- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

random dot stereo code
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just uploaded to soda a file of code for generating random dot stereograms, as well as the following short description file. This is the code to which I referred a month ago or so. I'm going to play with the code myself as soon as I have time, but because of the expressed interest, I thought I'd give the rest of the list a crack at it as soon as I got permission. - cme ==================================================================== The file stereo.tar.gz holds code for generating random dot stereograms which I discussed earlier on the list. This code is not mine. I received it from a friend of the man who wrote it. She assures me that he doesn't care who uses the code or for what. I haven't run this code myself. - Carl cme(a)sw.stratus.com

1 0

Elm Filtering on CC???
by hatzm＠bigbird.cso.gtegsc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible to get Elm's filter to pick out messages that are cc'd to the cypherpunks list? I would like to keep all the cypherpunk mail in one place and have no trouble getting it properly copied when the message is "to" the cypherpunks list. I'm just not sure how to work on the CC part. Thanks! Mike

1 0

P. Metzger
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Assuming you are not P. Metzger, please help him to understand how to implement a kill file rather than assaulting me with mailbombs. ===cut=here=== [insert minimailbomb here]

1 0

The Depravities of Cypherpunks
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I did not understand Mr. Metzger at first. When he sent me messages in the form `go away and leave us alone' I thought he was suggesting I be censored from the cypherpunks mailing list. Apparently he is only objecting to personal email from me. Well, after receiving 40 messages with the concatenated contents of other messages from him and myself over the matter, in response to the following two, I certainly will not do so. Mr. Metzger did say it was OK for me to post to the Cypherpunks list, for which I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude in his allowing me his permission. He threatened to send me 400 letters the next time I sent him personal mail however, and of course he is certainly capable of it. I mailed postmaster(a)lehman.com, asking him to encourage Mr. Metzger to learn how to use a kill file instead of sending me mailbombs in response to his obvious intense mental anguish at seeing my name <g>, but unfortunately Mr. Metzger is the postmaster at his site. Mr. Hughes is quite perplexed at my sheer rage at Mr. Metzger's unsurpassed childishness. He didn't approve of me attempting to shame Mr. Metzger (a close personal friend, I suppose) into refraining from sending me mailbombs and dealing with his own insanity in a more proactive manner -- like figuring out how to implement a kill file in his mail -- by informing the cypherpunk world of his puerile prank. I told Mr. Hughes that it was likely that Mr. Metzger was his own site administrator (I was not positive at this point, alas). Mr. Hughes has not responded to that letter. Mr. Hughes is also quite puzzled why I should violate Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his `private' mailbomb to other members of the community he (supposedly) resides in. I guess he believes that mailbombs, like everything else, are a private matter. My apologies, Mr. Hughes, for what you consider an inappropriate use of your mailing list. My personal opinion is that I had essentially no other recourse, and even the `recourse' I chose was obviously ineffective! I asked Mr. Hughes to condemn Mr. Metzger's behavior. So far his only comment is that it was `rude'. Maybe he will have another opinion upon learning of Mr. Metzgers 40 letter bomb just received, or his 400 letter threat. Or maybe he thinks that Mr. Metzger is just another patriotic cypherpunk, perhaps even deserving of a medal! Also, I have mail from Mr. Jason Zions (jazz(a)hal.com) also complaining that I violated Mr. Metzger's privacy in revealing his mailbomb to me to the list as a whole. This strange code of cypherpunk chivalry I am not familar with. I am quite bewildered! Perhaps someone can point me to an FTP site housing the Cypherpunk Code of Chivalry. I looked on soda.berkeley.com and found the Cypherpunk Charter (By E.Hughes) talking a lot about things like privacy and software, but it didn't really seem to address the issue of mailbombing. Maybe the basic idea is just privacy *everywhere*, even with cyberspacial assault and societal criminals. I guess I did miss the point. If all the other cypherpunks condone or applaud Mr. Metzger's behavior, please let me know. I'm not really sure what the consensus is on this. (Of course, here, no one can really be sure of the consensus on *anything*! <g>) I certainly haven't heard from anyone I respect yet, assuming these people are still on the list. BTW -- I do get the impression that the list membership is down. Perhaps Mr. Hughes can reveal that directly. Some people have been blaming me for the `deterioration of the list' lately. Another person told me that the list had `quite improved since I stopped posting'. I'm not sure what to make of all this -- unless both were tentacles, I suppose that might explain it all. Frankly, I have been posting very little lately compared to my Golden Cypherpunk Days. (ah, the carefree and naive life of youth.) Also, Mr. Hughes has always advocated software solutions like kill files, and if anyone objects to my presence, please put me in yours. It is silly to continually be offended by me! The people who are interested in listening will not plonk me, and those that are inflamed by my postings *will* -- what could be simpler? That certainly couldn't be a problem for anyone, could it? I mean, if what I am saying has no merit, people will immediately recognize that, right? To paraphrase somebody else, `There is only a message'. * * * P.M., after the 40 letter mailbomb >If you insist on 400 detweiler, I'll send them to you. Last warning. Mr. Metzger, I assure you an apocalypse in cyberspace will happen before I will ever send a message to the address pmetzger(a)lehman.com. In fact, perhaps you could tell me all your other addresses, so I do not inadvertently send mail to them. For example, I had a glimmer of hope that postmaster(a)lehman.com was not you, and paid dearly for it with your 40 letter mailbomb. Mr. Metzger, Do you pseudospoof? This could be a problem. What if I inadvertently send something to one of your tentacles? Does that count? Will you mailbomb me in that case, or just forgive me for my stark ignorance? I have to ask a favor, if you don't--perhaps you could give me a list of all the addresses you post from. I mean, that would compromise the pseudoanonymous security of your identities, but on the other hand I have absolutely no desire to be subject to another explosion in my mailbox when I open my mail! I guess in this case, you might have to decide which is worth more, your hatred for me and insane desire that you not see any communication from me in any form, or your passionate goal of further undetected, secret pseudospoofing. You have to forgive me for my instinct of replying to the letters in my mailbox. It has served me well until now. I assure you I will now make an exception in your case! For example, my response to your last letterbomb threat might have been `please don't do it!' but I now realize that would have gotten me `nowhere' (or wherever it is that bomb victims go) thanks to the previous two mailbombs! Thanks for the valuable education in cyberspacial netiquette! (All my habits and perceptions in cyberspace have been radically altered lately in response to changing circumstances, and your mailbombing is just the latest incarnation, so I certainly shouldn't be complaining!) HOWEVER -- I will continue to post to the cypherpunks list, since you, Mr. Metzger, have so kindly given me permission and I am still not being censored yet. Please, please, please Mr. Metzger, do not interpret this as sending you private mail! I certainly have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to be subject to your 400 LETTER MAILBOMB. Perhaps some other cypherpunks, who have no objections to your behavior so far, and criticize me for taking a stand by condemning it publicly, would like to VOLUNTEER IN MY PLACE. So, here is what bought me the 40 letter mailbomb: ===cut=here===

