron with its velocity. You may deride my absolutes but if applied by all we would have no crime, no divorce etc. Boring?? Not really. Many diseases and social problems would cease or be reduced.

2 1

Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:44 PM 4/9/96 -0500, Mike McNally wrote: >Scott Brickner wrote: >> Given your position, io.com is only accessible to adults in the world >> of the CDA advocates. Just upgrade your IP software to refuse >> connections from minors. > >It's not "my" IP software. I pay io for an account. What you're saying >is that every ISP would have to decide whether to be completely G-rated >or else open to anybody. Then they go on about how every school in the country needs to be connected to the net... I am wondering where they got the idea that the net is someplece they want their children to be. They don't let them play in distant parks inhabited by scary old men and drunks, yet they want them to play on the "information Superhighway". The CDA types seem to view the net the same way that they view TV in the classrooms. They expect it to be as easy to control as well. Get them all staring at the box and they will quiet down and do as they are told. What these people do not seem to understand is what is going to happen when their kids are exposed to the diverse opinions present on the net. Forget the porno... What are the parents who believe in Creationism going to do when little Johnny runs into a good skeptical site debunking all that crap? What are they going to do when the little liberal kids are exposed to the works of conservitives? Or Biblical Inerentists kidlets are exposed to the debunkings of that faith? Or Dorthy Denning's kids (if she has any) get exposed to the writings of the subversive known as Tim May? The CDA proponents want the ideas presented to their kids be controled ones. The existance of freedom on the net is a threat to that control. Porno is used as the (net)scapegoat, but there are far more threatening ideas out there to that kind of mindset. They just know that if they tell you their true goals, then people will not go along with them. If you want to know their real fears, read the stuff they write for the "faithful". It is far more revealing. ("Remember: It is not a conspiracy if you can subscribe to their newsletter.") >Sigh. That's probably what the CDA crowd wants. It's hard not to become >consumed by hatred. When reading Lovecraft, i always wondered what could be written down that would drive men mad. Lovecraft always described it as some cosmic horror. The cosmic is too far removed for most people to understand. I have always thought that instead, it described how the world worked and the driving motivations behind it, with the firm understanding that there was not a damn thing you could do to stop it. The understanding that the world is driven by the forces of ignorance and stupidity is enough to drive you to the brink. The Necronomicon was not written by the Mad Arab, it was written by Scott Adams. --- | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0