- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Declan pro-cencorship (sorta) (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:03 PM 2/15/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >Then you are saying that the only way to send email to yourself, for >example, is to contact you prior to the transmission and obtain your >permission to send the traffic? That's fine - people who take this approach may get less mail from interesting people as well as getting less mail from spammers. It's easy to find mail forwarding systems that don't cost much and will filter out well-known spam, either for free or for a small fee. Pobox.com offers this, and I think the iname.com systems do also; I don't know about hotmail and other web-based mailreaders. >Why should the fact that I have a mailbox on my front porch while you use a >mailbox (that you pay extra for) at the post office matter to my ability to >send you a letter in the mail? Should I call you on the phone and ask your >permission before sending it? Should I not get some mechanism to contact >you before contacting you using the phone? No ,I assume because local calls >are flat rate and therefore don't increase your out of pocket expense? Then >perhaps the problem is you're choice of payment for net connections? Why >does your choice of personal expense effect my ability to send traffic? Most of us have flat-rate email, and the important cost is our attention span, not the transmission cost. For other people, that's not true, and sending them junk mail _is_ ripping them off financially as well as ripping off their time and concentration. As far as "how do you know something is bulk mail"? The sender knows, and the sender is the one being rude to thousands of receivers if it is bulk mail. >If we accept the free-market view then we should expect all net connections >to be flat rate since this provides the consumer, the final arbiter in >free-market theory, the most bang for the buck. This does not apply in countries that still have Government-granted Monopoly Postal/Telephone/Telegraph companies. It also doesn't apply in places where the Telephone Company decides to charge for connect time by the minute rather than flat rate - even if your internet provider is flat rate, you may be paying 1-5 cents/minute - mildly annoying on a US salary, and much more so on a Polish salary. And in a free market, you'd expect a mix of options, since different people have different net connection needs, financial constraints, and communications costs. My main ISP offers an 800 number for about 10 cents/minute, and I sometimes use it when I'm on the road at hotels with stupider-than-usual telephone systems. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:20 AM 2/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >> Parents had that ability before. Cable boxes have a "perental control key" >> on the side that enables them to lock out "offensive" channels. It works >> quite well and is fairly hard for the kidlets to defeat. (I used it to >> lockout the religious stations and home shopping channels.) > >When I was a kid some friends down the street knew how to unlock the >Channel 100 XXX movies with a paper clip. A V-chip would hopefully >be more sophisticated, but then again, so are today's kids... Sshhh! You are not supposed to tell them that! >> The "V-Chip" debate is a mirror of the one that occured when the cable >> channels were starting to become popular. There was a big hue and cry about >> kids getting to the "naughty" channels without parent concent. Seems most >> people do not even learn how the lockouts work. (And are too lazy to learn.) > >You should check out your nearest H/P BBS or ftp-site... Yeah, I know it can be hacked. I also know that if they are that interested in sex, NOTHING I do is going to stop them. (Which is as it should be. If they have no exposure to any sexual material as a youth, some rather nasty problems tend to crop up as adults. (Take a look at the studies of sexual predators.) But that is a point avoided by the moralists...) >> You have to remember that most of the people arguing for TV filters are >> looking for a way to make the "offensive" stuff go away for good. (Either >[..] > >A very good point. One that makes me wary of V-Chips... It makes me very wary of them. What gets me are all the people here who talk about them as if they will have useful features. They will be about as useful as the ratings on video games. ("Hey, theres a cool one! This one has flying mangled bodies! Its OK though. No sex!") --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:55 AM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >>You mention the issue of Rushdie, as if it is some sort of refutation of my >>idea. Quite the contrary; I think it actually supports me. >> >>How so?, you ask? Well, let's consider any potential assassin who might be >>interested in this "contract." Aside from the obvious moral issues involved >>here (Rushdie has, presumably, done nothing to warrant his death), the truth >>is that such a potential assassin would see a number of problems that would >>strongly dissuade him from attempting to kill Rushdie. >> >>1. There is no way he could be assured that he could collect the award >>anonymously. His name would certainly "get out," and then he would be >>subject not merely to "the law," but also anybody who wanted revenge for >>Rushdie's death. >> >>2. There is no way he could be assured that he would actually receive the >>award. (How would he prove HE did it?) >> >>3. That's because there is no way he would enforce this "contract" should >>the offerer refuse to pay. > >These points would not affect a devout Iranian Muslem. To