going in anarchic circles

From: Grand Epopt Feotus <68954@brahms.udel.edu>
>	I comprehend my own brand of crypto/cyber-anarchy.  I
>	personally do not go for any of the regulations or
>	"protections" that have been proposed so far.  IMO, if
>	you want to put your machine on the net, take your
>	chances.  It's getting very cheap to set up a node now,
>	and if I choose to do so I would not take kindly to any
>	restrictions upon my activity, be it legal, or illegal
>	even.  

ok, suppose that every internet company decided that they would install
`fingerprint keyboards' and require use of them by users. these keyboards
sense your fingerprints as you type on the keyboard and can be used to
reject users not authorized to use a given account. they simply tell people
who do not want to use the system, `tough luck'. in a sense, this is something
like how our social security system and drivers licensing works today. there
are few (legal) alternatives to them.

so, how do you get a connection to this net? you are probably going to
propose `starting a new net without these draconian restrictions'. but
what you have done is propose a new set of rules -- `we don't need no
stinkin rules'. how is your system going to deal with sites that corrupt
passed mail? that harbor hackers and crackers? it really amazes me guys,
but if you think the internet is some kind of anarchy right now,you
are completely mistaken. you agree to a set of rules when you join the
net. those rules are set by your provider.  you agree not to corrupt
mail you forward, don't mailbomb usenet, etc.  currently there are many 
`unspoken rules' -- but it makes sense for them to be codified so that 
everyone understands what they can expect of each other.

there is no guarantee of your
access to the current net. doesn't that seem kind of fragile? you think
you don't have to have any faith? it seems you have a lot of faith you
will always be able to get a connection to the internet. why not try
to set up a system or organization that is committed to formalizing
the rights and expectations of users on the net and specifying what
constitutes `basic access'?

>	Myself, I would much rather take the lumps of some
>	abuse, rather than have ANY regualtion put on my usage of
>	my personal node, or interaction between connected nodes.

ok, so i set up a node that randomly corrupts all the mail that i pass
through my site. i mailbomb the cypherpunks list and all the remailers.
how do you deal with it? you send shrieking mail to all my upstream
site providers asking them to yank me. what if i have bribed them
all very lucratively? what if they decide that you don't pay enough,
so they are going to yank you instead? (not worth the hassle of your
insults, after all) what if i have dozens of accounts on different
public domain sites? i seem to be going in circles here. 

>	This makes room for alot of abuse, I admit that, but I
>	just don't see how all these Bill-O-CyberRights stuff,
>	and CyberKommunity will work when your dealing with a
>	space that has no boundary.  This is a metric space, whos
>	distances are measured in connectivity, there are no real
>	boundaries as the are easily breached and morphed.

excuse me, mr. idealist, but you live in a world that no one would
recognize as their own. cyberspace exists only because people have
constructed it. you cannot escape that interaction of a community.
no man is an island. what guarantees you will have a connection to 
the network today? absolutely nothing. it is just your faith in
the great cybergods. cyberspace is nothing but crystallized human
interaction.  how do you deal with the `pathological' cases of human
behavior such as harassment, terrorism, censorship, etc?

>	How the hell are you going to evict
>	me if I break one of the laws?  There is no way you can
>	develop a fool-proof system to control use, I even
>	seriously doubt you can install a shitty system even.

unix passwords represent a reasonable amount of security. they prevent
me from hijacking your account. more sophisticated levels exist.

look, you are evicted from your apartment if you don't pay your rent. it
is just as simple to evict someone from their cyberspatial connection,
and throw out all their furniture on the street!! believe me, it has 
happened to me twice!!

>	Basically if I want to do something, it will get done.
>	The whole concept of a police force controlling
>	cyberspace is a leap back about a billion evolution
>	cycles.  You can't patrol an amorphous blob.  

don't think of it as `us vs. them'. think of it as `us' erecting our
own framework of self-regulation. it would allow `us' to get rid of the
detweilers of the world in our community. cyberspace is not an amorphous
Gibsonian blob!! it is a physical infrastructure policed by humans as
simply as our physical roads are!! the police already exist, they are 
called `system administrators', except they have no uniform code of 
conduct today, except `if something pisses me off, disconnect it'.

