- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Another Son of Clipper discussion paper
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:36 9/5/95, Mike McNally wrote: >If the algorithm is public (and to stretch a point, if the executable >makes it onto somebody's hard disk, it's effectively public), I don't >really understand how the above can be made a realistic goal. Windows 95 is on a lot of people's hard drives. It is therefore public and available for every one's inspection. How many people do you know that have reverse engineered Windows 95. How many of those use a reverse engineered version. I'd venture it is zero out of zero. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

3 2

Re: Forgery, bills, and the Four Horsemen (Articles and Comment)
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) > So it is harder to compile dosiers on people. Big deal. The recipient can > still determine who gets the goods paied for by the "anonymous" ecash by > conventional means (hint: shipping address), so the payee anonymity is of > little value as far as protecting the privacy of the payer (most likely > the recipient of the goods) is concerened. This would be true for physical goods in any payment system, no matter how anonymous, unless physical remailers are used (and they have their limitations). However software (including music, video, etc.) would be easier to deliver anonymously. It is generally agreed that more of our economy is moving towards information exchanges and so ecash-like systems can play an increasingly larger part in protecting privacy. To me, this is indeed a big deal. Even for physical goods, the use of ecash is better than credit cards because the information about purchases is distributed rather than centralized. Every time I look at my credit card bill I feel dismayed at what the company is finding out about my family. Ecash could also be used as a cash replacement in smartcards. Consider as an alternative a fully traceable payment system, where you use your debit card at the supermarket, the bus station, the snack bar, the drug store. I suspect that if we don't get something like ecash then this system will be the alternative. It opens up possibilities for dossiers that will fulfill Big Brother's dreams. Virtually every move of every citizen will be recorded in just a few centralized places. IMO the protection of payor privacy that even Chaum's limited ecash provides is very important. > Ecash of course is of *no* value for the various assasination markets, > drug dealing, money laundring, etc that routinely get mentioned in the > same paragraph as Ecash. The reason is the *full traceability* of the > payee that has been deliberately built into the current version of Ecash. > A "feature" that you may rest assured will be part of all future versions > backed by anyone with even marginal reputation in the financial markets. Well, I have never fully accepted the notion that crypto was going to usher in an age of anarchy. As long as we deal with physical goods in the physical world it seems to me that anonymity will be difficult. On the net it is easier but man does not live by bits alone. For me, protecting privacy is a difficult enough problem. Transforming the world into a libertarian/anarchist utopia is somebody else's job. Hal P.S. Without seeing the technical specs it is hard to describe in detail, but generally Chaumian ecash allows fully anonymous coerced transfers. The payee/coercer supplies the blinded coins and forces the payor to use them to make withdrawals from his account. The resulting signed tokens are passed to the coercer who unblinds them and now has fully anonymous, untraceable cash tokens which he can spend.