1 0

Government Accounting Office Report on Communications Privacy
by djw＠eff.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A few days ago, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) -- a pretty sharp internal gov't investigative organization that's about a lot more than accounting -- issued a report on communications privacy. (Much of what's in the report will probably raise of big "duh, we've been saying this for a decade," from cypherpunks and other digerati, but it's still very important to have the GAO saying this stuff.) The report makes four very important findings: 1. Privacy-protecting technology (crytopgraphy) is increasingly important for protecting the security of business communications and personal information. But federal policy is getting in the way of this technology. "Increased use of computer and communications networks, computer literacy, and dependence on information technology heighten US industries risk of losing proprietary information to economic espionage. In part to reduce the risk, industry is more frequently using hardware and software with encryption capabilities. However, federal policies and actions stemming from national security and law enforcement concerns hinder the use and the export of U.S. commercial encryption technology and may hinder its development." 2. The NSA's role in this area is has been extensive, and possibly beyond the spirit of the Computer Security Act. "Although the Computer Security Act of 1987 reaffirmed NIST's reponsibility for developing federal information-processing standards for security of sensitive, unclassified information, NIST follows NSA's lead in developing certain cryptographic standards" 3. Opportunity for public input in the standards process has been insufficient, leading to proposals like Clipper which lack public support. "These policy issues are formulated and announced to the public, however, with very little input from directly affected business interests, academia, and others." The report draws no specific policy conclusions, but provides excellent ammunition for those of us who are trying to open up the standards process and get export controls lifted. Full text of the report (GAO/OSI-94-2 Communications Privacy: Federal Policy and Actions) is supposed to be made available by ftp from GAO. As soon as it is, I'll let people know where it is. ...................................................................... Daniel J. Weitzner, Senior Staff Counsel <djw(a)eff.org> Electronic Frontier Foundation 202-347-5400 (v) 1001 G St, NW Suite 950 East 202-393-5509 (f) Washington, DC 20001 *** Join EFF!!! Send mail to membership(a)eff.org for information ***

