1994-09-17 - Re: (fwd) “Will You Be a Terrorist?”

Header Data

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
To: cactus@bb.com (L. Todd Masco)
Message Hash: d82f312628b3f9fc22ede10757c47c1535995ab9f9ba6cf31c08cbd9c89f516d
Message ID: <199409171951.MAA13788@netcom13.netcom.com>
Reply To: <35ffhf$jot@bb.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-09-17 19:54:18 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 12:54:18 PDT

Raw message

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 12:54:18 PDT
To: cactus@bb.com (L. Todd Masco)
Subject: Re: (fwd) "Will You Be a Terrorist?"
In-Reply-To: <35ffhf$jot@bb.com>
Message-ID: <199409171951.MAA13788@netcom13.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> In article <199409171745.KAA03257@netcom8.netcom.com>,
> Timothy C. May <tcmay@netcom.com> wrote:
> >I think the recently-passed Crime Act has implications for what some
> >are calling "terrorist speech" and that Cypherpunks remailers may be
> >context of being "communications equipment."
> I don't see why anonymous remailers are singled out: as written,
> it seems that *any* electronic service could be singled out for
> this (for example, netcom doesn't require proof-of-identity
> credentials).

I didn't they *are* singled out, just that the Crime Act has some
implications for remailers, should the authorities seek to apply the
law. And as for Netcom and similar services not requiring proofs of
identity, I expect this to change over the next few years (a
combination of the Crime Act, the upcoming immigration legislation,
and fears that the Net is too unregulated).

> In any case, perhaps a way around this can be found: what we may
> need is "stealth remailers," software that will behave as a remailer
> through non-obvious "security holes" with correct cooperation from
> software the original user runs.  

Any port 25 in a storm? Exploitation of holes is a classic case of
"security through obscurity," useful only for short periods of time,
and never very certain.

> Of course, the existence of these "stealth features" would be an open
> secret: however this would lend, to take a phrase from the crytofascists,
> "plausible deniability."  'Sorry, I just heard about a more secure
> sendmail and ftp'd it.  Didn't say anything anywhere about this in
> the README files....'
> Everybody still with me?  Anybody?  Sound like work people are willing
> to do/think is worth doing?  I'd certainly be willing to do some work
> on this -- might even be able to justify it as part of my real job,
> which does involve designing and implementing encrypted protocols.

Stealth remailers is a good thing to work on, I agree. I'd first
settle for having more offshore remailers. 

There are all sorts of other schemes, too.

Under the Crime Act and RICO statutes, we may be committing consiracy
merely by talking amongst ourselves. (Maybe this is an exaggeration,
as I'm not a lawyer and have no desire to become one.)

--Tim May

Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@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: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay