- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

U.S.S. Liberty
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy Maypole digs into his cesspool of a mind for his mailing list fertilizer. _ o |<)_/# Timothy Maypole TT <T

1 0

Denning paper on crypto, EU mandatory GAK
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I ran across a new (new to me; it's dated 2/19/97) paper by Dorothy Denning re crypto and crypto policy/legislation. Historically, her work has proven to precede/predict policy shifts on the part of the US government. The paper has little information which is new to a reader of cpunks; but I did note one ominous paragraph referring to the role of "TTPs" in Europe: >>>> The European Commission has been preparing a proposal to establish a European-wide network of Trusted Third Parties (ETS) that would be accredited to offer services that support digital signatures, notarization, confidentiality, and data integrity. The trust centers, which would operate under the control of member nations, would <<<< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> hold keys that would enable them to assist the owners of data with emergency decryption or supply keys to their national authorities on production of a legal <<<< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> warrant. The proposal is expected to be adopted by the Commission, with discussions provisionally scheduled in the Council of the European Union for the first half of 1997 [22] <<<< Also see <http://www.seven77.demon.co.uk/krisis/>, which appears to be the home page for a pilot project creating a software and political/corporate infrastructure for Europe-wide GAK. Yow. Also of interest is her cite <http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/Trends.html#29> to John Young's archived version of the 12/30/96 revision of the EARs instead of the BXA's. The paper itself is at <http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/Trends.html>; like it or not, it may prove to be a useful insight into what's coming in 1997/1998. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBM0oWVP37pMWUJFlhAQEClgf/WIIWSILMpyM47o1LU83cS78V7OHuSpJM WsSrajoKX4TxbH/+Dwcwjf/s8IFI41+rj9VcL+pucXN+HarztYJpT6MX80ULI6sa EvmpXZ2gfKBisvHs9co2CRvSHwTip03sJvciGxilk0V70jNPaSZfRPb+22wsQerl his86IqSUt1OQFkXLmiOCak0z1jT6D25AoVCc+M0EoKfE7KwmOdoiFxhrAw1/HqZ 09H98nB55fS207zBsKW6b0u2zQfA9pTHeNfRn7V1PHnqaO4iprGy4SDMvbh/4t87 1wznAc25Un1QwTPTAjQypS7vS+qlMGRUPIO2uwzCi6HuK84c2Tf9Cw== =qR1F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

3 2

some arguments for privacy
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple of weeks ago I asked for some arguments in favor of privacy. I pointed out that one person's increased privacy exerts negative externalities on others by reducing their available information. I wanted to know why more privacy might be beneficial to society despite this consideration. I didn't really get the answers I wanted, probably because I wasn't clear about the kind of arguments I had in mind. Anyway, here I give some arguments of my own, which I hope offer new perspectives on this issue. Privacy as Insurance Suppose you are looking for a job. It seems reasonable to argue that if you are a better than average worker, you would be able to get a better offer if you had less privacy because the potential employers would be better able to distinguish your abilities from your past history. On the other hand less privacy would hurt you if you are a worse than average worker. If you don't yet know your own abilities, you would prefer more privacy as an insurance against your own potential deficiencies. If that doesn't seem realistic, consider how the argument might apply to your children. This line of reasoning also explains why people are troubled by genetic screening. Thus privacy might increase social welfare by providing a sort of social insurance. Privacy as Restriction on Signaling "Signaling" is a term used by game theorists to describe the use of publicly observable actions to provide information to others about one's private attributes. The best example comes from biology, where male peacocks grow extravagant tails to signal their genetic fitness to females. Clearly signals must be costly, otherwise they wouldn't be convincing. They are often also wasteful, as in the peacock example. (As a side note, the deposit solution to the junk mail problem I talked about some days ago is an example of non-wasteful signaling.) Privacy reduces the range of actions one can use as signals. This would increase social welfare if the wastefulness of the signals exceed the benefit they provide in the form of useful information. Consider a possible future where every room in every house is wired with a camera that continously broadcasts to the Internet. Life would certainly be very uncomfortable in this future, as every trivial action must be carefully considered in order to preserve one's reputation. Possible Benefit of Non-Privacy Limited This is more of an argument for privacy technology, rather than privacy per se. Suppose that privacy-invading technology becomes much cheaper than privacy-enhancing technology. Given the arguments above it seems inevitible that governments will pass laws to restrict the distribution of certain kinds of information about individuals. But of course this will not keep the information out of the hands of those governments themselves and other resourceful organizations. Thus any possible benefit of decreased privacy in the form of market efficiency would be severely limited since only a few market players would have improved information. This benefit would be easily outweighted by the harm in the form of governments' increased coercive power.