him the death >warent has already been issued by legitimate authority. It is not even >clear that money would be his princple motivator. Which simply proves my point; money is not the limiting factor, here. >I must respectifully disagree with Jim in this case. I believe that >Rushdie has not been hit because the protection he enjoys is sufficent to >repel the potential assassins. Note that he has an advantage over the US >president (who probably has as many potential assassins) in that he does >not need to make public appearences. But remember, Rushdie is merely ONE PERSON. And keeping him safe has consumed a lot of resources. You don't think the government could protect each of their most publically hated employees to a similar level if a reward of, say, $20,000 were put on each of their heads. How much could we collect to "get" Lon Horiuchi, for example? Or the hundred or so agents immediately participating in the initial Waco incident, or the dozen or so decision makers immediately above them? Etc. The Rushdie incident is simply so far removed from "Assassination Politics" that it can't possibly be used to refute it; I still believe it actually demonstrates how much effort somebody has to go to, to protect a targeted person. One targeted person is easy to protect. 10,000 would be FAR harder. And the moment a few of those guys got "whacked," the rest would want to resign their jobs and hope they would be allowed to retire in peace. >Adding money to the pot will attract rational (and amoral) people who will >then make a determination based on (1) profit, and (2) risk, which includes >getting caught or killed. It seems to me that Secret Service levels of >protection can protect a public figure against even Assassination Politics. In a sense, qualitatively you absolutely correct, but (quantitatively) you're wrong. I think the problem is that when most people hear the term "Assassination", they think of only the highest-level targets. Quite the contrary; I think this system will get the medium and even the lower-level people FIRST, de-populating the government primarily by hurried resignations of worried people. The remaining people would be terrified to actually make anybody angry, and they wouldn't have a paycheck because they couldn't collect any taxes. The whole system would collapse in a heap. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto Something is going to happen. Something...Wonderful! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSDmO/qHVDBboB2dAQFeOgP/bpXFbTfw1R/iTRsWOrEZJI22N4nFPWX3 XBN2dx106jTdx/eoYz1rhjiaeZt/FzB83DABj34HuVPkws1OPEQ2e6Dneva5RjHK QJFN4Po9SN03fb+7l3yp5Axr/1P4j4eiao4t0oAF+NPNk2FzU2LvHEMpbIawme0B AC6Uv4nR8hc= =9lr1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rm> }Your other arguments casually dismiss the very real power that large numbers }of able people with good communications can exercise, have just exercised }very recently. } }Nation states are a new creation. In the past many different }kings ruled many different bits of one nation, and one king often }ruled parts of more than one nation. } }Today nation states are almost universal, and people can no longer }imagine what a nation is, other than a nation state. But the net }is a nation, and is not a state, and nationalism is a force that }governments usually cannot withstand. <rm> I'll just come out admit right now that I read Wired. Yeah, sue me. But my point is that there was an article in 4.01 (January) on page 86 titled "Is Government Obsolete? Is the free market all we need to build a robust and democratic political economy for the 21st century?" I think the govt sees the beginning of the end. They will not be completely done away with, but they will lose the vast amount of power that they now have and be reduced in size till they are functioning as a mediator of disputes between this country and others, a regulator of some laws involving ecology, labor laws, and so on. But they will have lost control over the direction of the nation. Will the nation be able to be cohesive without them? I don't even think our concept of what a nation is will be the same when that time eventually does come. One think does stand to reason though, when govt gets in the way of business, govt eventually gets run over. Regulating the net in content brings them one step closer to obsolescence. The govt is not yet in it's death throwes, but it has seen it's own fate. The net regulation is one more feeble attempt at avoiding destiny. King Laius will not avoid his fate by sending his son away this time, just like he didn't the first time. "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.---That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ---That whenever any Form of government becomes destructive to those ends, it os the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such priciples and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accostomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." >From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: Spin Control Alert (LI Newsday, 2/12/96)
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:22 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >I do hope the religious right keeps fighting against GAK. However good >their intentions may be on *that* issue, it is transcendently obvious to >anyone who has been following the flux on Capitol Hill that they were >behind the recent push to regulate the Internet. Not obvious to me. While the religious right clearly supported the push to regulate the internet, the main push seemed to me to come from the existing mass media, primarily the three big TV channels. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

