- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:59:05 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd) > Here I have to respectfully disagree, totally, with Jim. One > does not have to "reserve" one's rights. They are inherent and > my be exercised pretty much at will (I say "pretty much" because > there are situations where "implied contract" applies). Exactly! Stating a list is 'public' is an inherent contract between the list provider and the subscriber with certain expectations on both parties part. The list provider expects no illegal activity to take place such that they are placed in jeopardy and the subscriber expects to recieve access to a public (ie not regulated by a third party other than themselves and the members en toto) list. Claiming the right to throw somebody off for any reason other than illegal activity nullifies the claim of 'public'. > A restaurant or bookstore is a public place in that it is open > to the public. I know of no state in the union where a bookstore, restaurant, mall, etc. is considered public. In Texas such places make it clear that they are private places and that they reserve the right to refuse service and/or ask you to leave the premises. Legaly a public place is someplace which is operated using public monies. > Nevertheless, without first "reserving the right" > to do so, the owners may tell you to leave if they don't like > the way you sound, look or smell. Because they ain't any more public than my house is on Wednesday nites when I have it open to folks. I assure you that if somebody were to show up smelling or filthy they would be asked to leave and if they refused I would call a police officer and press trespass charges. > Criminal activity is not > required legally nor ethically. Your ejection may, in fact, be > totally arbitrary. I don't see a privately maintained, "public" > list as being philosophically any different. The only way a police officer can expell you from a public place other than for criminal behaviour is if the municipality passes ordinances regarding access (ie open from 7-10 for example in the case of city parks here in Austin) which must apply to ALL citizens equaly not just the vagabonds (I have been thrown out of parks on many occassions and I assure I don't look like a street bum even when I was living on the street in the early 80's - for grins I might add). Jim Choate

2 1

Why Fingerprints and Key-ID's
by Paul Wittry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks, I understand PGP Open-Signed messages and why they are used. I've read all the FAQ's. I can't seem to figure out why some of us put our Fingerprints and/or Key-ID's at the end of messages. The answer to my question is probably in a FAQ somewhere and I'm missing it, I learn best by watching (visually) or by doing (experientially) so I'm having a little trouble learning from documentation. In any case, if someone would spend a little time to explain, or point me in the right direction, I would be grateful. Thanks, Paul -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgLPl8498OZoTL5VAQFcrwP+JNK8K0cQFdU8+//GQQvj2Z3hn7gTgTeH SRHosvwj5xNmR5pB9h8FlQillZ+OQEeEF+/z75+fqyK9AD68i+F0c0bymj1vJ6zR zQnjUsIh/VBKLAvrmnmf08E4uWo2wdJrsjBtRkvShmMWHOBxsp5dReDrsVNPRHtK Pp1zqTLUBpk= =1kJ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wittry, Visual Artist, Philosopher, Poet|"A poet is a dethroned king Internet:<ppw3(a)everett.com> <bi065(a)scn.org> |sitting among the ashes of Homepage:<http://www.everett.net/users/ppw3> |his palace trying to form an PGP Public Key=Finger:<ppw3(a)everett.com> |image from out of the ashes." Please, encrypt your messages!!!! |_______________Kalil Gibran__