4 4

Re: Anti-Spambot: what algorithm should be used?
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

owner-cypherpunks(a)manifold.algebra.com writes: > As we all know, there exist certain programs, called "spambots", whose > task is to post various messages to many newsgroups simultaneously. > > Besides their posting functionality, certain spambot programs take > special care to make their spams undetectable by anti-spambots. In > particular, they can be programmed to modify certain fields or the > message text itself in such a way that these messages would not look > unique, but would still carry the same content. I just came up with yet another brilliant idea how to combine Usenet marketing with e-cash. Suppose Alice runs an advertizing agency and gets paid to publicize certain messages of commercial or political nature. She sets up a Web page listing the catalog of regexps that she wishes to publicize. Something like: 1. Visit.*teens.*http://www.xxxfoo.bar 2. Elect.*John M. Grubor.*sheriff 4. For a drooling good time.*900-555-5555 3. Drink Kaka Cola and a price list for each regexp - say, $2 for posting this regexp in a moderated newsgroup, 50c for the Big 8, 25c for alt and regionals. I'm not sure if cross-posts should be discounted. Assuming there are several such Alices, the prices will be set by supply and demand. Suppose Bob, in search of a few quick bucks, comes across Alice's site. We'd have to think of a protocol, but Alice assigns Bob an id which he must mention together with the regexps in order to get credit. Alice and Bob enter a contract. Bob puts one or more of Alice's regexps in his Usenet articles - most likely in the .signature. For example: From: bob Newsgroups: rec.sports.phishing,alt.fan.alice Message-ID: <123(a)bob.server> <something phishing-related> -- Elect John M. Grubor sheriff!!! Alice's ID# 123456 I am Bob! I am Bob! I am Bob the Poster! Drink Kaka Kola Alice's bot searches the Usenet feed (like K*bo and S*rd*r) for the regexps that she is paid to promote. When she encounters Bob's article, it extracts Bob's ID and the Message-Id, counts the distinct regexps, and the newsgroups, and credits Bob's account. If Carol follows up on Bob's article and quotes Bob's regexps and ID#, then Bob gets paid again. If somehow an article contains the ID# of two or more of Alice's agents, they split the fee. Alice's contract can also specify that if a third party forges a cancel within a week for Bob's Usenet article containing the regexp, then Alice will pay nothing and let Bob sue the forger for the lost income. (This may become moot as more and more ISPs ignore forged cancels.) This gives Bob the insentive to spam intelligently - not to trigger any cancelbots and not to have his plug pulled by his ISP. Alice can also put some reasonable caps on the number of repetitions because if Bob posts the same regexp 10,000 times, the marginal exposure is less from Bob than from a newbie Carol. Again, if there are several such Alices, the market will take care of negotiating such details. Actually, this doesn't even need e-cash - Alice can pay regular $$$. Hi Ross - if you're still on these lists, I think you'll like this. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Re: AP Revisited
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Roberts suggestively wrote: >>The War on Drugs was first declared by President Nixon. It has been a >>failure ever since. >No, the "War on Drugs" was in Vietnam. > >Dr. Roberts Lost that one too. AP is OK if it's a bounty on drug dealers. More hypocrisy. Ms. Dr. Roberts

1 0

Kent Crispin-Baker
by null＠myemail.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 1997 at 07:24:03PM -0600, Toto wrote: > > Kent Crispin wrote: > > > > > > In fact, a case could be made for > > > considering Jim Bell as a NSA shill. > > So, now Kent is volunteering to testify to the fact that Jim Bell is > > an NSA shill. (and still seems ashamed of his .gov address) > Just so you know, Toto, .gov informs me it doesn't want there to be > the slightest possibility of anyone thinking I am speaking for it. Amazing that they notified you right after I made note of it, isn't it? > And the part about Jim Bell being an NSA shill? I am not volunteering > to testify to anything, but your are the *second* person to say > something about it, so it *must* be true. And the part about the > statist agenda? That must be true too, since you quoted it. I think that they are confusing you with Hallam-Baker, who offered to testify against Bell in court. This is an understandable error, since even a modicum of traffic analysis shows that you work in concert with one another. > -- > Kent Crispin > kent(a)songbird.com [ And, lest we forget: kc(a)llnl.gov ] TruthMonger ************************************************************************ This Anonymous email has been relayed by http://www.MyEmail.net/ MyEmail.Net is a free anonymous mailing service. No records indicating the identity of person(s) who originated this message are retrieved electronically, or as a requirement to submit. Your email address can be blocked to prevent further contact from this service, please refer to the URL above for instructions on how to do so. ************************************************************************