>	If they dont like what my node is doing, than cut
>	connections to my node.

what if you wake up one day and find that all the people you want to
talk to, and you thought were your friends, all on a separate network,
and you are isolated with Detweiler, Depew, Morris, and Mitnick on the
AnarchyNet?

>	I would
>	actually prefer the possibility to Detwielering so to
>	speak,than to allow someone to try and control this.  If

hee, hee, suit yourself....

>	You are unable to hold someone
>	accountable for their own deeds in a space like
>	kyberspace where psuedonyms are part of the fabric of the
>	space.

cyberspace is what we make it. if no name is ever connected to a human,
it can be constructed that way. if identity is important (as most of
human history seems to imply) we can translate it into the new realm. but
you are continuously mixing up what is possible with what you want. if
you don't want something that is possible, then it's possibility is 
irrelevant. 

why don't you just preface your remarks by saying `i only
want a version of cyberspace where no one is responsible for their
actions!!' and i'd just leave it alone. as it stands you argue that
cyberspace = anarchy by definition. i cannot agree.

this dialogue appears to be at the point of arguing two different religions,
so it is not very fruitful for any of us, but if grand epopt feotus represents
the basic cypherpunk views, then i find it all very fascinating. you guys 
realize that you have a very unusual culture that is highly distinct from
virtually any other culture ... at least that i am aware of. you do seem
to have some parallels to the russian nihilists, some of the libertarians,
some of the anarchists, but you have a very distinct blend of it ....

anyway, it is all kind of bizarrely alien to me, so maybe i will check out
that cyberwonk group or whatever that eli brandt mentioned and see if anyone
there is on the same wavelength.

pseudonymously yours,
--tmp

>>>>> "tmp" == tmp  <tmp@netcom.com> writes:

         ...
    tmp> unix passwords represent a reasonable amount of
    tmp> security. they prevent me from hijacking your account. more
    tmp> sophisticated levels exist.

I would take issue with this statement on its face. I refer you all to
the recent House hearings on Internet Security, and the statements
made by all of the panel members. 

Reusable passwords are dead. Anyone who insists on using them is part
of the problem, not part of the solution. If you won't do it for
yourself, do it for your neighbors who will be attacked from your
site. 

--Strat

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 5-Apr-94 one small comment about a
b.. by Bob Stratton@uunet.uu.ne 
> >>>>> "tmp" == tmp  <tmp@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>          ...
>     tmp> unix passwords represent a reasonable amount of
>     tmp> security. they prevent me from hijacking your account. more
>     tmp> sophisticated levels exist.
> 
> I would take issue with this statement on its face. I refer you all to
> the recent House hearings on Internet Security, and the statements
> made by all of the panel members. 

Note, he said *your* account. *My* password is immune to a dictionary
attack, is yours. <Pause while everyone says "yes"> Now, people can
choose their passwords, and you can choose a password that's easier to
remember and harder to crack than a PIN number (or long distance number,
or whatever). These recent hearings will alert (l)users  to choose
something other than "simple" ( <-- Ames ) as a password.

> Reusable passwords are dead. Anyone who insists on using them is part
> of the problem, not part of the solution. If you won't do it for
> yourself, do it for your neighbors who will be attacked from your
> site. 

Ummmm, yeah, or something.
<reaches up, grabs a small piece of paper out of the air, unfolds it and
reads what is written on it, looks up, and says "platypus.">
Doncha love it when someone makes a claim like this, y'know, one that's
so out there, so whacked, and doesn't back it up except with some limp
attempt at coersion? I mean, I usually assume that people who can figure
out how to send e-mail are intelligent enough to realize that people
don't go for this sort of thing. I just don't get it.

