- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:57 PM 2/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >"The word to kill ain't dirty > I used it in the last line > but use a short word for lovin' > and you wind up doin' time..." But has anyone done time yet (recently) for "indecency." I don't think so. The radio stations were fined and/or threatened with license pulling but no one was put in stir. And since net access is not licensed, there's nothing to pull. DCF

1 0

Why There Exists No Middle Ground in the Crypto-policy Debate
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Why There Exists No Middle Ground in the Crypto-policy Debate [This message only appears to be posted anonymously, if you have the correct tools, you can learn my name and e-address. Take that auto-WWW indexers!] Decius <decius(a)ninja.techwood.org> recently presented an essay, entitled ``Crypto-Absolutism,'' which described ``Why and how the middle ground should be found in the crypto-policy debate.'' The essay is clearly wrong in its assumptions and thus its conclusions. Given the perceived flaws in the assumptions, his commentary must be rebutted. Within the context of this rebuttal, ``T-Camp Cypherpunks'' are those ``Cypherpunks'' (whatever they are :-) that follow a technology evolution-based line of reasoning to arrive at the inevitable coming of crypto-anarchy. As well, ``A-Camp Cypherpunks'' are those that advocate crypto-anarchy because they like the social and political implications. It is possible to be an A-Camp Cypherpunk or a T-Camp Cypherpunk without being the other. Of course, it is quite possible to be both. It has often been said on Cypherpunks, that ``we'' are not a ``we''. Decius falls into a trap by assuming that all Cypherpunks are in the A-Camp. This mistake colors the entire essay. The main problem with Decius' essay is that it assumes that Cypherpunks _merely_ advocate crypto-anarchy. In fact, T-Camp Cypherpunks do not stop at this puny point. They observe that crypto-anarchy is the _likely_ _outcome_ of the current technology trend (this trend is discussed below). Note that this observation of fulfillment, if correct, is a far stronger statement than merely advocating that crypto-anarchy should happen or would be a really good idea. A-Camp Cypherpunks also advocate that this trend should be exploited to its conclusion, sooner rather than later, to preempt any massive government crackdowns that would only prolong the transition pains. The rationale being that these supposed government crackdowns have no place in the natural evolution of a free society. And that the continuance of a free society is preferable to that of a move towards a police state, which would be required to facilitate the useless --- in the end --- crackdown on this information technology. Decius is also wrong when he states that crypto-anarchy means people will never again be accountable or recognized (pure A-Campers might like this to be true, although I doubt it). In the T-Camper's view, crypto-anarchy means that people have the choice of when they wish to be accountable and recognized for their statements and information movement-related actions and when they wish otherwise. People are not forced under the crypto-anarchy model to be unaccountable or unrecognizable. Likewise, the crypto-anarchy model allows people to ignore those that are unaccountable and unrecognizable, if they wish. Decius fails to recognize that people could be recognized, and even paid, for example, when operating under a pseudonym instead of completely anonymously (this concept links two Cypherpunks favorites: untraceable anonymous e-cash and anonymous reputations). As primary counter-points to Decius on this issue: - - The people who wrote the Federalists' Papers did so anonymously, yet I suspect that all were well-known and transacted business and other politics under their ``real names'' most of the time. - - Individual articles are anonymously published in the _The Economist_ yet I suspect that people are being paid to contribute information to this newspaper (at least, I know I am paying a lot per year, for a newspaper, to get the information :-). - - The recently released ``Primary Colors'' book by Anonymous. Yet this person, if the publisher is to be believed, is well-known to President Clinton (I think it may all just be a good marketing scam :-). Back to the main point of unstoppable --- in a free society, at least - --- technology trends. Decius has not, but must, account for the following change due to technology: Up until now, communication system deployers (e.g. The Phone Companies) have been basically blackmailed (through easily applied laws and licensing) into creating systems with backdoors for government's use. As system intelligence moves to the end-user devices away from the internal network devices and encryption moves to end-to-end encryption from link-based or non-existent encryption, this form of blackmail will no longer work since there will no longer be a small number of easily controlled entities building and deploying the systems. There will be open standards for the interconnect itself [IPng or whatever]. And anyone will be able to implement end-user devices that layer end-to-end encryption on top of the raw interconnect services provided by the new network model. In some ways, we have already arrived at the new interconnect model: the Internet based upon IP. In the form of today's computers, we also have a rudimentary incarnation of the required intelligent end-user device. In sum, I am a T-Camp Cypherpunk not because I necessarily think crypto-anarchy is a good idea but rather because the technology trend will continue to make it happen. I also happen to be an A-Camp Cypherpunk but it is for the reason that I am a T-Camper alone that I derive that there can be no compromise on the issue of crypto-policy. Not only would it be a bad idea to compromise, but also any compromise will fail due to continuing changes in technology that favor intelligence in the end-user devices and end-to-end encryption over intelligence in the internal network components and easily controlled encryption. It is better to see the technology trend and embrace it to prepare for the new crypto-anarchy to come. ~``Those that prepare for the change will have a lot of success, while those that ignore the technology trend in this area will be left behind.''~ Truer words have never been spoken. Regards, Loren -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSGeTP8de8m5izJJAQFFrQP/ZQFu64mGC/u4YC7jAsnv22Cx3Eub+xVw i3IYX7aHJopfG3g6IVifaGuEJmHxF6mZDHj+YSS/9fQfHUm7QZtoXmgmvxgWpP3s KiUVLgYA3/cVfZn/6iOUHlQCehzj2N4IPdW2QGWbe2rbk1i1YaiGLpnB+RRXo4nW r7mKrSVOjOQ= =TIOb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications (Was: Choices)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 AM 2/11/96 +0000, Ed Carp wrote: >> A foreign person is defined in S 120.11, and means anyone who's not a U.S. >> citizen. Technical data is defined in S 120.33 > >Oh? You mean that I can get busted for giving my Canadian spouse a copy >of PGP? A US *permanent resident* who is not a US Citizen is still a "US Person" for ITAR purposes. DCF