RE: LI Newsday OpEd: Criminal Justice System
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Perry E. Metzger > >Tim, you don't work for a living. Some of us do. You might try to >think back and remember what it was like in the days when you still >did something every once in a while and had a limited amount of time >available in which to do it. ....................................................................... That's right: crytpo-anarchy is a time-consuming business, and there isn't much time in which to prepare for the New Cyberspatial Millenium. Everybody get Back To WORK !! :>) .. >Blanc >

1 0

No Subject
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Yet if I read you correctly earlier, you don't think the USG has the right >to regulate those communications. Why the distinction ? Okay, obviously I need to drop down a gear & explain *my* feelings: Part of the definition of a "sovereign nation" is to define and carry out both high and low justice over it's domain - the absolute right of a sovereign. Is not mentioned in the US constitution because it was a given. Further, the purpose of the US Constitution is to: a) define what the sovereign was (three branches - rock, scissors, & paper) b) set forth certain limitations on that sovereign ("Congress shall make no law...") c) define certain duties of the sovereign (regulation of foreign commerce...) (am simplifying so please bear with me) There are some things which for which the rationale is not apparent since the times have changed ("corruption of blood" is a "Congress shall not" that related back to English law of the time). What "Attainder" was is not mentioned since it was well understood. No this gets us back to the question: to me, "regulation of foreign commerce" has two elements - one is to prevent illegal commerce or traffic in goods that are contrary to "the public good". The other is to promote American trade and intrests overseas. The two go together and is the point I made at the NIST gathering in December. Quid pro quo. "Free speech" means that a citizen is free to speak (communicate) anthing, anytime, anywhere. This is the right guarenteed by the first amendment. This does not relieve the individual from being liable for the consequences of the exercise of "free speech". However, the government is under no obligation (though in the silly seventies it seemed that we were going that way) to aid or abet in the exercise of free speech. If it were properly and legally decided that communications with anon.penet.fi is against "national interest" then the sovereign has not only the "right" but the *duty* to block/monitor such communications. Now as to the second part of the question, I have never said that the conditions mentioned above could not legally exist (though I have my doubts about legality internally and between citizens - is part of the reasons American Corporations have never had a problem getting a license for use with foreign offices). What I said was that any such regulation would be impossible to enforce for two reasons: 1) While current crypto advertises its presence, crypto exists which is indestinguishable from random noise and would be impossible to prove was used. Further it would be necessary to specify what was not crypto (and the law frowns on negatives). Navaho, Basque, PKZIP, and EBCDIC are examples that fall readily to mind. 2) The second objection is more obscure but should be considered in places that lack our constitutional protections: given a message, any message, I can demonstrate a OTP or algorithm that will turn that into any message desired. Therefore just the existance of a message and a decrypt would be insufficient to prove the "chain" that one led from/to the other. Thus in the one case, I referring to the obligations/limitations that our constitution places on the US government (is what it is really about). In the other I was referring to what it is *possible* for the government to do without considering legality (if they can't, does not matter if legal). Does this clear up the confusion ? Warmly, Padgett ps just to add some more wood "any law that can not be demonstrated to be universally enforceable with the resources allocated should be repealed".

3 2

Response to Perrygram
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:33 PM 2/13/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Tim, you don't work for a living. Some of us do. You might try to >think back and remember what it was like in the days when you still >did something every once in a while and had a limited amount of time ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >available in which to do it. > Perry once again resorts to insults. Constantly belittling the efforts of others suggests deepseated psychological doubts about his own contributions. Shows you the reaction I get for even responding to him. My mistake. Perry should learn how to use mail filters, then he can simply filter out all the stuff he doesn't want to see. Or, simply hitting the 'delete" key in whatever reader he is using...surely typing "D" 20 or 30 times a day takes far less time than writing one of his perrygrams? --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled 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."

3 2

Netscrape's Cookies
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ready the article about the COOKIE.TXT file that Netscape creates. Apparently my copy has yet to modify it since it was installed... so much for 'hacking' it (I decided to try and leave it write-protected for now). I'm curious if anyone knows which sites use/modify it. Also wondering why Netscape seems to touch/modify the certification key files every time it runs. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

3 2

MS CryptoAPI (fwd)
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.microsoft.com/intdev/inttech/cryptapi.htm A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warmish here.

1 0