1 0

Re: Forgery, bills, and the Four Horsemen (Articles and Comment)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:32 9/5/95, Bryce Wilcox wrote: >I hope I'm not missing anything here. Only that Ecash has no benefits for transactions that are of an illegal nature. The meaning of "illegal" is of course increasing as new laws are passed every session of the legislature. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: Are booby-trapped computers legal?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:19 AM 9/6/95, Jim Choate wrote: >> Thus, I suspect it is fully legal to build an electrified fence around >> one's PC, providing suitable warnings are included. >> > >As far as I know the owner of property has no legal right to kill a person >either traspassing or stealing it in any of the 50 states. There was a >recent federal ruling that basicly says that if you meet a burglar in your >home at nite you can not kill or otherwise harm them unless you're life is >directly threatened. In short, you MUST give up the ground if at all >possible. Federal and all 50 states (as far as I have been able to >determine) rule human life to have a inherantly higher value than property >of any type (this does not apply to government institutions). Well, I wasn't saying one had a legal right to kill a person either trespassing or stealing, I was saying that electrified fences carrying lethal voltages are extant. How they got that way, and what licenses are involved, is unknown to me. But they do exist. >In Texas and all other cattle states that I am aware of, there are specific >laws that limit how much voltage and current capacity an electrified fence >can have. These laws specificaly prohibit any form of lethal installation. >There is no license required nor do you have to mark the fences as electrified. Cattle fences are not what I was talking about. I have an electrified fence on one side of my property, to keep the deer away. Lethal voltage fences, to keep humans out, are another matter. .... >I don't know what you call it but if nothing else it is ethicaly and moraly >reprehinsible. Different strokes for different folks. Anyone entering my house unannounced faces lethal response. I think of it as evolution in action, and doubt I would lose any sleep over this. It has nothing to do with equating human life over property, it has to do with defending one's property and (maybe) one's life. Here in California, it is becoming more and more common for "home invasions" to be followed by execution of all of the witnesses. (Read "The San Jose Mercury News" for accounts of gang invasions in which all the residents in a home are lined up and shot, excecution-style.) I won't get into a discussion of which states permit lethal force responses, as this is a topic which even I think belongs in talk.politics.guns or similar fora. Suffice it to say that most states allow lethal response under threatening circumstances. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Are booby-trapped computers legal?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I've changed the name of this thread.) At 2:30 AM 9/6/95, Lucky Green wrote: >I am wondering about the legalities of booby trapped computer equipment. >Would it be legal if a clear warning to the fact was posted on the >hardware? There are two types of "booby traps" to consider: * Type 1 Booby Trap: a shotgun is placed inside a home, set to fire if and when a burglar enters. Or an electrified region of a room is set to "get energized" when an intruder enters. These are "surprises" and are canonical booby traps. These have been found to be illegal in several court cases. (I'm not a lawyer, but I've been reading about them for 20 years. Famous cases where a burglar sued, and won, because he was injured when breaking into a house.) * Type 2 Booby Trap: electrified perimeter fences. So long as these are adequately marked ("If you touch this fence, you will probably die"), and are not public nuisances where children and pets will inadvertently validate Darwin's theory, these are--I think--legal. There may be license fees required, to build an electrified fence, but I think it is possible to build a lethal voltage electrified fence on one's property. Thus, I suspect it is fully legal to build an electrified fence around one's PC, providing suitable warnings are included. I would not call the second type a real booby trap, though some courts might, depending. A properly labelled electrified fence seems legal, on one's own property, but may not be. And certainly I think any explosive-rigged system is illegal, for explosives reasons if not for booby trap reasons. I know of no case law on this, and suspect that if an FBI agent were to be electrocuted or blown up upon trying to open/use/disconnect the PC, even with clear warnings, that a prosecution would happen. Results are unclear (to me). (I think that if an FBI agent were to be electrocuted while climbing on a clearly labelled electrified fence, no prosecution would result.) Of course, if a PC were to be clearly labelled as being rigged, then steps could presumably be taken to defuse the arrangement. >Interesting side note: a few months ago, several hundred 5 gallon >containers of insecticide were stolen from the lot of an agricultural >supply dealer here in California. The incident made a small note in the SF >Chronicle. It was mentioned that the FBI is taking part in the >investigation. > >What wasn't mentioned was that this insecticide is an ideal precursor to >various forms of neuro toxins, namely Tabun and Soman, two types of nerve >gas so vicious and toxic that even Hitler refused to approve their use. I >predict that eventful times are just around the corner. As Lucky knows, I live out in the country. I agree that some "muckers" (R.I.P. John Brunner) are likely to mount assaults on urban centers. Bad news for some. But then the good news is that the threat of nuclear annihilation has all but gone away completely, and that cancels out an awful lot of the minor bad news items the scribblers keep telling us are so awful. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