2 1

Re: AP Revisited
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > Like Insurance? By purchasing insurance you are in effect > > betting that you _will_ have an accident that does more damage than > > you have paid in premiums. > > > > Really contorted huh? > > Hmm, I hadn`t thought of that, this is an interesting way to see AP: > Taking out a life insurance policy on someone else... But of course - entities that sell insurance/write options refer to their business as "making bets" and that's exactly what it is. By the way a lot of people in the finance industry are compulsive gamblers who lose tremendous amounts of money on horses, sports events, Atlantic City, etc. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Re: Anti-Spambot: what algorithm should be used?
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 8 Apr 97 at 21:05, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: On or About 8 Apr 97 at 21:05, I think it was Igor who wrote: > > will pay nothing and let Bob sue the forger for the lost income. > > (This may become moot as more and more ISPs ignore forged > > cancels.) This gives Bob the insentive to spam intelligently - not > > to trigger any cancelbots and not to have his plug pulled by his > > ISP. Right, but this is where a tool comes in that lets you post a seemingly "on topic" post to hundreds of newsgroups with the "Drink Kaka Kola, Elect John, etc." in the sig file. This also makes it harder for an article to be canceled, I imagine. Or you can do it by hand. I am sure that in a 40 hour week I could post seemingly "On-Topic" to many newsgroups. Hell, I'm doing this on a minor scale right now. Bob just needs to be *really* smart. And if he has a good relaitionship with his small, local ISP, then he can proceed as normal. Hell, I never get complaints anymore. Yet, every time I post I advertise my company. Then: On or About 8 Apr 97 at 21:05, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > After Alice's bot finds an eligible Usenet article, it should wait a > week or so to see if it was cancelled or superseded before issuing a > payment. If it's cancelled, then instead of payment it should send a > notice saying: > "Your article with message-id blah posted to blah contains > a message that I'm paying to promote. I would have paid > you $n e-cash, but unfortunately a cancel has been issued > for your article: <quote cancel>" > That should get Bob pretty mad at the 3rd party canceller. :-) Boy, I would be pissed off if I was Bob. This is definitely the scary end of the internet. Most people will never even know about this rash of first amendment violations, that you are calling "forged cancels" and "plug pulling". I am so glad I fell into these groups when I joined the net just about 20 months ago. Funny thing is, it's right where I belong. I always speak my mind and have been known as a trouble maker in the workplace. > Alice needs to maintain a map of (poster,newsgroup,regexp) to # > posts; when it reaches 100, stop paying this poster. I think 100 > mentions by the same poster is way past saturation. > > Ross: yes, unfortunately the spambot is on the back burner right > now, but I definitely will finish it eventually. Well, it seems to me that this is where this conversation is leading. The technology you are talking about here, without talking about it, is quite exciting to me. I'll be reading. Still looking for HP Vectra RS input, Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

new ,CRIPT password
by Sebastia Lancho 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi ! I'm Sebastian from Barcelona. I'm new on internet. I'm a developer.In my first project I did a homebanking but I don't know how cript the password of the users. If somebody has a little C function that can do this please send me! and report me information! many thanks Sebastian tan(a)mss.es

1 0

Re: Sweden Netscape Intra
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> The Swedish plan is something to be avoided. Consider just a few In> quotes: Actually, I was just flying over the text before forwarding it. But after reading it in depth, I agree with you. In> The government gives out the mailboxes. Wanna bet they give out the In> keys, too? Not only that but it would create the e-mail monopoly, that would be the destruction of the de-centralized nature of the Internet (e-mail being part of it). Just imagine, how easy it would be to have a few well publicized cases of remailer-abuse and the Swedish Postal Office therefore decides to automatically block all mail coming from (and maybe even to) remailers. With the majority of people having no clue about remailers in the first place (except what the press will feed them) the protest will be small enough to be ignored. That could even be extended to crypto, as you indicate. If Sweden ever outlaws cryptography, the monopoly would provide a perfect setting of enforcing such (with the few exceptions of where stego is used). The same applies to content and traceability of e-mails. In> (Yes, I understand that the system is being presented as "voluntary." In> For how long? And what happens to non-PTT ISPs when the PTT is a state In> monopoly? (Imagine what would happen if the U.S. Postal Service made a In> deal wherein AOL became the favored provider.) Market-driven "voluntary" measurements tend to be rather forced upon people than anything else. If something is standard then you'll have to use it because most other people do too. That is the danger with monopolies of any kind. This, I am afraid, will happen with crypto-issues in the US itself. I am almost certain, that Windows 97 will adress cryptography in one way or the other. If they put in means to encrypt e-mails for example right from the operating system and independent of the provider, then this would be the death-blow to PGP. And considering the talk about "key-management-infrastructure", then this will be probably the best means to achieve it. In fact, it might not even be a GAK-enabled system, but one that's easy to crack (propriatory algorithm or whatever). The civil-liberty groups have no GAK-issue to talk about anymore and few will understand, why "security through obscurity" is not good. The majority however, who doesn't care anyway much about crypto, will use that slick Windows interface and not worry any further. That would be cause for celebration at the TLA's and the end to wide-spread strong crypto. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! -> http://www.epic.org */ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM0oCzzltEBIEF0MBAQEf4gf/ZINVtWwqyIzYXbi7uDxmTKCdfMS1Xujj /AlYGsmjUeh7UduN2q8YmRqzfuUhA6SNOaT0La+QuqzIOImmY3MfbH9tWc+xWqNQ 4cUC/aPFAl/7SxbXA4lsL4QD8Vnf3Tf2bxt5XUC7TO6lfEW91hblnz1WV2OVimgt pBGhv8b0td+CIAPnGd8WoscbH1NtgZMz+bLaF9zTl22KZerd8tfUbDhPQjWHOzgv Ck0mXTuOPpRXYTO+U9tua1U/Nz2dJN/+VXJO3nUfJOJ8C5eAHimji+IbsoWt1jur O27KvFuIhPtDaQIenv62G8ClmVxvd+XzIJ+43XnEU4r3PmFHgDJLjg== =wREG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0