- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

a desperate plea
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please do not fill my mailbox with argument in the form `criminal behavior [y] exists or is widespread, therefore similar practice [x] is ok' please do not say `forgeries are hard to prevent, therefore no one should even attempt it' please do not say `the only systems for identity tracking amount to government oppression' please do not talk about some depraved person with multiple personality disorder as a way of describing Utopia. most of all, do not pollute the Constitution with your lies: >The freedom to communicate in any way whatsoever, including >"pseudospoofing", is a Constitutional guarantee and part of the >foundation of this society. the Constitution specifically prohibits `high treason'. Or are we now against the Constitution? It's hard to keep track lately. [Pseudospoofing] >This is a fundemental paradigm shift that you have not made yet. It is one >that few have. If anything, it is shared conceptual memes such as this >subject of identity in a world without substance that is the true >cypherpunk cause. oh, what depravity and moral blackness. Evil promoted as `a fundamental paradigm shift', a `conceptual meme'. Helleluja. many cypherpunks have so utterly deluded themselves, they believe they have invented a new kind of society that is completely free of accountability, while they leech the fruits of one where that accountability was hard-won by many sacrifices of our forefathers. I urge you to live in your `society'. You will get the chance, I assure you! `actions have consequences, even in cypherspace.' * * * Let me ask a question of the `cypherpunks' opposed to identity tracking in any form. A major aspect of catching vicious criminals is being able to link up their multiple crimes. It is absolutely essential for crimefighting. I could point to some examples using credit scams or drug dealing or whatever, but the hard core Cypherpunks would probably just grin with evil pleasure. So-- An excellent case is Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy would be the Cypherpunk Poster Boy for Pseudospoofing. `Medusa' is correct in saying our new societies allow and encourage this kind of anonymity. He slipped and danced between cities and murdered young women in the most grisly and heinous fashions. He lied at *every* stage of the way, perhaps even at the end when he blamed his utter depravity on exposure to pornography. Part of the difficulty in catching him in the end was his total mastery of the techniques that have a striking similarity to what the Cypherpunks promote -- hidden credit, deception, disguise, impersonation, etc. He was a man who was so treacherous, he would truly not `stop at anything'. I'm sure he weaved such a majestic and convoluted `web of lies,' PRZ & the Cypherpunks would be proud. In the end, one of the final critical incriminating pieces of evidence used in court to convict him, and prevent further murders, was the bite marks he had savagely embedded in the buttocks of one of his victims, which matched his own jaw. It took something like 4 police to hold him down to make the cast, he squirmed and writhed with such force and desperation. Cypherpunks, look at yourselves in the mirror. See what you are becoming and promoting. Look at the logical extent of your ideas. Could *any* society truly function without any identity or accountability whatsoever? The cypherpunk `agenda' has become so closely indistinguishable with raw criminality and evil it horrifies me. Oh, how it nauseates me. Perhaps many of you will fill my mailbox with new letters defending Ted Bundy and asserting that the only problem was that he didn't `spawn' a new set of teeth. Perhaps you look forward to the day you can spawn some of your own Ted Bundys, and be so clever you'd *never* be caught. Perhaps you already have the young lady victims in mind. The ones that betrayed you by thinking you were too strange too date, huh? Perhaps the only problem was that these young ladies are just too damn *trusting*? `that which cannot be enforced should not be prohibited'. Like murder? * * * Another question for all the bastard apologists and moral relativists. Are you fundamentally opposed to me having the choice of screening phantom identities in my personal mailbox? Many of your arguments suggest that not only do you wish to make sure you can be anonymous, but you wish to ensure that other people must support and sponsor your anonymity. As for screening, very soon these capabilities will probably exist, based on birth certificate databases etc. that are accessable over the internet. Oh, my kingdom for this capability. But you will infect and poison these databases with your forgeries and lies, won't you? That is the fundamental cypherpunk agenda: wherever accountability or identity is in place, do everything possible to *evade* and *sabotage* it. Not only should there be *passive* anonymity, but there should also be *active* deception. You not only want to swing your fist, you want to batter my face -- with a phantom bludgeon. I'll never know what hit me! Oh, what utter joy! To not only be evil, but to get away with it! You hate Democracy and `egalitarianism' not because they are unfair, but because they are the closest thing to honesty and fairness we humans have ever discovered, and in them *you* would *lose*, because the `perverted majority' of society is *not* in favor of being murdered and raped without consequence. And you will tear and wreck those fragile developing efforts and schemes for identification and accountability, no matter how basic or feeble, with the most insidious treachery. You will subscribe to the mailing lists where the development is going on, you will infiltrate the development groups, you will assault the honest, polite, and courteous ladies and gentlemen with poisonous and acidic email and posts, you will twist your knife into the baby in the crib, and you will stick dynamite sticks up the nostrils of anyone who says, `well, gosh, guys, just hold on a minute here!' ... Oh, how you are thriving on the Internet. Either the parasite or the host will die soon, of at least that I am sure. I pray to God that Cyberspace survives. P.S. Ask all your revered fiction authors like Gibson and Sterling et.al. what they would think of your grotesque perversions. Be sure to explain it in *your* terms of `true and pure anonymity.' `a fundamental paradigm shift? sure, sounds great! right out of one of my own stories.'