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 00:18:38 -0700 > From: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn(a)wolfenet.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > I disagree with your sentiments about Business and rights, however, in this > instance, even that wasn't the issue. Food Not Bombs is NOT a business, it's > a not-for-profit organization that gives out (not sells) food. They are the > same as, I think Tim May pointed out, a Boy Scout picnic, except for the > homless, not the boy scouts. Then we have a clear case of abuse of power and if the folks at FNB don't pursue this then they deserve the ignominy they receive. What is the current status? Have counter suites been filed? What was the ACLU and NAACP (I am assuming that everyone at FNB is not anglo-saxon and named 'Fletcher') responce to requests for aid? Have they begun a petition or whatever the city charter allows demanding the ouster of those in charge? What is the Libertarian Party there doing? Has anyone contacted the Justice Dept. and begun the proceeding for a civil rights suit? If these folks seriously went out there not prepared to fight then the issues must not be very important to them, perhaps a simple publicity stunt to get their 15 minutes and not realy to help the homeless/foodless? Has anyone made reference to the judges comments in the CDA trial regarding speech and chaos? While the city acted illegaly, nobody has stated if the city categoricaly prohibits such activities which was the point I was originaly trying to express. Was this a isolated incident originating with the poor decision of a single individual in the HD or was it organized? Have similar responces occured before? Every year on Halloween a bunch of folks here in Texas go down to the State Capital at about 10pm and sit around and smoke pot for about an hour. The city police have no jurisdiction on the capital grounds and the DPS officers pretty much stand around and make shure things don't get out of hand. I have never known of anyone being arrested but then again the place is crawling with video and lawyers ready to pounce. I would contend that one of the reasons that no actions are taken is that the event is organized and the folks come prepared to go to jail and fight if need be. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:10 8/2/96, Jim Choate wrote: >In my experience they don't get hassled because they get the requisite >permits and act in good faith. Many of these small businesses and street >vendors are 'hassled' because they are unwilling or unable to meet basic >commen sense standards of conduct and go out of there way to circumvent >regulations and in some cases commen sense. Jim, I was there when Food Not Bombs got busted in San Francisco. They tried to get a permit from the Health Department, but the HD refused to even process the application. FNB finally won the case. I guess next time the HD will be smarter, process the application and deny it. At present, SF has a hands-off policy in regards to Food Not Bombs. The feeding was never the real issue. The heavy political indoctrination that came with it was. Patrick McHenry handed out the food, screaming in a mike, in front of the Federal Building (without interfering with pedestrians in any way) as the Feds came out on their lunch hour, having to listen to him complain about President Bush's CIA background, calling Bush a drug dealer, and demanding to know why there was no money for food when there was plenty of money for nukes. Now can we please let this thread (at least on the list) die? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:52 AM 8/2/96 -0700, daw(a)cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) wrote: >> would dramatically change surveillance authority to include wiretaps of >> INDIVIDUALS instead of LOCATIONS. >I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional? [CENSORED MATERIAL DELETED] You've been hanging out with those subversive Canadians again, haven't you? It's covered by the Terrorism Exception to the 4th Amendment.* >P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? Do you mean legally? :-) Some combination of laws and court decisions has established that cordless phones don't provide an expectation of privacy, but cellular phones do, so eavesdropping on cellular phones requires wiretapping authorization (whether a warrant, FISA permission, or whatever other procedures constitute Due Process.) ----------------------------------- * The Drug Exception to the 4th Amendment says ", except for drugs, of course." The Terrorism Exception says "Be afraid. Be very afraid." ----------------------------------- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: Why Fingerprints and Key-ID's
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Paul Wittry <ppw3(a)everett.com> wrote: >I understand PGP Open-Signed messages and why they are used. I've >read all the FAQ's. I can't seem to figure out why some of us put our >Fingerprints and/or Key-ID's at the end of messages. Even with the PGP Web Of Trust, one of the difficult problems in cryptography is how to do key distribution - if you want to talk to Bob, how do you know you've really got _Bob's_ key instead of a key some imposter Eve _said_ was Bob's key? Similarly, if you receive a message saying "Bank X will pay you $Y, signed Bank X Small-Transactions-Teller", how do you know it really came from them and wasn't signed by some fake key that Carol genned up? One way is to get some well-known person to sign your key, or a chain of people which get you to a sig for the key you want. Another way is to give out your key, often. That way someone who gets email from "you", signed by "your" key, can compare the key with previous keys you've stuck on your email and business cards, and scream if there's a mismatch. For this, remember to use the full key fingerprint, not just the short KeyID which can be duplicated arbitrarily. This is especially useful for pseudonymous people like Black Unicorn. Another reason is just to remind people you've got a PGP key and make it easier to look up 0x12345678 correctly than "Joe Anonymous" or "smith". # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: strength of 128-bit encryption?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:38 AM 8/2/96 -0400, KDBriggs1(a)aol.com wrote: ><< Current export standards allow export of 512-bit RSA for encrypting > (including key exchange), 1024 bit for signing. >> >1024-bit for signing? Do you have a reference for this? I was under the >impression that digital signatures were not covered by export restrictions. I've heard this also, but remember that the export standards are "whatever specific products we decide you can export" rather than a formal law you can design to and be sure they'll obey. The ITAR doesn't cover pure authentication software, only software capable of preserving privacy through encryption. Some public-key signature algorithms only do signature, some only do privacy, RSA does both. Thus, especially for software like Netscape which _does_ have encryption capabilities, they can get away with limiting the strength of the RSA signature portion because it's part of the encryption package, and because RSA signing is just encrypting with your private key instead of your public key. Someone _could_ use an RSA signature program to encrypt short data (like keys) if they wanted to work at it, and while bugs in software are of course entirely unheard of that would make this easier, there's still the risk that those Crafty Furriners might disassemble the crypto code from Netscape and reassemble it with the limits removed. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 AM 8/1/96 -0700, tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Question (a la "Wired"): "When will the United States introduce an internal >passport?" >May: "2005, but they won't call it that." Stewart: "Last week, but they didn't call it that." According to Alaska Airlines, the FAA's policy as of last week has switched to a mandatory policy that if you don't produce government-issued photo-id, you can't get on the plane; the previous policy had been more flexible. The folks stamped my ticket "Documents Verified" - looks suspiciously similar to "Papers In Order". (Which they actually weren't, on my return trip; I handed her my work ID in the same plastic carrier as my train pass, and handed her the credit card I'd bought the tickets with explaining that I wasn't on government business and asking when had the policy changed and commenting. And the nice Rent-A-Xray-Technician who asked if I minded if he searched my computer bag was totally confused when I said "Yes, of course I mind.") You can still travel in a car if someone else is driving, and you can still get on a train without identification, but without papers you can't fly or drive, and you can't ride a horse on the freeway except in the back of a horse trailer. Driver's licenses were the beginning of a long downhill trend. I wonder if they'll still accept an American passport; the country has obviously been taken over by Pod People while we weren't looking.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

