- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Paper on Electronic Payment Systems (Swedish)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: gustavw(a)wineasy.se (Gustav Winberg) Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:43:23 +0100 From: gustavw(a)wineasy.se (Gustav Winberg) To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Paper on Electronic Payment Systems (Swedish) For all interested and Swedish-speaking (sorry...) list members: I have just completed my graduation thesis in law at the University of Stockholm. The title of the paper is "Elektroniska betalningssystem - Teknisk säkerhet och juridisk osäkerhet" (eng. Electronic Payment Systems - Technological Security and Legal Uncertainty"), and is available at http://www.users.wineasy.se/gustavw where you will find the ToC in HTML and the complete paper in pdf-format (about 230K). If there is sufficient interest, I might consider translating the paper, or parts of it, into English. The legal bits are specifically about Swedish Law, though, so I'm not sure how useful they would be for non-Scandinavians. Any comments or suggestions are greatly welcome and can be sent to gustavw(a)wineasy.se. BTW: Bob, thanks for a great list - I couldn't have done it without you... Cheers! BR, Gustav WInberg --------------------------------------- (ex.) Student of Law and Informatics University of Stockholm, Sweden gustavw(a)wineasy.se --------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

ClipperFUD: tracking smart cards
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: oldbear(a)tiac.net Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 00:20:34 -0500 To: Digital Commerce Society of Boston <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> From: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> Subject: tracking smart cards Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> TRACKING SMART CASH A senior Justice Department official has urged makers of smart carts to include a mechanism for tracking transactions over a certain dollar amount. Assistant Attorney General Robert Litt also called for "sensible limits" on how much value can be stored or transferred on a single card or PC. The government hopes it can work with industry without stifling smart card development, and without compromising individual rights. "We don't want to dictate how these features are designed, but there are certain reasonable parameters that industry should build into their systems," says Litt. source: BNA Daily Report for Executives 29 Oct 96 page A24 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:00 AM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote: >someone abuses that priveledge they may lose it. Plain and simple. It is >also worthy to note that the Right to Free Speech, etc. applies to the >government (IOW, the government can not hinder the right to free speech so >long as that speech does not infringe upon someone else's right. Since when >is this list government run? The decision was apparently a personal one. I don't think anyone has argued that the owner of the list doesn't have the right to remove people from it. However, simply because he has the right to doesn't mean he should, and it also doesn't mean other members can't or shouldn't argue that he made a bad decision (unless, of course, the dissenting members are removed as well.) Many, if not most, members believe the list should be run in a non-authoritarian manner (whoever argued that the term authoritarian applies only to governments is wrong. the difference is a person has the right to act in an authoritarian manner over his own property whereas a government doesn't have that right over it's citizens. Again, however, having the right doesn't necessarily make it "okay"). //cerridwyn//

2 2

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:54:16 -0500 (EST), Will French wrote: > Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still >posting flames? In any case, it's an admission on John >Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some >measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how >much_ authoritarianism we need. > I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell >people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that >functions in a completely open manner". No more. This has been taken far too seriously. Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list. There is no obligation to accept anyone. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

5 5

Unix Review - letter to editor
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ I refer to the article starting on p55 of the Nov 1996 Unix Review. ] -----letter to Ed start here------ Andrew, Congratulations on a welcome crypto article in UR. This is an important topic for security, networks, web-based commerce etc and is only going to increase in importance as people realise data is money. The article did raise my eyebrows a few times though with some wild statements - about the speed of brute-force attacks on DES, and about USG 'key escrow' proposals, patents and key certification. Also there are absolutely crucial issues not touched on, probably for lack of space. Details matter, and if you're contemplating another article on the subject I'd be happy to write it [subject to my boss' approval] or review it before publication. The field moves fast at times, and it would be good to keep an eye on the subject in a fairly regular column. Strangely, your author didn't mention ftp.ox.ac.uk, an ftp site for many good crypto tools, which (as a UK site) is not subject to US export restrictions. -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:45 AM 11/4/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as >the rules violate nobody's rights. > >-Declan Obviously many voluntary religious organizations have quite strict rules for their members and are compatible with libertarianism. Government monopoly regulations that cannot be opted out of are not compatible with libertarianism. Instead of using the loaded term "regulations' it might be better to call things like the rules of the cypherpunk's list "club rules" or protocols. DCF