Shaking his head disappointedly,
jer

darklord@cmu.edu | "it's not a matter of rights  / it's just a matter of war
finger me for my |  don't have a reason to fight / they never had one before"
   Geek Code and |                                    -Ministry, "Hero"
  PGP public key | http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr25/jbde/

On Tue, 5 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:

> ok, suppose that every internet company decided that they would install
> `fingerprint keyboards' and require use of them by users. these keyboards
> sense your fingerprints as you type on the keyboard and can be used to
> reject users not authorized to use a given account. they simply tell people
> who do not want to use the system, `tough luck'. in a sense, this is something
> like how our social security system and drivers licensing works today. there
> are few (legal) alternatives to them.
>
	Won't happen.  Espaecially since there is not some
	monolithic organization of internet companies, and as a
	matter of fact, not all providers are companies, some are
	colleges who could ill afford such keyboards, and even
	some more are simply people running providers out of
	their basementsand bedrooms.  Not only that, butsuch a
	system would be bypassable by abusers and their ilk.
	Just like the social security and drivers license system
	is easily bypassable by abusers who so desire.  But you
	did put the legal limiter in thier, but as we both now,
	that doesnt mean shit in this world really.


> so, how do you get a connection to this net? you are probably going to
> propose `starting a new net without these draconian restrictions'. but
> what you have done is propose a new set of rules -- `we don't need no
> stinkin rules'. how is your system going to deal with sites that corrupt
> passed mail? that harbor hackers and crackers? it really amazes me guys,
> but if you think the internet is some kind of anarchy right now,you
> are completely mistaken. you agree to a set of rules when you join the
> net. those rules are set by your provider.  you agree not to corrupt
> mail you forward, don't mailbomb usenet, etc.  currently there are many 
> `unspoken rules' -- but it makes sense for them to be codified so that 
> everyone understands what they can expect of each other.
> 
	hehe, the who idea of saying we don't need stinking rules
	being a setting up of our own rules is ludicrous.  That's
	the argument I would expect froma  afifth grader.  How
	will mysystem deal with crackers etc?  I will do my best
	with security as I can, ye I know these still leaves me
	open to attack, but that's part of the territory.
	Because even if you DO set upa list of guidelines these
	things would still happen.  Your trying to put laws on
	people who have no intention of following them.  Do you
	think a law outlawing cracking sniffing etc would stop
	someone capable of them who wanted to?  Noway.  And by
	the way, suggested guidelines and niceties are not
	"illegal" in an anarchy.  You make the mistake of
	thinking that all anarchy means everyone kill everyone
	else, but it doesnt.  Basically I have no problems with
	being nice with agreements, but don't try to make them
	law, because all that does is make more criminals and
	doesnt reduce the problems.


> there is no guarantee of your
> access to the current net. doesn't that seem kind of fragile? you think
> you don't have to have any faith? it seems you have a lot of faith you
> will always be able to get a connection to the internet. why not try
> to set up a system or organization that is committed to formalizing
> the rights and expectations of users on the net and specifying what
> constitutes `basic access'?
> 
	I will always have connection to the internet if I desire
	it, be it legal or not, but yes, I do have a bit of
	compassion for those unable to do that.  My answer tho is
	not regulations and the like, my answer is to make it as
	open as possible, the more people providing the more
	freedom and competition to drive down prices.  When I can
	provide acces from my bedroom, and it is reasonable to do
	so, then any concept of restrictions is nullified, since
	there is no way of enforcing them really.  And the good
	news is, that I CAN run a provider on my lowly budget if
	I so desire NOW.  the answer is not an ORGANIZATION,
	since they would have no ral jurisdiction or power on the
	net, the answer is to make setting up providers very
	easy.  My favorite example of this is FIDOnet, and the
	hundrds of other bbs nets that sprang up with it,after
	it.  FIDO net may have a central organization or set of
	laws, but I can think of a lot of such nets that have no
	rules, tho yes I do admit noen as big as FIDO net.


> 
> ok, so i set up a node that randomly corrupts all the mail that i pass
> through my site. i mailbomb the cypherpunks list and all the remailers.
> how do you deal with it? you send shrieking mail to all my upstream
> site providers asking them to yank me. what if i have bribed them
> all very lucratively? what if they decide that you don't pay enough,
> so they are going to yank you instead? (not worth the hassle of your
> insults, after all) what if i have dozens of accounts on different
> public domain sites? i seem to be going in circles here. 
>
	No, for the first, I dont pass mail thru your system, and
	no I would not send screiching mail to upstream
	providers.  I would simply find a way to deal with it
	thru filters or rerouting, or I would cope.  I know this
	may not be appealing to alot of people, but I see it as
	the only viable option.



