- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

Re: The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
by Anonymous 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

Okay. I've gotten my collective thought processes back on track, how 'bout the rest of you? Can we move forward -together- on the front for strong crypto? Seeing as how Mr. P. (segway) Ferguson and Mr. Spooge(y) like to use dictionary entries, I suggest this one as an "end-all" for our current purposes - team - \teem\ 2 : a number of persons associated in work or activity; esp: a group on one side in a match. We should be working as a team and not vetting petty on issues outside of strong crypto.

1 0

Re: The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
by pmetzger＠lehman.com 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

Anonymous says: > Bullshit. Privacy is not inherently subversive at all. If you > take the time to browse back through the Bill of Rights, you might > recognize this paragraph - > > ARTICLE IV > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, > houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and > seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but > upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and > particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or > things to be seized. I'll point out something about the history of that line most people forget. Our fine nation was founded by drug smugglers. The drug in question was Rum, admittedly, but none the less, the point remains -- the revolutionary war was financed by big time criminals like John Hancock who made their money in smuggling contraband and other similar acts. They made sure that the constitution they got was supportive of their particular business interests. History teachers don't like pointing this sort of thing out, but its none the less true. Our founders wanted a government that is very close in size to what minarchist libertarians think of as being the "right size" -- there was a scandal early on when the white house staff was expanded to four people -- so it shouldn't be suprising that a correct reading of the constitution leads to certain unpleasant conclusions for statists. Perry PS Thomas Jefferson once fretted heavily over whether a constitutional amendment was needed to make the Louisiana Purchase. Think of that image in your mind the next time you hear a congressman propose some new program that is plainly not authorized in the enumerated powers section of the constitution. (By the way, if your history teacher fed you the bull that the "escape clause" means congress can pass any law it likes, I suggest looking up the legal doctrine that the "exception proves the rule", and check out the history of FDRs administration, paying special attention to the early constutional battles like the so called Scheckter "Sick Chicken" case and to the phrase "Court Packing".)

1 0

Re: Digital warfare
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 19:40:37 -0500 >From: ferguson(a)fiber.sprintlink.net (Paul Ferguson x2044) >Message-Id: <9309110040.AA09675(a)fiber.sprintlink.net> >Subject: Digital warfare >> So, if you see folks using BlackNet for advertising Intel >> chips.... > > That's an interesting point (images of "Wild Palms" conjured). > This _is_ the wave of the future, as Tim implies, and it's > unfortunate that instances such as this (segway) tarnishes what > it is that I think many of us are trying to espouse in the > cypherpunk movement. > >ferguson(a)icp.net | Privacy -- Use it or lose it. I have heard cypherpunks described as two groups under one label: 1. those of us who advocate privacy in private hands 2. those who advocate anarchy I'm in the privacy camp and worry that enough talk from the anarchists will cause the privacy to be attacked. I fully expect total retaliation by the governments of the world against any effective anarchy. The wilder the threats (even if they're not real), the stronger the retaliation. We could lose all privacy as a result. It's important not to give the government any excuse which would make the populace side with them against us. This is a political battle and we need the people on our side. For example, crypto-anarchic banks -- cute idea -- but if you ever want a cop to make your banker give you the money, the banker can't be anonymous and neither can you account be. ..so you have to *really* trust this banker. Maybe some people will trust such a banker enough. But, meanwhile, talk of total tax evasion by the more excited of our crypto-anarchy brethren might give the government the political ammunition it needs. In fact, if the FBI has planted agents on this list, I wouldn't be surprised to discover someday that they were among the vocal anarchists. - Carl

8 10

chaos.bsu.edu online (again)
by Chael Hall 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

Sorry about that... I will remember not to disklabel my swap partition again like that. Unfortunately, a lot of data was lost last week when I killed my 386BSD partition. One thing that I lost was the pseudonymous contact service that I had written. The remailer, however, has been enhanced a little bit (nothing noticeable) and is now running on chaos. The remailer address is <remailer(a)chaos.bsu.edu>. This is *not* a user account, so if you mess up a message to the remailer, your message will bounce with an appropriate error code. Please try it out and let me know if you have any problems with it. Accounts are available, the same restrictions apply as in my previous message. Telnet to chaos.bsu.edu and login as "guest" to apply for an account. There is a mail server named "plans" on here too. I created it with the intention of getting others' input on the direction that chaos should go. So, if you would like to help give some constructive criticizm, please send a subscription request to "plans-admin(a)chaos.bsu.edu" now! Chael Hall {nowhere|root}(a)chaos.bsu.edu nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu 00CCHALL(a)bsuvc.bsu.edu chall(a)bsu.edu

1 0

Correction
by Chael Hall 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

Correction, that's plans-request(a)chaos.bsu.edu Chael

1 0

The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
by Anonymous 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

