- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

A MODEST PROPOSAL
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punksters, I'm tired of playing with L. Detweiler's head on the Cypherpunks list. Let's up the ante. I think we (in northern California, at least) should play with his head in person! I hereby pledge $20, and ask for sufficient matching pledges, to buy Lance, Larry or whatever his REAL name is, a ticket, etc. to come to our next meeting. The offer, though, comes with certain . . . conditions. To take advantage of this offer, Detweiler must agree first post a list of Bay Area Cypherpunks he thinks are fictitious. If we can't produce those people with "official" IDs, we pay him $100 over his round trip air fare, we put him up in a nice hotel and we get him laid. If everyone is "real" we don't pay him squat, and we get to "pants" him on the lawn in front of Cygnus. To quote one of my many avatars, "Works for me." Right, Tim? >"Right, Sandy!" Right, Nick? >"Right you are, Sandy!" Right, Perry! >"You're right as rain, Sandy!" Okay, Alvin? . . . Okay, Alvin? . . . ALVIN!!!!! >"O-kaaaaaay!" S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Chris Odhner?
by mench＠cs.unr.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please send me mail, chris, this is Pete, the guy who made all those goddamn big brother insdie stickers for you. pete

1 0

Re: Net Regulation
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com B >Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: B >:And don't tell me that we still have to live in the physical world. B >:If 90% of the GWP (including *almost all* the money) consists of B >:non-physical goods and services on the nets, government control over B >:the remaining 10% is not statistically significant. B > B >All too often, people look at one thing and imagine that the B >numbers somehow outweigh reality. It ain't like that, folks. B >Reality is complexly, intimately, and inseparately interconnected. B >No matter what you do with the bits, physical reality cannot be B >discounted. You also can't disount the physical realities confronting the state. It is enormously difficult to control workers who can live anywhere on earth and work anywhere else. The US government may think that it can control Americans but it can't control the rest of the world's population most of whom live in countries that don't even claim to try and tax income earned by their expats. Everyone on the nets is an expat. I believe that the percentage of GWP controlled by the world's states peaked at some point since WWII and has started a decline. With the growth of informal markets, tax evasion, non-national economic activity (offshore), and the privitization of the economies of the SU and China. If this trend continues, the relative power of states will decline as their control of economic activity declines. B >"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife in the back will always B >cramp his style." But who is more vulnerable to the knife. Millions of "Permanent Tourists" living and working in cyberspace or a large nation state incapable of moving, hiding, or getting an honest job when markets turn against it. B >So, please, stop with the simplistic answers! B > B >(What *did* happen at Panix, eh? I rest my case.) Panix was down but my three other connections to the nets were up. Panix had a security intrusion. Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

4 5

Re: Net Regulation
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

B >From: bill(a)twwells.com (T. William Wells) B >I mostly agree B >with your statements and wish you wouldn't weaken them with B >worthless supporting claims. I'm glad. B >The permanent tourists, of course. The state is, when all is B >boiled down, an instrument of force and it functions most B >"effectively" when it limits itself to that. I guarantee you that B >if the US wanted to crack down on this stuff that it would be B >gone. This year, a third of the prison population is from B >drug-related "crimes"; if they got a bee in their bonnets, you B >and I and a whole lot of other people could take their places. B >(Not, mind you, that I think this'll happen. But it *could*.) Permanent Tourists are outside US jurisdiction. You could grab a very few but only a few. You couldn't affect the non-US persons earning their dough on the nets at all. That's the point of the nets that "foreigners" can be Americans and Americans can be "foreigners" without any loss of income. Once developed, the ability to work from anywhere to anywhere is powerful. It makes one much harder to control. Consider, small cash-intensive businesses located *in* the US report less than half of their income to the government (according to IRS studies). That is among people completely subject to US jurisdiction. B >Yes, that could be prevented, but it won't be prevented by what B >the cypherpunks are doing. Sooner or later, the bodies would have B >to meet the bullets. That's the way of the world, alas. Actually, such problems are rare in the OECD countries. Most enforcement here is indirect. People obey because of fear not direct application of force. Reduce the fear and you reduce the obedience. The threat we represent is a bit to abstract to sell the government on an all-out campaign against us that would be difficult and expensive. I don't think the Feds would "go to the mattresses" to fight us. Duncan Frissell If the KGB and the Stasi couldn't prevail against the winds of institutional "rightsizing", what chance does one aging dyke have? --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