1 0

Firewall USA to Firewall China
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Q: The Chinese government has declared its intention to filter out > what it considers to be objectionable material from the Internet. If > you were a consultant for the Chinese government, what technology > would you recommend that they use to do that? Multiple layers would probably do it: 1) Acces only to/from sites with which they have a formal agreement 2) Using secure channels 3) With good application filters (could be created - that I do not know of anyone who has is irrevelant - MIMEsweeper is a start.) Mostly it depends on how seriously they want to block certain kinds of traffic and what of the I'net's capabilities they are willing to give up to achieve that goal. Now before I get flamed again, please understand that I separate what *can* be done from what *should* be done. This is a "can" and is also considering the fact that a sovereign nation has the *right* to do this unless it gives up that right. A US company also has that right where it pertains to their property unless again they give up that right (see: common carrier). Warmly, Padgett ps wife informed me that when traffic backs up, it is ok to leave a hole for cross traffic to use but if you make any sort of gesture to indicate that is what you have done, *you* become liable for the cross traffic's actions. Absurd, no ?

1 0

Re: COO_kie
by Yanni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> So, Folks, how does one manipulate the cookie in Netscape so that the > user can control what Netscape sees??? > > Michael E. Carboy > carboy(a)hooked.net Simple, read the cookie specs on the NetScape site. :) http://home.netscape.com/ -jon Jon S. Stevens yanni(a)clearink.com ClearInk WebMagus http://www.clearink.com/ finger pgp(a)sparc.clearink.com for pgp pub key My apologies for the loss of bandwidth. :-)

1 0

Communication
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim rites: >Logic lesson for Padgett: >There are at least three categories here: >1. Government restricts communication. >2. Government neither assists nor restricts communication. >3. Government assists communication. (through stolen tax dollars, BTW.) Oh, now I see where you are confused. To me there are at least six categories - the three you mention but in matrix form with two columns: Wholly inside the USA and from the USA to/from "elsewhere". (2) applies inside the USA and in some cases (3) - and tax dollars are not necessarily "stolen", the Constitution specifies that taxes may be levied for certain matters. (1) does not apply though through the rationale/excuse of "maximising the use for all" some regulations have been enacted primarily by the FCC. It is not improbable that the FCC's area of responsibility might extend to the Internet once considered a "national resource". Not saying right or wrong, just "could" & would not be surprised. In the case of communications with "other" entities, I expect all three to apply in different instances - what makes anon.penet.fi different from the L. A. Times. Now in the case of extra-National communications, I believe that in certain cases the Nation-state has not only the sovereign right of control but the obligation to control. For example just to pick a popular example, France might negotiate a trade agreement with the USA that included an agreement to block all PGP communications between the two countries. That would be legal. What the US does not really have is the *ability* to control communications. Warmly, Padgett

2 1

TEN_ysp
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-13-96. NYT: "New Spynet Links C.I.A. and Envoys." The C.I.A. is planning to buy commercial comm gear, put an encrypting scrambler on it, and give diplomats in Bosnia and elsewhere the ability to receive adulterated facts that it previously had been unwilling or unable to share except with enemies. Soon, diplomats will be up to speed with spying foreign correspondents, many of whom have portable comm gear combining sat phones and computer ports. "We have our own classified Internet in the intelligence community, with home pages just like you do on the Internet," gurgled a spy-leaker to this reporter-siphon -- who already knew by spying browsers and snooping search engines what the dagger-gagger duhhed. TEN_ysp