12 11

Re: Growth of actions definded as crime. Which math formula?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23:56 9/5/95, Black Unicorn wrote: rypted mail preferred. > >Really it's hard to answer this because what constitutes a "NEW" act is a >real question in and of itself. > >For example, wire fraud. Is it a "NEW" crime? Or just a subset of >fraud, or mail fraud? If they guy would have gotten away before the new law was passed, it is a new crime. That's the stats I am looking for. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: Forgery, bills, and the Four Horsemen (Articles and Comment)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:42 9/5/95, Bryce Wilcox wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >I, Bryce Wilcox <bryce.wilcox(a)colorado.edu> wrote: >> >> >I hope I'm not missing anything here. > > >shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) wrote: >> >> Only that Ecash has no benefits for transactions that are of an illegal >> nature. The meaning of "illegal" is of course increasing as new laws are >> passed every session of the legislature. > > >Chaum says that (especially when speaking before U.S. Congress) but I think >he is playing both sides of the fence. He is a die-hard privacy advocate who >allegedly turns down lucrative business deals because he feels they would >dilute his privacy achievements. The truth is that Chaumian DigiCash is a >*lot* safer for criminals than, say, credit cards, and when it is combined >with the other tools in a money launderer's toolbox, I expect it will be a >great boon to them. Chaum is a privacy advocate when it comes to companies compiling dosiers on you. When it comes to criminal use, my conversations with Chaum, his public comments, and last not least the current implementation of his software suggest otherwise. > >Suppose you have acquired a million dollars worth of legal, above-board >DigiCash dollars and you want to surreptitiously transfer this wealth to a >below-board friend. Your friend creates a temporary anonymous account at an >understanding bank. Y Won't work. Ecash, except as used for frequent flyer like points, will exist in only *one* world wide e$ currency, issued by a single entity composed of various major banks and subject to US laws. Getting Ecash accounts will therefore be subject to the same legal requirenments that apply to normal US checking accounts. >Now without active physical surveillance, nobody other than yourself and your >friend will ever know where the money went, and you can't prove that you gave >it to him, either... You or a sting operation can always reveal the recipient by publishing the blinding factor. Besides, your Ecash client keeps a log of the payees. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: Growth of actions definded as crime. Which math formula?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:00 9/6/95, Black Unicorn wrote: >> If they guy would have gotten away before the new law was passed, it is a >> new crime. > >This is very rare. It's mostly in definitional cases, for example, where >Extacy was just not defined as a controlled substance some years ago. > >Created crimes are few and far between. Excurse my ignorance, but it just begs the question. Why then all the new laws? Just to twist the penalty screw another turn? Confused, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: Scientology and police visit XS4ALL Amsterdam
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anon.penet.fi succinctly scribed: > If a police officer has a warrant then I really don't have much > choice about letting him in. Am I also under an obligation to > allow the people who filed for the warrant into my home or > business? The aren't, but they do, and only a good civil rights lawyer can help you out of the resulting quagmire. It's done in a lot of civil cases, particularly where restraining orders are used. Love ALways, Carol Anne -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Re: Police and scientology visit XS4ALL Amsterdam
by Kari Laine 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> PRESS RELEASE > ------------- > Police and members of Scientology church enter offices of XS4ALL > ================================================================ They really are not getting it - are they stupid or what? Scientology people are not behaving so I take a standing that I don't have to behave when I treat them as well. Good, remember they started it ... > Today at about 14:00, XS4ALL was visited by Mr. S. Braan, > bailiff. Sorry to hear that Mr. Braan >Religious Technology Centre O camoon - that name sounds great what's inside it? Research department of Brainwashing? Wast that the technology you tried to sell to CIA? And luckily CIA told you to piss off. >, better known as the Scientology Church, or > Scientology for short. He was assisted by a local police officer and Mr. > Hermans from the 'Nauta-Dutilh' legal firm that represents Scientology > in The Netherlands. We would need a list of all legal offices representing scienos in all countries. Also does anyone has a list of top scienos and some kind of organization flow chart of this evil emperium? >Also present were two computer experts (Mr. Ootjes > and Mr. Van Suchtelen) a locksmith (to enter had we not been present) and > two American employees of Scientology, Mr. Weightman and Ms. Jenssen. Does anyone has tel number to these Co$s? > Scientology is filing for seizure of XS4ALL's computer equipment. Under > dutch law, this means that a bailiff comes in to record your assets. In > real-life, the computer-experts that were present have recorded the > types and serial numbers of all the computers in our offices. They did > not take any equipment, the continuity of XS4ALL's services is not in > jeopardy. Good - you have civilised police there. > XS4ALL is not alone in receiving this kind of attention from > Scientology. Scientology, a semi-religious multinational, is at war with > a number of people on the Internet. They wan't a war - well let's give them one! I don't mean this bashing in the net - I mean a REAL WAR! Co$ has been on offensive for some time now and they must be got to the defence mode. > Until recently, the church has always managed to supress critical voices > by means of sheer intimidation and by engaging in endless legal battle. I think it would be a jolly good day if they would try that against me. I would make best of it... > One of these documents is a piece to which Scientology supposedly holds > the copyright and which has been added to the kit without the church's > permission. Screw with their permission. Sorry for the raw language but I get so damn angry when I even see these scienos mentioned. To fight them we need an organization to fight them. Todays situation is like uncontrolled and thefore unoptimised guerrilla operations. Results will be weak. Best Regards Kari Laine Kari Laine buster(a)klaine.pp.fi LAN Vision Oy Tel. +358-0-502 1947 Sinikalliontie 14 Fax +358-0-524 149 02630 ESPOO BBS +358-0-502 1576/1456 FINLAND

1 0