On Sun, 12 Sep 93 00:54:18 PDT, <uunet!alumni.cco.caltech.edu!nobody> wrote - > Some comments on the relationship between anarchy and > privacy: > > 1. There have been some recent posts suggesting that > privacy is not fundamentally subversive of > government, and that cypherpunks should emphasize > the privacy and keep quite about the anarchy. I > find these arguments disingenuous in the extreme, > and strategically unsound as well. Bullshit. Privacy is not inherently subversive at all. If you take the time to browse back through the Bill of Rights, you might recognize this paragraph - ARTICLE IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > 3. The government has shown by its behavior that it > believes that privacy is fundamentally subversive. This is not necessarily true. I agree that Big Brother has gone to the extreme to violate individual privacy in the modern day, but just how does this tie into anarchy? To solely entwine these two idealisms is, in my opinion, a bankrupt strategy. I believe in strong crypto, I believe in privacy. Pinch-hitting for anarchy will damage work for privacy causes. > 4. I personally find privacy, in itself, only mildly > interesting. As a tool to undermine the government, > I find it VERY EXCITING INDEED. Excitement does not define the deed or the end result. Get your cheap thrills at someone else's expense. > 5. Cypherpunks' mission is to evangelize the use of > privacy. Sell the sizzle, not the steak! Privacy > is the steak. The sizzle is the possibility of > GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING. "Getting away" with privacy is an oxymoron in itself. Privacy should be something that we all have and enjoy as individuals, not simply as guaranteed under the Constitution, but as a human right that is owed each of us globally. I'll stand by you in a fight for privacy, but I won't be party to anarchic idealisms that I believe will do more damage to the privacy cause in the long run. -

1 0

encryption key switching,would it work?
by ccat＠netcom.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

I'm wondering if there is any particular reason why an encrypted message might not be encrypted with several different keys,within the same message, divided by time.Perhaps synchronized clocks or time stamping might be used to toggle the encryption parameters.This technology might be able to defeat the brute force decryption technologies described in the paper mentioned yesterday. The only way that one might decrypt the message is to know the _exact_ time at wich the algorhythm was switched.In other words, what to prevent people from using _numerous_ keys during _one_ session,with the _times_ of switching remaining secret? Combined with a robust "one time pad" method,like triple DES,this technology might be particularly resistant to casual decryption attempts based on knowledge of the algorhythm? I know little about different encryption methods.. is there any reason this wouldnt work,besides the necessary complexity of the information contained in the key? -Chris - Chris Beaumont nutrient cafe wholesale ccat(a)netcom.com MIME mail graciously accepted ccat(a)casa.stanford.edu public key available via finger

2 1

Re: Spooks reading the list
by lefty＠apple.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

An anonymous "contributor" writes > >In fact, there is at least one NSA agent on this list. Whether >he/she is on our side or not, who knows? This message, a defense of >the NSA, was posted here not long ago. I don't know if anyone else >noticed this at the time, but take a look: > >*From: IN%"remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu" 28-AUG-1993 06:02:47.29 >*To: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" >*CC: >*Subj: NSA & the Crypto-Zionist Myth of "Public Key"! > >* {Deletia} >* >*Excuse me, but I'm getting tired of this silly paranoia. NSA >*is not Evil Incarnate Central, and we are not fighting a Valiant War > == > >We? WE! Do you suppose that was a Freudian slip, or did he mean to >say it like that? Whoever he is, he works for the NSA. Did anyone else >notice this at the time? In this context, "we" clearly refers to the Cypherpunks, fighting a "Valiant War" _against_ the NSA. I think you sound like a paranoid loon. -- Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Armed gangs stealing chips from warehouses
by tcmay＠netcom.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

I saw on "Clarinet," the news service, a couple of A.P. reports on armed attacks on chip warehouses. The latest was yesterday when a van pulled up to the loading dock at Wyle, a distributor in Santa Clara (across from Intel). Two armed men forced everyone in the area to the floor, while they went straight for the Intel microprocessors and filled a large bag. An investigator called this type of crime the wave of the future, and said something to the effect that "chips will be the coke of the 90s." Also talk of black markets and how computer networks are being used to coordinate things. So, if you see folks using BlackNet for advertising Intel chips.... (I regret that I cannot post the Clarinet article, as Clarinet has fairly draconian policies about reposting its articles--even though I never signed a contract. Still, Cypherunks should be aware of this....I've seen at least one Clarinet article reposted here on this list, and this could expose the list to actions.) --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

Let's stick to the topic, folks...
by Andrew Corradini/SBDC 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

For purely practical reasons, could we all please try to limit stuff that'd end up on soda.berkeley.edu in the "rants" directory? ;-) This is a MAILING LIST, not a newsgroup, and some of us have pretty limited space available. Debating constitutional issues, splitting hairs over the difference between libertarianism and anarchism (let ALONE "strong" vs. "weak" anarchy!) is best done in an alt.politics-type setting, no? I didn't subscribe to the list to see 7-level-deep nested quotes arguing over whether anarchy is fundamentally unstable; I suspect most others on the list didn't either. As I understood, and understand, the thrust of the group deals with the TECHNOLOGY and TECHNIQUES involved in the application of cryptography to privacy-related issues and the free distribution of "information", whether dirty pictures, money, or a poem you just wrote to your loved one. NOT the philosophy. Please, for bandwidth's sake, would people please take their back-n-forth's.... *private*?! ;-) (pun fully intended) (deep breath, relax shoulder tension, stepping down from soapbox) Thanks, y'all. I feel much better now. Andrew

1 0