On Dec 23, 1:11am, Mark Terka wrote:

Oh goody! Now we are getting a judgement call with respect to how cryptography in general aids "the greater good".

Please indicate where I said or implied this. Possibly there is such a thing as the "greater good", but I have seen it used too many times to justify the applications of someone's personal beliefs or (more commonly) phobias and personal problems to the world at large. It's not a concept I have a lot of respect for, purely on this basis. Personally - and let's face it, none of us can express much more than a personal opinion - I think the best that any of us can do is to base our decisions on individual cases, which seems to have been what has happened in this case.

Do you suppose the NSA makes the same call when they do routine traffic analysis or try to bust a suspiciously (to them) encrypted message??????

No I don't. On the other hand, I am sure that a whole load of judgement calls go into the selection of individuals or subjects which go onto watchlists.

That to me indicates that the members of this list should be at least remotely interested in the subject of attacks as well as defense as you can't defend aginst something unless the method of attack has been discussed.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that the way you go around investigating attacks on protocols and cryptosystems is to help a fairly pathetic individual violate someone else's privacy. To me, that just doesn't follow.

GROAN! (again) And how, pray tell, do we go about protecting ourselves against others if we are not prepared to discuss what sort of attacks may be mounted against us?????

I never said we should not discuss it. But I do say that IN MY OPINION the original poster who wanted help was a pathetic little slime, and that IN MY OPINION, shouldn't be assisted to do anything. Generic attacks on Norton's Encrypt are "valid" subjects for cypherpunks discussion, which I would have thought goes without saying. An even better outcome would be to provide the girlfriend with some indication of the true security against attack she is getting from the program, and to replace it with something better if it turns out to be inadequate.

Like I alluded to before, I bet if it was a case of someone trying to descramble something like skipjack to try and discover something about National Security (ours OR theirs) I bet the members of this list would have fallen all over themselves trying to help the original poster.

I suppose that would depend on what the individuals concerned perceived as the consequences of their action.

I don't recall seeing too much in the waqy of condemnation of the guy that posted RC4 to this list ..... but as soon as we see something that touches close to home like male/female relationships, the shit hits the fan!!!!!

So? Based on past conversations and discussions, many of us are here because we don't like the idea of organisations or individuals being able to arbitrarily violate our own privacy. Speaking for myself, I know that I have had my privacy violated on a couple of occasions, and have become convinced that technical solutions are the way to go about it. But it does not follow that I should help someone violate another's privacy. It seems that some people feel that their own privacy is inviolate, yet others are fair game.

...

Possibly. IMO, what the original requester was asking for was so repulsive and immature that the responses so far have been mild.

And in my opinion what the original poster was no different than the British attack on "Enigma" or the American attack on "Purple".

Well, wartime attacks like these are usually motivated by the belief that a lot of people's lives depend on the success of the venture. Whether this is true or not is debatable, and the lives in question are usually on one side only. I personally do not find the comparison to be valid. Ian. #include <std.disclaimer>

On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Mark Terka wrote:

GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc... ^^^^^^^ You said it.

Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what state the relationship is irrelevant.

And *HE* gave the reason - he wanted go rifling through his girlfriend's private files. And here I was, thinking that this list was about "better privacy through cryptography" - I must have subscribed to alt.2600 by mistake... Come to think of it, that's a better place for the original query...

The gentleman asked a question regarding a standard cryptographic problem... how you can intercept and interpret encrypted information, either in theory in practice. To make judgement calls is WAY out of line and a hell of a bad precedent for this group.

Read it again - he specifically wanted to sneak into his partner's files; that is a clear invasion of privacy. Jeeze - I thought a Yank would have understood this...

I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

And would you have been just as sympathetic if somebody wanted to rifle YOUR files?

Oh boy! Pretty soon we will have this list as "cypherpunks giving advice to the lovelorn..."!!! Lets cut the crap, stick to the problem at hand and offer solutions to what the participants of the list know best, namely the the use and analysis of cryptographic problems.

That has nothing to do with it - person A wanted advice on how to invade person B's privacy (he presumably doesn't have the guts to just ask her). Sorry, but privacy works both ways - she's entitled to it just as much as anybody else. -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6 Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE 9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.941223153106.2289B-100000@eram.esi.com.au>, Dave Horsfall <dave@esi.COM.AU> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Mark Terka wrote:

...

GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc... ^^^^^^^ You said it.

And the defense thereof.....

...

Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what state the relationship is irrelevant.

And *HE* gave the reason - he wanted go rifling through his girlfriend's private files. And here I was, thinking that this list was about "better privacy through cryptography" - I must have subscribed to alt.2600 by mistake... Come to think of it, that's a better place for the original query...

Gee...I guess we shouldn't get too concerned when gov't agencies try to break OUR communications on a large scale ...or maybe the cypherpunk system of remailers were set up just as a hobby...

...

The gentleman asked a question regarding a standard cryptographic problem... how you can intercept and interpret encrypted information, either in theory in practice. To make judgement calls is WAY out of line and a hell of a bad precedent for this group.

Read it again - he specifically wanted to sneak into his partner's files; that is a clear invasion of privacy. Jeeze - I thought a Yank would have understood this...

Sorry....I'm Canadian......and sure. He wanted to sneak into his partners files. What a strange cryptographic concept that happens to be....

...

I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

And would you have been just as sympathetic if somebody wanted to rifle YOUR files?

Yup! Alls fair in luv...or WAR! If you aren't prepared to play the game, then stay at home!!

...

Oh boy! Pretty soon we will have this list as "cypherpunks giving advice to the lovelorn..."!!! Lets cut the crap, stick to the problem at hand and offer solutions to what the participants of the list know best, namely the the use and analysis of cryptographic problems.

That has nothing to do with it - person A wanted advice on how to invade person B's privacy (he presumably doesn't have the guts to just ask her). Sorry, but privacy works both ways - she's entitled to it just as much as anybody else.

Just like the Japanese were entitled to THEIR privacy before Midway, eh? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBLvpySnBFBj7pSNyhAQG+9wf/XJP/KiXtPidMOka+sMWHPQMY8jMPwqML TEubTnBmzb97zjefBCigrygmJZS6IatJKyf9sBtFHxHy7JBvbuzCBywT5d7xzQ65 D/7Ms50gCwZ50SWx2TFm9xfnbUBpYsmuRwWKn2yu+JZZu+vg7nOuPAhBVgg6RF3m LyxHkpoQ+SvtJHsyqYXL4lEkkdJ3hLSjMEsHcJBUaIaYWaO++By3J6Nmsv3J4K/k DwHFEDssuMjpKqIYdStJ+mGQ13dyB9yn73gTD5cvwhdNn3IrG96IdGQeIGECT+Bv Z8mNB2urLuHKe6Gipdf//OsXlerFxYlPbHsJiRUYu0Qc0cokhTlIlw== =f8M4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I have recntly moved to Chicago, and was wondering if there was a regional branch of the Cypherpunks in this area. If so is there a meeting scheduled soon? **I've got the strap-on connections in Lesbos, and the KY trust in Sodom, I'm the only Man in Istanbul, I'm the only punk in Islam, I'm the only bar on Skid Row, I'm the only whore on the waterfront** _Cobble Stone Gardens_ William Seward Burroughs

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:

Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 14:52:06 -0500 From: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

On Dec 22, 9:46pm, Mark Terka wrote:

...

GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...

...

Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what state the relationship is irrelevant.

What a load of amoral rubbish.

By who's standard? Yours?

Cypherpunks is a group whose members believe in the application of technology to PROTECT privacy, not to violate someone else's. Once you assume that capability implies right, you're on very shakey moral ground, but that is exactly what you are saying in this post. I find that position repellent, and I would be very surprised and not a little disappointed if you find many others here who felt the same way.

Who the hell are you to define the position of cypherpunks? Who the hell are any of us to do this? I guess I suffered from the silly idea that as a whole, the members of the list would not put short term morality before the long term goal. It seems there are those who disagree with me. I would offer the following: While it may be that Joe Break-Into-Girlfriend's-Files may or may not be justified, that is not ours to judge. It is simply for the crypto non-challenged to comment on the security or lack thereof of a given system. As soon as this list turns into a pile of bleeding heart liberals, anxious to embroil themselves in the personal matters of others, it has failed. I cannot believe that people on this list, those who claim to be interested in the preservation of privacy, would support the proposition that knowledge about the strength or weakness of a given system should be surpressed. What the hell is that? I guess no one who supports this position has ANY business >WHATSOEVER< in pointing out that digital cellular has a low level of security than it is advertized as, or that Clipper is compromised. Who the hell are you people to second guess? Back to security through obscurity I suppose. How typical. What a perversion. Freedom of information, except where that information may violate principals we define, and enforce. Strong crypto for all, except those who would use weak systems, those we will keep in ignorance, and refuse to educate in any manner. Denouncement of insecure crypto security, unless of course, it might tend to offend someone, the definition of offense we shall, of course, define. What a load of sanctamonous crap. We will decide what's good for you, and what you are allowed to know. Disgusting. Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery, or alt.bleeding.liberal.