2 1

Signing Messages & Other Ramblings
by Panzer Boy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- First, I would like to make sure that Eric Hughes knows that by his simple little push he has gotten someone (me) to install some code for Emacs to auto-sign messages. This, with external editing capabilities of Pine, allow me to sign all my outgoing mail extremely easily. If anyone would like help on this, just send me mail, and I can explain how to do it. L Detweilers obvious disliking towards people not being who they say they are. This is an obvious problem with the net. The net is based on a model of people trusting everyone else. Nothing that is posted or or sent out from net machines has verification on it. Currently this implies that the users need to do their own verification. Creating software that automatically handles signatures in and out, handles the fact that every machine but your own is not to be trusted. Assuming that people are going to be truthful and nice to you all the time is a nice fantasy, yet it rarely happens. It does happen more often on the Net than it does is "Real-Life" though. I have spoofed mail before, mostly as a joke among friends. All of my "targets" were told sooner or later about the joke. Because this information is not new to me, I don't expect all mail to me to be originating from the person it says it's from. You must judge incoming mail, and posts, on their content. If you have questions about the content than demand some sort of proof of who they say they are. People have said they feel "RAPED" when they discover they are talking to people who aren't who they say they are. "Raped" is a harsh word, but chosen obviously for it's violent connotations, even if these connotations are a bit wrong. Being the target of "spoofed" mail is like being conned, obviously no one likes be show that s/he is ignorant. It hurts, but at the same time, you shouldn't expect everyone to play by the "honor-system". When I read mail from people I usually assume it is from the person in the "From:" line. But if the mail is something absurd, or controversial, then I don't automatically assume this. If for example there was a post from Hal Finney about the great new digi-cash system that he had implemented and that it had financial banking from a rich middle eastern country. I would probably check the signature, and then even after that I would probably still wait and see if it was a "black-net" post. Well, this post has gotten to the length were many people will probably not read it, so I will stop here, and continue with some other comments about the new anon-remailer tomorrow. -Matt | Use the normal means to extract my (panzer(a)drown.slip.andrew.cmu.edu) | public key for proof of this message "That which can never be enforced should not be prohibited." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLMs3K+aKxB8nktcBAQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtox PkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVzui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAz 6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht sRjLQr4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

ADMIN: Shall we sign?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********************************************************************* *******THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN SIGNED BY "TIM'S REALLY NEAT SYSTEM"**** ********************************************************************* I see some problems, for me at least: 1. I run MacPGP home machine, and using it is a boring and time-consuming prcess. Many of you know about this. (Ironically, it's more secure for me to run it on my home machine, instead of on Netcom, but it means a lot more work.) 2. I also have plain old PGP running on one of my DOS laptops, and I sometimes use RSADSI's "MailSafe" on this, even to sign. (But not often, that's for sure.) 3. For quick responses, where response time is more important anyway, I cannot see jumping through all these hoops. Ironic, isn't i? 4. If the signatures are not to be verified, or even to be looked at very closely, then the situation presented at the beginning of this message will flourish: phony sigs to beat the delay. 5. Eric alluded to such proliferation being a Good Thing. I think not, as it will trivialize real sigs and will in some sense turn digital sigs into a kind of running joke on the list. Not a good thing, in my view. 6. The sitiuation with L. Dettweiler and S. Boxx, tragicomic as it was, would not have been materially affected. Both would have "signed" their messages in some way and what would then have been accomplished? (In some sense, both _were_ signed: Dettweiler by the origin of his message and the hard-to-spoof "an12070" (or whatever) that S. Boxx used.) While I'm not sure if the LD/S.Boxx situation, and the general claims of "pseudospoofing" are motivating Eric's idea, I certainly don't see a system of "weak" digital sigs (weak meaning no real checking) doing anything. 7. Finally, I have yet to see any serious evidence that this so-called pseudospoofing is going on, that is, that people are pretending to be others. I know Dettweiler _thinks_ that I am using the nyms of Jamie Dinkleacker, Nick Szabo, and others, but this is arrant nonsense. (And to repeat the obvious, as noted above, if I _were_ using other identities in this way, digitally signing the messages would be trivial and would in fact create a false sense of security, as others have also noted.). I've never seen anyone else claim to be me, at least not seriously, nor have I ever suspected such pseudospoofing is actually going on. --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

2 1

LD and Spoofing
by remail＠tamsun.tamu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I/We have been laughing so hard I/We have almost been crying, LD has really gone and lost it... Come on Brace up LD... you were such a fervent defender of privacy and anonymity such a short time ago too... Sam

1 0

LD's Latest RANT!!
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LD is starting to sound more like the NSA AI DS all the time...

1 0

Multiple Digital Personnas
by remail＠tamsun.tamu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gee LD some of us participate in Multiple Digital Personnas by choice: ... some of these are composite consisting of several people ... some of theses are individual and multiple by one person ... what do you find so wrong with it... Sam Hill( An intentional Composite Personna )

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:20 AM 11/4/96 -0800, you wrote: : :So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include :and who to reject? Since it IS private, the owner has to justify NOTHING, vis-a-vis the list. We _choose_ to supplicate to join; we are _allowed_ to join (or not allowed) by the owner's grace; we may always _choose_ to unsubscrive [sic]; if we do it correctly, we are off the list. Let me repeat, the onus is NOT on the owner to justify the use of his property. Cordially, Alec PGP Fingerprint: pub 1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc(a)abraxis.com> Key fingerprint = 09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9 D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31

1 0