6 5

Re: Information gathering by news servers
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 12.33 PM 8/2/96 -0400, Scott McGuire wrote: >How much information about what someone reads can be gathered >by a news server? Is there an anonymous way to read a public >news server, or would a server have to be set up intentionally >to allow anonymous reading? You could use the Anonymizer (http://www.anonymizer.com/) in combination with a Web Usenet archive: Dejanews, for example. (http://www.dejanews.com/) =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo ga sukoshi dekiru) ---------------> drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu PGP public key 0xD37692F9 -----> finger drosoff(a)acoma.arc.unm.edu or keyservers 0xD37692F9 Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 Do you know who's reading your email? ---> http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/pgp/ Is it a forgery? --- I have PGP signed all email and news posts since May 1996. =============================================================================== "Relax. It's not a real alarm. They can't crack _Pentagon_ codes. Can they?" :p -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgOHcBguzHDTdpL5AQE2QAQArHuoLVA0dOJ+LddI2TumYvD/vaFrWBmI LQ3pDNlDRHdyY7u1RouVKkJbYVTvxNZCKQyaWYMgcA38eZl52V65DFq+N11Jhwm4 egCBlOlezDjPOeTk/nK25Ojavdb8ABtqGXGRFf4GwfFBQPq2kApzi8MewYEYeCJG HaofCy5FDWU= =bG1v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: TrustBucks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:11 AM 8/2/96, TrustBuckFella wrote: >An alternative model of electronic money. > >Every model of electronic money I know of except one retains some degree >of centralization. There is always a central "mint", usually a bank. If >you can't find a bank that acts the way you want, you're SOL. And the >only thing that enforces non-abuse (inflation, etc) by the bank is the >equivalence of electronic money to some form of "real" money. The sole >exception is Digicash. Unfortunately, Digicash has no restraint on ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >infinite spending-into-debt. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You want to elaborate on this contention? If Alice transfers Digicash-type money to Bob, this is because Alice either bought the DC-money someplace, or already had it, or otherwise arranged with a bank to make the transaction. Maybe the bank "loaned" her money she didn't already have, but this is a completely separable issue from the form of DC-money. So what is this "restraint on infinite spending-into-debt"? Gullible lenders can always lend her vast amounts of money which she may never repay, but this is fully separable from what transfer protocol she uses to "spend" this loaned money. If, on the other hand, your point is something about inflation, this is also separable. Digicash and other forms of electronic money are generally not currencies per se, but are a kind of transfer order, more like a check. As such, not directly implicated in the issue of inflation. >I'm not going to try to develop the cryptographic protocols for >TrustBucks. I haven't got the requisite paranoia and pickiness >(compliments both) for that. TrustBucks also has nothing in the way of >anonymity and restraint on double-spending right now. If you can see how >it could be anonymous or restrain double-spending and still work, please >feel free to add. No protocols. No anonymity. No protection against double-spending. Looks promising. Keep us informed. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0