...

I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....

I submit that the response should have been the same regardless of the nature of the material. Which is it going to be? 1> Q: "How do you attack X?" A: "Y" or 2> Q: "How do you attack X?" A: "Realistically X should not be attacked, because to allow the widespead lack of confidence in X will destroy society as we know it, and anyhow it's nasty."

Possibly. IMO, what the original requester was asking for was so repulsive and immature that the responses so far have been mild.

Who are you to judge? Take it to alt.partronizing.jerk

Ian.

-uni- (Dark) 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, James A. Donald wrote:

Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 00:01:19 -0800 (PST) From: James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Cc: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:

...

...

What a load of amoral rubbish.

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:

...

By who's standard? Yours?

Well I guess Black Unicorns standards are not such that one should entrust secrets to him.

Absolutely not unless: 1> I am paid to keep them. 2> I am bound by an attorney-client relationship. 3> Ignore the above two in any absolute forms. But not for the reasons you suspect, in fact I submit the reverse is true. Clearly the distinction between the likelyhood of someone keeping a secret and the advisibility of disclosing damaging information to anyone, trustworthy or not (or protecting it insufficently, or failing to research the methods use you to protect it), evades you. If you cannot see that my trustworthiness, when a significantly positive variable, is not the sole consideration in deciding if you should tell me something, you're in the wrong area of speculation. Further, if you cannot see that my hands off and nose out of where it doesn't belong position, makes me a MORE attractive individual to confide in, one less likely to turn your secrets over to the thought police, or to pass judgement based on some personal and artificial moral construct bearing only limited resemblence to any other, and being utterly unpredictable, then you're in the wrong area of speculation. Query: Who is likely to turn more evidence over to police in criminal matters? 1> "Trusted" family members. 2> "Amoral" attornies who refuse to be blinded by conventional (read reactionary) morality? Who do you want knowing your secrets? (When anyone should know them at all) -uni- (Dark)

--------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@netcom.com

And I would submit, you, and you alone, the individual you, have the OBLIGATION to defend yourself and your property, and the RESPONSIBILITY to defend it less the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state come in and do it for you. -uni- (Dark) 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

On Wed, 28 Dec 1994, Ian Farquhar wrote:

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 11:17:19 -0500 From: Ian Farquhar <ianf@sydney.sgi.com> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

On Dec 23, 11:28pm, Black Unicorn wrote:

...

I guess I suffered from the silly idea that as a whole, the members of the list would not put short term morality before the long term goal.

Possibly you did, although I question whether the two are incompatible.

A legitimate issue. Perhaps one for e-mail?

...

I cannot believe that people on this list, those who claim to be interested in the preservation of privacy, would support the proposition that knowledge about the strength or weakness of a given system should be surpressed.

I don't recall anyone who did mention censorship. I saw a lot of people suggesting that helping the original pathetic individual was not a good idea, and then several howls of outrage accusing these people of censorship. There is a difference between non-disclosure and censorship, and its not an arbitrary one either.

When based on individual judgement, fine, when based and justified by some individual's concept of what cypherpunks stand for and what they should or should not be disclosing, forget it.

...

Disgusting. Get off this list, you belong on alt.codependency.recovery, or alt.bleeding.liberal.

But isn't that exactly what you're proposing? "Get off the list because your position disagrees with mine." Sounds like censorship to me, except that "Black Unicorn" is the one deciding what is acceptable.

I am properly chastized, and will again, apologize to both the list and the individual. (Sorry) Looking at those words, I can't imagine what infancy prompted me to type them. (Sigh) I would say black outs, but I really don't drink much.

Ian.

#include <std.disclaimer>

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!