2 1

free SSL CAs?
by Sam Quigley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any free Certificate Authorities for SSL? I've got a Stronghold server running, and I don't particularly want to pay Verisign/Thawte's high prices, but I do want to be able to do real SSL. I've set up my own CA, and given myself my own cert., but having the same server you're interacting with being the one that's the CA for the transaction leaves the setup open to man-in-the-middle attacks (I'd think, at least...). So, who do I turn to for a cert.? I don't need amazingly trusted or trustworthy security -- maybe just some third party whose site is unlikely to have been compromised, etc... Please respond by email: I've moved to coderpunks, and so won't see replies on cypherpunks. thanks, -sq

4 3

[NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius
by Joe Robinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I regret that after lurking for so long my first post is related to this.... Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: > > The short answer is, No. More specifically, we constantly have > a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks. Some are > technically sophisticated; some are not. In either case, new > readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for > Dimitri's big lies. Nor do they have any way of know what an > abberation his sort of behavior is on this list. "So this is > what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable > misinterpretation of what we're all about. What John did was > appropriate. While it is true that Cypherpunks IS a much sampled list, it's my opinion that the distribution in the level of education among subscribers is rather skewed. I therefore believe that the "average" subscriber to this list would be intelligent and competent enough to form their own conclusions regarding the validity of the opinions expressed by anyone. I like to believe that the labels I assign to groups are based on a representative sampling of the given population, not by the sampling a select few. It's again my opinion that if others can't do that, and <cliche>judge books by their covers</cliche>, it's their loss. and Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> mentioned: > [relevant, well thought-out stuff snipped] > >Given that John Gilmore is the source of the oft-repeated "The net sees >censorship as damage and routes around it" quote, it strikes me as unlikely >that he took the steps he did without some reflection on their meaning, >consequences, and chances of success. I'm sure that the decision wasn't made hastily or lightly. It doesn't change anything though - the damage is done. If even one person doubts the credibility or integrity of either John or the list, then Dr. Vulius has won. and finally, Declan McGullagh <declan(a)eff.org> said: > >With the right to speak freely comes the right to decline to speak. John, >as the owner of the computer maintaining the cypherpunks list, has the >right to decline to speak and to kick off a user who violates the >covenant of the mailing list. > >The kicked-off user has the right to start his own mailing list with >different standards. If he likes, he can establish the rules as a type of >contract to which participants must agree. And observers can criticize >either or both of them. > >Is this censorship, double standards, and hypocrisy? I think not. The problem lies in determining who defines the protocols and punishments, especially on a list such as this. For someone who espouses freedom of speech to arbitrarily censor someone is indeed hypocritical. I'm not defending Dr. Vulius - for some time now, he and a number of others have been filtered into my Humour mailbox. I'm just spewing off about having the _choice_ to ignore him or not, as _I_ see fit, you know - "... and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out." JR

3 3

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:20:15 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> > I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell >> >people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that >> >functions in a completely open manner". No more. >> This has been taken far too seriously. Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list. >> There is no obligation to accept anyone. >Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want to differentiate >between your "rights" and your "privileges"? Can they reject one of your privileges >whenever they want to, at their discretion? No. >So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include >and who to reject? It's a big difference. Can you set up your own mailing list? Yes. Can you go elsewhere? Yes. Can Mr. Vulis send email directly to list-members anyway? Yes. Can you do the same if the government runs it? No. Can you set up your own list/printing press* if the state won't publish your ideas? No. One could apply a similar rationale to socialism - after all, it may seem like an extension of "love your neighbor" to take care of their needs, which is certainly a laudable goal. That's not the problem. The problem is when it becomes mandated *with no alternatives*. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri "Too Hot for Cypherpunks" Vulis writes: > Does saying "The list owner should not kick people off the list for speech" > violate the list owner's right to free speech? That depends on whether plug- > pulling (and mailbombing and ping-storming and other obnoxious behavior) > is speech. The entire, highly recursive question of free speech versus censorship relies almost entirely on the assumption that human beings can be controlled. The observation that certain behavior is obnoxious arises from an inability to control one's own environment at a basic level. Issues such as this have nothing to do with mailing lists or net.protocol, except as vehicles of expression for human conditioning which is already present. Until the fly can be tolerated, removing the shit will only serve to turn one's attention to a new annoyance. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet In a dark alley, a pickpocket tried to snatch Nasrudin's purse. There was a violent struggle, but eventually Nasrudin got the thief pinned on the ground. At this moment, a charitable woman passing called out: "You bully, let the little man up and give him a chance!" "Madam," panted Nasrudin, "you ignore the trouble which I have had getting him down."

1 0