8 15

Re: help/subscribe
by peb＠PROCASE.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It seems I perpetrated a vile and offensive error in sending a subscribe >request directly to the list. I don't get offended, I just save the subscribe/unsubscribe message in a special folder that I will use to train a learning algorithm to recognize these kinds of requests. Then, I will create a program that detects these so that mailing lists everywhere can automatically bounce messages back to the sender with specific message like "please send un/subscribe messages to fubar-request(a)node.com". In other words, thanks for your example. Anyone who sends me examples will benefit this project. (But don't send examples from cypherpunks--I already get them.) If anyone has suggestions for implementation that maximizes applicability (e.g., I could write a C program that reads stdin or a named file and returns a status code), please let me know. Paul E. Baclace peb(a)procase.com

3 2

Re: More signs that key escrow is coming
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: >Things seem awfully quiet on the list the past 24 hours.... > >Lucky Green wrote: > >> This RFP contains the final specs for a new multimedia architecture the >> cable companies intend to deploy. >... >> ".c4.11.7.1.1 Security System Objectives: >> The Offeror shall specify [..] whether it is possible to hide information >> in the digital signature number of which the signer would be unaware, which >> could conceal information. " >> >> Such as parts of the key? > >This sounds like it's a concern about subliminal channels in the >DSS/DSA signatures, a la the concerns raised by Gus Simmons last year. >I don't know what the use would be, unless it's concern (by whom?) >that viewing preferences could be back-propagated. > The RFP is not just for a system that sends Multimedia to the subscriber. The specs call for Homeshopping, private financial transactions, encrypted credit card transaction, etc. Just what info do they intend to conceal that the "the signer would be unaware" of? Just wondering, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

1 0

Re: Security of PGP private keys
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) > > PGP secret keys are protected by a password. Yet people have said that one > should not keep one's secret keyring on an insecure machine. Why? > > -- ____ > Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems > Internet: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia > uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. 1. Why take chances? Once the evil intruder has the file, she can throw test passwords at it from now till doomsday and might be able to crack it. 2. On shared machines, there are ways for users with the appropriate access to read your keystrokes (like, for example, when you type in your pass phrase). Anyone with that access should also be able to grab your secring.pgp with no problem, and that's that. --Dave.

1 0

Re: a desperate plea
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> No, I wasn't complaining about his personal attacks per se but his long term >behavior on this list and Extropians which is mainly "hit-and-run" >attack posts about once a month which usually generate massive flame wars. >(the last of which ended up with Tim May leaving the extropians list) Let me make sure I understand this: are you claiming that _I_ caused Tim to leave the Extropians list? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Help writing code
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let me quickly try to clear up some confusion. I've gotten several replies (real quick response) that are answering a different question. I'm not trying to reimplement TCP/IP. I'm trying to provide a Windows version of NUpop, which is a DOS program that works fine over a simple serial line. Most folks automatically associate SMTP/POP with TCP/IP, but there is no connection. Admittedly they work better with a robust, end to end protocol. But I've been using NUpop for a year over a non-TCP/IP line. I get hundreds of messages a day. It works. But there are no sources available to NUpop, it is a DOS program, and it doesn't support piping messages thru PGP/RIPEM/... I have lots of DOS libraries that do exactly the simple things I need. I don't want to use DOS, I want native Windows code. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)netcom.com Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: Net Regs.
by kwaldman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to my reply to Duncan's *"Net Regulation" Perry wrote: >To: kwaldman <kwaldman(a)BBN.COM> >Subject: Re: Net Requlation >Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 09:53:47 -0400 >From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> >You do realize that cypherpunks is not extropians... >kwaldman says: >> Say the best way to go is to become a perpetual tourist. That is >> you don't have US citzenship and thus are not subject to it's taxes and >> other nosy laws. [Not that other government's don't have nosier laws]. >> Anyway Yes I realize it, and perhaps Perry's right we should move this to extropians. Karl * BTW I spelled Duncan's name wrong twice in 1 paragraph in my last post. Sorry.

1 0

Re: My Views on the Detweiler Matter
by jamie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypheroids and Cypherettes, The eventual recognition that names are symbol strings and not their referents is akin to the realization that the map not being the terrrtory. Yep, sometimes we just keep learning the same old lesson. The Detweiler/Boxx rants have the flavor of a reformed alcoholic distrupting the champagne toast at a wedding, selfishly driven by their world view and utterly unaware of the social dynamics around them. But aside from the rantings, pleas for TrueNameUtopia in CypherSociety, and threats, I sense something else. Take your pick of remark -- "thou doth protesteth too much," or "where there's smoke there's fire," or ... . Seems to me that the essential raison d'etre of L.Detweiler and S.Boxx (and even sometimes The SternLight himself) is purposive to distract c'punks from "writing code" or essays or having fun. This is basic motivated deception used in sports, business and the military ... get the opponent to do something else ... Here's one interpretation: if c'punks weren't pushing the envelope in creating both tools and understanding for things like cryptography, anonymous remailers and digital cash, nor pushing the social bounds through BlackNet, Nyms, Sam Hill, and May's CryptoAnarchy, the Detweiler nonsense wouldn't have emerged. A nerve has been struck; and this seems, in the big picture, to be A Good Thing. I've no doubt that to the true statists, fascists and communists, we are their vision of hell. On the other side of this, they will no longer be the only ones to hide behind anomynity, pull their secret strings, and pronounce agents of change as Evil Incarnate. We stand at the threshold of a new world, in large part to be enabled by cryptography. As "The Net" expands, dark fiber becomes illuminated, online markets flourish and the like, cryptography will be key for economic survival, and it will be in the hands (or machines) of The People, not The State. If such great progress wasn't being made toward providing for personal privacy, the L.Detweiler-Boxxs of the Net would be ranting about something else. So each rant underscores how significant the progress in cryptography is becoming; and it will become more so. In a nutshell, three cheers for c'punks. -- ................................ Jamie Dinkelacker Palo Alto CA Jamie(a)netcom.com 415.941.4782

1 0

subscribe
by jc138696＠longs.lance.colostate.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How do I subscribe? thank you.

1 0

Watch out for carl@com.malamud.t
by carugo o 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

He is a neg!!! e0004353(a)brookes.uk.ac ps i wrote the introductory piece on myself!!

1 0