2 1

Waving the White Flag
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gosh, it has been very unpleasant lately. I have never been subject to mailbombs, and my postmaster has never been harassed over my postings anywhere (by an Eminent Cypherpunk Leader, no less), before yesterday and today. Yes, I really thank all the cypherpunks for their valuable lessons on the internet and cyberspace. Now we really *can* believe that pseudospoofing inherently promotes a sense of community trust and harmony! All this time, and all the rancor on the list, all our stellar successes in media penetration and identity-subversion protocols can be chalked up to the Joy of Pseudospoofing. I really am grateful for you all in showing me your vision of cyberspace, and how it is superior to all those Orwellian and `Dossier Society' schemes that involve those oppressive identification protocols. shew. Anyway, this letter is an attempt to find a topic that someone will not flame me about, and is relevant to the cypherpunk list as I understand it! Phiber Optik -- I have been watching the trial of Mark Abene, aka Phiber Optik, closely, and I think I even fowarded articles on it to the cypherpunks once. This is a very fascinating trial. We learn, for example, of the first use of wiretaps for digital data (modem communications) for a successful prosecution. Also, we learned about how LOD (Legion of Doom) -- or was it MOD, Masters of Deception, I get all these criminal organizations mixed up! -- infiltrated phone systems. I think I even heard in one news report that some in the group performed illicit wiretaps. I find this *fascinating*. Can anyone elaborate to me the wiretapping that was going on? who did they wiretap? how did they do it? how did they avoid detection? more importantly, have the phone systems been upgraded or modified to be protected from this kind of extremely insidious crime? I read in `Cyberpunk' by K.Hafner and J.Markoff (the latter my favorite cyberspatial writer) that K. Mitnick in California also had this capability of wiretapping, and used it in an extremely sophisticated way. Apparently he actually tapped the lines of police stations and knew when they were coming, or knew when they had detected or `sniffed' his own illegal wiretapping. Did this happen? or is all of this rumor? I remember Phiber Optik posting to *this list* on the subject of phone wiretapping. I think he might have been a bit too knowledgeable for his own good, eh? What ever happened to K. Mitnick, anyway? He did serve federal time, I know that. I remember reading that story and thinking -- here is someone we should keep our eyes on, even after he is out of prison, *especially* when he is out! Conspiracy Charges -- Another question. I understand that Mr. Abene was charged with `conspiracy' or at least that was one of the charges involved in the whole affair, perhaps against others. My question: what is the legal criterion for a `conspiracy'? what are the penalties? did Abene actually get successfully prosecuted for `conspiring'? what was the conspiracy? Did it have anything to do with the wiretapping?what are famous conspiracy cases? I'm sure that some cypherpunks may be knowledgeable on these subjects. I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone in asking. Mr. Finney posted some outstanding analyses of the ITAR (which I subsequently incorporated into a RISKS article), for example, so there is definitely some strong legal background here. please cc: your replies to me or I may not see them.

1 0

A short response to L. Detweiler: 'I exist as myself.'
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Detweiler's recent article on the RISKS of confusing an online identity with a potentially knowable physical one are quite interesting, if hypothetical. I would be interested in hearing of situations where this practice has actually occurred. If any RISKS members know of any such incidents from first-hand experience, please share them with the readership. Unfortunately, I think he really believes that the cypherpunks mailing list has been dominated by a small cabal who have been using multiple identities who talk with each other on the list in order to enforce concensus and to suppress disagreeing positions, namely his. It just ain't so. Therefore, to set the record straight I feel I ought to make the following public statement: I, Eric Hughes, have never posted or communicated in any name other than my own. I can personally testify that I am not the same as any of the other people listed at the end of L. Detweiler's post, and I can testify from personal experience that Arthur Chandler, Hal Finney, Tim C. May, and Nick Szabo are all different people. I also decline to answer, point by point, the numerous defamatory innuendos made by L. Detweiler against the members of the cypherpunks mailing list. Might I also observe that none of the statements are specific enough to actually count as accusation, but merely as general slander? Eric