1 0

Australian net limitations
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may have some relevance to the Australian crypto regulation thread a while back. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 12-FEB-1996 23:51:48.10 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:28:44 -0800 From: madanmohan rao <rao(a)IGC.APC.ORG> To: "Multiple recipients of list india-gii(a)cpsr.org" <errors(a)snyside.sunnyside.com> Subject: Internet news about Asia, India Hello folks - Here are excerpts from this week's edition of my column, "International Internet NewsClips." The full version plus archives are at MecklerMedia's Internet World site (http://www.iworld.com/netday/NATW.html) You can also find my reviews of books on Internet-related subjects at this site. Comments, feedback, etc. most welcome as always. - madan ______________________________________________________________ Madanmohan Rao (rao(a)igc.org) Communications Consultant, United Nations Inter Press Service bureau. -------------------------------------------------------------- [...] Internet Legislation To Be Formulated In Australia -------------------------------------------------- 1996 is probably going to be a watershed year in Australian Internet history. Decisions are going to be made about what is and is not allowable on-line. Concerned users will have a chance to express their opinions to the Australian Broadcasting Association's On-line Services Investigation, by February 16. The ABA's is the second similar investigation in the last six months. A Senate report last November argued that it should be an offence to "transmit, obtain possession of, demonstrate, advertise or request the transmission of material equivalent to RC (refused classification), R or X categories." But this would mean that the on-line world would be restricted by tighter standards than the off-line world. The ABA has issued a comprehensive Issues Paper for its inquiry (http://www.dca.gov. au/aba/olsissue.htm). Available since December, the paper deals with the concepts of codes of practice, the development of a representative industry body, the establishment of an independent complaints-handling body and other mechanisms for controlling access in the on-line environment. It also looks at consumer and Australian content issues on the Net, provides a handy guideline to censorship classification, and a summary of the findings of the Office of Film and Literature Classification's own informal search of the Net - 27 hours of porn hunting yielded the discovery that "restricted and refused classification material was difficult to find, at times difficult to download, and was more prevalent on Usenet newsgroup files than on the World Wide Web." The ABA accepts submissions by e-mail (online(a)aba.gov.au) (Sydney Morning Herald; February 6, 1996) Nations See Internet As Cultural, Political, Economic Threat ------------------------------------------------------------ Nations are discovering that data sent via the Internet can be every bit as threatening to a country's laws or its culture as the armies of yesteryear. "Nation states are trying to assert themselves with increasing aggression into cyberspace," said Electronic Frontier Foundation's John Perry Barlow, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It's not just cultural or social sovereignty that governments worry about. The power to tax is also being eroded by the increase in economic transactions that take place over the Internet, some of it encrypted so that prying eyes of the tax department could not read them. "You can't control it, it's uncontrollable," said MIT's Nicholas Negroponte. "If someone tells you that you can, they are probably smoking pot." (Toronto Globe and Mail; February 3, 1996)

1 0

NETSCAPE IS "IN MERGER TALKS WITH AMERICA ONLINE"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PowerPC News (free by mailing add(a)aptdata.co.uk) quotes Reuter as as saying that Thomas Middelhoff, a board member of Bertelsmann AG, which has a significant stake in America Online, said that a decision on the merger could be made within a month. He noted that new data showed that 40% of US Internet traffic was flowing through America OnLine's network and that together with Netscape the two companies would effectively control the technology now shaping the global network - "And then Microsoft would be left without an Internet standard,".

1 0

CyberAngels
by ethridge＠Onramp.NET 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't know if this has been mentioned on this list, since i'm, as usual, a little behind on my reading. I found this while out about this while reading alt.religion.scientology. The Guardian Angels have decided to enter cyberspace and make it safe for us all. They have a FAQ on the web - http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ . How is this relevant to cypherpunks? From their FAQ: "9) What kinds of changes would the Guardian Angels / CyberAngels like to see? a) We would like to see an improvement in User identification. User ID is impossible to verify or trace back. The very anonymity of Users is itself causing an increase in rudeness, sexual abuse, flaming, and crimes like pedophile activity. We the Net Users must take responsibility for the problem ourselves. One of our demands is for more accountable User IDs on the Net. When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals. In a riot you see rioters wearing masks to disguise their true identity. The same thing is happening online. We would like to see User ID much more thoroughly checked by Internet Service Providers." Since i'm can't do emphasis in ascii well, i'll quote the interesting sentence again - "When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals." I've never been a fan of anonymity, but it does have it's legitimate uses. allen

1 0