> excuse me, mr. idealist, but you live in a world that no one would
> recognize as their own. cyberspace exists only because people have
> constructed it. you cannot escape that interaction of a community.
> no man is an island. what guarantees you will have a connection to 
> the network today? absolutely nothing. it is just your faith in
> the great cybergods. cyberspace is nothing but crystallized human
> interaction.  how do you deal with the `pathological' cases of human
> behavior such as harassment, terrorism, censorship, etc?
>
	NO fuckin kiddin.  And you seem to have some desire to
	create your own cybergods with your organizations. IMO
	yeah such organizations weould be nice for show, to
	develop niceties etc.. but they would have no real power
	at all.  What garauntees my connection?  Well for some
	people it's cash, money, for others it's their job, for
	me it's who I know and my skills.  Im in school now so my
	connection is provided for, if the school decided to go
	elsewhere, I would go to a local provider or to another
	method.  As for how would I deal with these pathological
	habits, I would certainly not rely on some central
	organization which itself would be unable to stop them.
	There part of life, and their part of cyberlife(badpun).



> unix passwords represent a reasonable amount of security. they prevent
> me from hijacking your account. more sophisticated levels exist.
>
	That's true, it's reasonable but easily broken if really
	desirous.  Such abusers would be able to surpass it.
	Also account hijacking is unnecasary most of the time to
	reek havoc.

> don't think of it as `us vs. them'. think of it as `us' erecting our
> own framework of self-regulation. it would allow `us' to get rid of the
> detweilers of the world in our community. cyberspace is not an amorphous
> Gibsonian blob!! it is a physical infrastructure policed by humans as
> simply as our physical roads are!! the police already exist, they are 
> called `system administrators', except they have no uniform code of 
> conduct today, except `if something pisses me off, disconnect it'.
>
	Because there is no real us.  You'll never get rid of the
	abusers, and yes it will be an amorphous blob.  You
	cannot police kyberspace, since I can create my own
	extension of that spacde at will, all I need is a willing
	provider, or an unwilling provider whos a little lax in
	security.

> what if you wake up one day and find that all the people you want to
> talk to, and you thought were your friends, all on a separate network,
> and you are isolated with Detweiler, Depew, Morris, and Mitnick on the
> AnarchyNet?
>
	Cool, I would dig talking with morris, mitnick, and
	busting on Det. hehe.  I see no need to answer this since
	it will NEVER happen.  Settin gupa  provider is too easy.
	All you will do by enforcing regulations and the ilk is
	making it harder to provide acces at a grass roots
	level.

> cyberspace is what we make it. if no name is ever connected to a human,
> it can be constructed that way. if identity is important (as most of
> human history seems to imply) we can translate it into the new realm. but
> you are continuously mixing up what is possible with what you want. if
> you don't want something that is possible, then it's possibility is 
> irrelevant. 
> 
> why don't you just preface your remarks by saying `i only
> want a version of cyberspace where no one is responsible for their
> actions!!' and i'd just leave it alone. as it stands you argue that
> cyberspace = anarchy by definition. i cannot agree.
>

	Your a fool if you think that what I want is a place wher
	noone is responsible.  I just said that organizations and
	regulations will not make those who are the abusers any
	more responsible.  I see as much potential in kyberspace
	as you do, to make a change etc.. but a centralization of
	something that is inaely decentralized, at it's core is
	utter stupidity.

> this dialogue appears to be at the point of arguing two different religions,
> so it is not very fruitful for any of us, but if grand epopt feotus represents
> the basic cypherpunk views, then i find it all very fascinating. you guys 
> realize that you have a very unusual culture that is highly distinct from
> virtually any other culture ... at least that i am aware of. you do seem
> to have some parallels to the russian nihilists, some of the libertarians,
> some of the anarchists, but you have a very distinct blend of it ....
> 
	I myself dont even know the basic cypherpunk views, it's
	just my views, dont rty and group me or anyone else
	please.  So which one of our religions is the equivalent
	of the centralized catholic church?  Who is your pope
	tmp?  Will we let some organization try and put
	restrictions on something that is unrestrictable?  


