- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 18-MAY-1996 21:54:01.23 >This is exactly analogous to slanderous attack on someone's reputation. As >soon as people realize that the mere fact that a key has a signature does >not mean that the key-owner solicited the signature, the problem goes away. This is interesting in light of social networks analysis as applied to the web of trust (one interesting web-reference on such analysis is at http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/~lk/netvis.html; as well as some examples - use a graphics-capable web browser - it has some links to a FTP site with programs). One method of such analysis uses what is sometimes called "gravity;" under it, positions move to be close to those to which they are linked. This can be one-way or two-way; the above fact may imply that signing someone's key should move one closer to that person - and not the other way around. Of course, when analyzing the result, one should keep in mind that one may not have beneficial intent when signing a key; LD's signatures are examples. Thus, closeness on such a network may imply a high degree of relationship, but not a high degree of _positive_ relationship. -Allen

1 0

And they all work for the government...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* The London Daily Telegraph reported in January on the thriving addiction clinics of Dr. Robert Lefever, who specializes in helping people who are obsessed with helping other people. Among the 500 patients a year he sees in London and Kent are a number of women who compulsively marry alcoholics so they can cure them. Another recent patient was hospitalized for exhaustion after caretaking an overweight woman, including obsessively rolling her in her wheelchair to many places she did not want to go. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEWS OF THE WEIRD, founded in 1988, is a nationally syndicated newspaper column distributed by Universal Press Syndicate. To receive the columns by e-mail, free of charge, send a message to notw-request(a)nine.org with the Subject line of Subscribe. To read these News of the Weird newspaper columns from the past six months, go to http://www.nine.org/notw/notw.html (That site contains no graphics, no photos, no video clips, no audio. Just text. Deal with it.)

1 0

Re: Canada allows crypto exports
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:30 AM 5/22/96, M. Plumb wrote: >Several months ago I filed a set of export applications requesting >permission to export cryptographic software from Canada. I learned a >few things from these applications, my conversations with people at >Export Controls, and my own careful reading of Canada's export laws. > > There are a few countries to which you may not export anything, > without a permit. Except for trading with Cuba, same countries U.S. specifies. > You need a permit to export most cryptographic software. As per arrangements with U.S. > Cryptographic software of U.S. origin may be exported, but you > need to file paperwork. Canada is the 51st state, or possibly only a terrritory or possession. > Cryptographic software from other countries may be exported without > any paperwork. As with the U.S. > These are the Canadian rules. Canada interprets and enforces the > U.S. export laws when they think it is necessary. While the U.S. > government has sometimes objected to a Canadian interpretation, no > Canadian exporter, acting with Canadian permission, has been charged > by the U.S. government. Despite the above, just how could a Canadian exporter, in Canada, be "charged" by the U.S. government? Please explain. --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

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Rich Graves" 21-MAY-1996 03:48:35.01 >I certainly think that limiting newsgroup posting would be prudent. It's >inexcusable that it's possible to use anonymous remailers to post >*forgeries* (see the smoking flames cross-posted to alt.syntax.tactical). Hmm? Aside from the very basic "forgery" of adding someone else's name to a post (which only the veriest idiot will pay attention to, especially if the remailer operator adds adequate warning labels outside the headers), what forgeries are possible? -Allen

1 0

Re: Long-Lived Remailers
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:07 PM 5/21/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Sure, Alice can always herself add remailer steps. I explicitly mentioned >this in my message last night, when I wrote: "(Hal, to use him as the >example, could start using his own choice of remailer hops to accomplish >much the same result. We've talked about this for a long time, too...." > >But this is just using more remailers. We know this works. What Mark Grant >was suggesting was something different, a kind of "disposable final >emanation point," designed to go away easily under legal pressures. Ideally the final emanation point will be epherimal indeed. Perhaps only a few minutes or an hour or two. That will protect Alice against attacks of the form, "I sent something to Alice and it was posted from the same place as that attack on my dictitorial rule." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 21-MAY-1996 15:27:09.74 >Now it may be that operating a remailer may be interpreted by some courts >as being a "public nuisance," a theory I credit to Brad Templeton, but this >has not yet come even close to happening. Interesting. Let me guess, on the copyright grounds? Kinko's and library copy machines appear to do fine with warning labels; some equivalent should be possible. -Allen

1 0

Re: Toastmasters?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 20-MAY-1996 22:30:15.23 >Ask every state which has such reporting requirements (which is every >state in the union). >If you wanted to form an offshore corporation you'd have to form an >exempted one. IIRC, there was some discussion of some form of blind trusts a bit back... it was used under English common law to enable stuff before the actual invention of corporations. The ownership of the stock of such an offshore company by one or more such trusts might get around such problems, especially if the trusts had those (very interesting) flight provisions I believe you mentioned a bit back. >That would clearly change the analysis. RE: making a profit. Well, yes, it is a pretty good argument that you aren't just going for lack of liability, since that's part of what corporations are _for_... -Allen

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"markm(a)voicenet.com" "Mark M." 21-MAY-1996 02:41:22.53 >One problem I see with this is that if even one remailer operated using the >block lists instead of permit lists, then every other remailer in the chain >could hypothetically be held accountable for the contents of the message. >This idea of permit lists makes sense, but I am not sure it would really solve >anything. Well, that would depend on the traffic analysis defeating features not working right. Admittedly, for the next-to-last or so remailer, they may not work well enough anyway... but proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult. Civil suits unfortunately don't follow that standard (even for the punishment done through punitive damages), but they do require some proof. -Allen

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"droelke(a)rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com" 21-MAY-1996 22:04:32.30 >Heaven forbid that I use spammers as an idea base, but >to borrow something from them.... Set up the headers >on an anonymous message such that a Reply would result in >the user automatically being placed on the "deny" list. Automatically placing someone on the deny list from an email to an address added to the _body_ would be a good thing, in this context, although would mean having to have more than one email address for the remailer. -Allen

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"adam(a)lighthouse.homeport.org" "Adam Shostack" 21-MAY-1996 15:23:24.24 >Lance Cottrell wrote: Oops, I just misremembered your name. Sorry. >| >| An interesting problem with anonymous postage is that it is likely to kill >| cover traffic generators. >| >Postage is most needed at the point of delivery. >That is the node that will be taking the heat/paying the lawyers. I'd >operate a remailer if I was never the last node, becuase I don't have >a site that can take the heat/seizure of machines for me. If we pay >those final nodes to do more, than intermediate nodes can still carry >cover traffic for free. One difficulty with this on cover traffic is that one use of it is to send to dummy addresses, with mail that looks PGP encrypted but is actually garbage. Perhaps mail received without postage should be replaced with garbage by the remailer, then sent to a dummy address chosen by the remailer? -Allen

1 0