1 0

On my recent Bcc: to cypherpunks
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just forwarded my own contribution to the RISKS digest. Please, do not reply to the risks(a)csl.sri.com address unless you are submitting something for publication! I realized too lat what a blind carbon copy would do to repliers on the mailing list. Aack. Eric

1 0

Meeting Saturday 13 Nov 93
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting Date: Saturday, 13 Nov 93, the second Saturday of the month as always Time: 12:00 noon - 6:00 p.m. Where: Cygnus Support Offices, Mt. View, CA This month we have planned so far the following: -- Scott Collins on the Newton. Scott is bringing some fellow Apple folk down to talk about the development environment. Since the Newton might be a good platform for a private key holder, we'll examine it. -- The new Schneier book has just hit the bookstores. I just got a copy and will be talking about it. -- The usual announcements and topics from the floor. Eric [Directions to Cygnus provided by John Gilmore. -- EH] Cygnus Support 1937 Landings Drive Mt. View, CA 94043 +1 415 903 1400 switchboard +1 415 903 1418 John Gilmore Take US 101 toward Mt. View. From San Francisco, it's about a 40-minute drive. Get off at the Rengstorff Ave/Amphitheatre Parkway exit. If you were heading south on 101, you curve around to the right, cross over the freeway, and get to a stoplight. If you were heading north on 101, you just come right off the exit to the stoplight. The light is the intersection of Amphitheatre and Charleston Rd. Take a right on Charleston; there's a right-turn-only lane. Follow Charleston for a short distance. You'll pass the Metaphor/Kaleida buildings on the right. At a clump of palm trees and a "Landmark Deli" sign, take a right into Landings Drive. At the end of the road, turn left into the complex with the big concrete "Landmark" sign. Follow the road past the deli til you are in front of the clock tower that rises out of one of the buildings, facing you. Enter through the doors immediately under the clock tower. They'll be open between noon and 1PM at least. (See below if you're late.) Once inside, take the stairs up, immediately to your right. At the top of the stairs, turn right past the treetops, and we'll be in 1937 on your left. The door is marked "Cygnus". If you are late and the door under the clock tower is locked, you can walk to the deli (which will be around the building on your left, as you face the door). Go through the gate in the fence to the right of the deli, and into the back lawns between the complex and the farm behind it. Walk forward and right around the buildings until you see a satellite dish in the lawn. Go up the stairs next to the dish, which are the back stairs into the Cygnus office space. We'll prop the door (or you can bang on it if we forget). Or, you can find the guard who's wandering around the complex, who knows there's a meeting happening and will let you in. They can be beeped at 965 5250, though you'll have trouble finding a phone. Don't forget to eat first, or bring food at noon! I recommend hitting the burrito place on Rengstorff (La Costen~a) at about 11:45. To get there, when you get off 101, take Rengstorff (toward the hills) rather than Amphitheatre (toward the bay). Follow it about ten blocks until the major intersection at Middlefield Road. La Costen~a is the store on your left at the corner. You can turn left into the narrow lane behind the store, which leads to a parking lot, and enter by the front door, which faces the intersection. To get to the meeting from there, just retrace your route on Rengstorff, go straight over the freeway, and turn right at the stoplight onto Charleston; see above. See you there! John Gilmore

1 0

the Tragedies of Pseudospoofing
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote another essay, `the Joy of Pseudospoofing', which I have been refining and evolving, and will be glad to email it to anyone who is interested. For now, I would like to address briefly the issue, `The Tragedies of Pseudospoofing.' Knowledge & Friendship -- Consider the basis of friendship. In many ways, knowledge is friendship. The more you know about someone, the closer you feel. And in fact if you don't know certain things, about someone you consider a close friend, you might be surprised or upset. `I never knew that! why didn't you tell me?' or `you've been holding out on me! I'm upset!' Also, many of our metaphors about friendship involve its basis in knowledge, like thses. The whole idea of sharing knowledge is inherent to the idea of trust that is so critical in true friendship. We trust our friends not to betray us with sensitive information about ourselves to our enemies. There are plenty of classic situations about this. One really hilarious example, I recall, is that told in one Seinfeld story, where Jerry (is that right?), in the middle of some `hot and heavy' activity <g> tries to talk dirty to a girlfriend that was Elayne's (his close personal friend) secretary. It backfires, the girlfriend/secretary is incredibly upset and offended. Jerry, in total desperation, as a last ditch effort, says, `now, of course, beyond everything else, this is just between you and me.' The girlfriend storms out the room. Later, Jerry hears that Elayne promoted the secretary, or the secretary was leaving her office. He drops all kinds of hints. `Was that *all* she said?' He didn't want to be embarrassed by a frivolous girlfriend in front of his true friend. Elayne shows no sign that she heard of anything embarassing. But, later after she was walking out the door, she snidely quotes the exact lines of Jerry's backfired dirty talk! Jerry was betrayed by *both* the girlfriend and Elayne. And Elayne in an extremely callously, manipulative way! She dangled the knowledge above him, like someone teases and tortures an animal. So, the point of all this is that `information control' is one of the most crucial aspects of friendship. Pseudospoofing & Friendship -- Now, consider the ingredient of pseudospoofing, and how it completely destroys all this trust. First, suppose that no one knows I am posting under Jim Riverman. They would be really aghast to find out later, even if everything said under Jim Riverman was wholly respectable (or perhaps, especially in that case!). That is part of friendship: exploring all the nooks and crannies of each other's personalities. Its because of friendship that people say, `I want to get to *know* you' or `you think you *know* someone...'When we come upon locked boxes, the trust evaporates. Also, consider that I write a lot of outstanding material on software engineering under Jim Riverman. Everyone might get the impression that L. Detweiler doesn't know squat about software engineering. And L. Detweiler might even go to a job interview, where the interviewer was also on the Software Engineering mailing list. `I'm sorry Mr. Detweiler, your experience as I've seen on the list just doesn't cut it. On the other hand, that Jim Riverman really knows what he is talking about, but all he could do was recommend that you come. I really am disappointed. Please have him come himself.' In fact, if Jim Riverman did all the posting, people might think that L. Detweiler didn't know squat about *anything*, when in fact L. Detweiler was posting his brains out under another identity (so to speak!). They might become alienated. `What has that L. Detweiler done for the Software Engineering Mailing List, anyway?' To bring this home, consider the following. Suppose that E.Hughes was actually posting as H.Finney (my apologies to both of you, please just grin and bear this, I need the effect). We would be startled to find out that E.Hughes had such extensive legal experience with the ITAR or capability in presenting outstanding articles and tutorials to newcomers. In fact, people might even become disillusioned with, or criticize, E.Hughes because they don't see the `leadership' posting anything that helps newcomers, when in fact they are `posting their brains out' (so to speak!). Yet More Tragedies -- Another problem with pseudospoofing is that of publishing. Suppose that E.Hughes now wished to write a big article for RISKS about the ITAR. He could not do so except under H. Finney without potentially compromising a `crossing' (where someone discovers the correlation). So he would have to post as H.Finney. But this would be a problem, because people might send mail to H.Finney after seeing the great RISKS posting. `Please come give a talk to our university for $10K'. H. Finney, if he had the audacity to respond, might say, `I'm sorry, I can't make it, but my friend E.Hughes can. I taught him everything I know.' If the university even responds, it might be something in the form `why can't *you* do it?' or `sorry, we're not interested.' H.Finney at the same time craves reputation, but abhors recognition. A hellish life indeed. Also, consider the problem of phone numbers. People like to maintain relationships over the phone. Cyberspace just seems too impersonal at times. What happens when someone asks for the phone number of a tentacle? Does Medusa say, `gee, my phone service is really bad, and if you are looking for ways of getting in touch with me, the phone is the worst of all. please send me a fax instead.' If the person trying to maintain a friendship didn't go away right then, they'd be *un*lucky. But in any case, they would feel quite upset and alienated. Any way you look at it, they have been betrayed. The only question is, to what extent? I think that this `cyberspace thing' is not about building *reputations*, but about building *friendships*. A reputation is nothing but condensed admiration that is synonymous with friendship. And looking over the idea of pseudospoofing, I can't see how anyone who practices it could conceivably have *any* friends, because of all the details they have to hide from others. (Does a person with Multiple Personality Disorder or a pathological liar have any friends?) But, at the same time, I'm sure I will hear from many snakes and claiming it *is* possible, and that *they* have friends. Maybe they are referring to all their `friends' as the other tentacles around them! What a pity. Like I was telling someone recently, `I really feel sorry for you.'

1 0