	You're eqipped with a hundred billion nueron brain, that's
	wired and fired, and it's a reality generating device, but
	you've got too do it.  Free youself  ----Tim Leary----

>	I will always have connection to the internet if I desire
>	it, be it legal or not, 

pure faith. nothing guarantees this to you. you cannot point to any 
intentionally designed aspect of the existing internet that guarantees
that you personally will have a internet account or connection. in fact,
there are many limitations in your existing contract with your provider,
i'm sure, and lots of vague clauses that give them the ability to 
yank it whenever they feel like it for whatever reason they like.

why is this such a bizarre idea? i heard of the cypherpunks coming up
with `big brother stickers' for at&t phones. how about a `cypherpunk
approved' sticker for internet providers that grant a minimal amount of
service? i see tc may yelling at netcom all the time-- do something
constructive!! come up with a statement that describes exactly what
*you* demand of an internet provider, and maintain a list of sites that
conform. 

at the root level, when tc may complains that his internet service is
lousy, he is saying that `we deserve better than this'. `we deserve some
basic amount of service'. `we have expectations'. these are the same
thoughts that motivated the writing of the bill of rights.

>	my answer is to make it as
>	open as possible, the more people providing the more
>	freedom and competition to drive down prices.  

it is not always the case that regulation guarantees that freedom
and competition will be stifled. there is a very strict code of 
entry into the nasdaq stock exchange or any other stock exchange, 
yet companies manage to flourish within this framework. the internet
is *crying* for a universal policy that everyone can agree, `this
is what it means to be on the internet'

>	What garauntees my connection?  Well for some
>	people it's cash, money, for others it's their job, for
>	me it's who I know and my skills.

none of these guarantee you a connection. 

>	Because there is no real us.  You'll never get rid of the
>	abusers, and yes it will be an amorphous blob.  You
>	cannot police kyberspace, since I can create my own
>	extension of that spacde at will, all I need is a willing
>	provider, or an unwilling provider whos a little lax in
>	security.

you seem to argue again that cyberspace = anarchy or at least
cyberspace will always lack the security necessary to prevent certain
accesses. well, consider this argument. the nsa has a network. in
a sense it is `cyberspace'. but you don't have access, try as you might.
wouldn't you like to poke around that corner of cyberspace? you can't.
there is a titanium lock in front of you.

>	Your a fool if you think that what I want is a place wher
>	noone is responsible.

absurd statement given the rest of your commentary. you sound to me
like a thief saying, `i can break any lock'. well, yes, but that is
no reason to stop building strong locks, and rational people will
use them.

>	Will we let some organization try and put
>	restrictions on something that is unrestrictable?  

apparently none of the cpunks will. but you may find that in the blink
of your eye, all the rest of the world has, and you are left with nothing
but a small sandbox to play in. <g>

pseudonymously yours,
--tmp

On Tue, 5 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:

> pure faith. nothing guarantees this to you. you cannot point to any 
> intentionally designed aspect of the existing internet that guarantees
> that you personally will have a internet account or connection. in fact,
> there are many limitations in your existing contract with your provider,
> i'm sure, and lots of vague clauses that give them the ability to 
> yank it whenever they feel like it for whatever reason they like.
>
	And the sad truth is that even if you made a "Bill Of
	Rights" I would not be garaunteed acces.  There is no
	nation or group that could hold enough sway in Cspace to
	do this IMO.  They could write one up and go "ohhhh
	ahhhhhh wow" at it, but there would be little they could
	do to enforce it.  This net is multi-national,
	multi-government, and multi-cultured.  While such an idea
	may sound good, it's not going to solve any problems.


> why is this such a bizarre idea? i heard of the cypherpunks coming up
> with `big brother stickers' for at&t phones. how about a `cypherpunk
> approved' sticker for internet providers that grant a minimal amount of
> service? i see tc may yelling at netcom all the time-- do something
> constructive!! come up with a statement that describes exactly what
> *you* demand of an internet provider, and maintain a list of sites that
> conform. 
>
	I would like the idea of cypherpunk approved stickers for
	those sites that are discreet in their service and
	provide good acces, but what would this do? Nothing
	really except maybe make a few readers of this list go to
	those providrd if they are close enough.  I mean what
	owuld be the criteria for sucha  approval?  We are far
	from an organized group, so who would make the decisions?
	Noone really could.


> at the root level, when tc may complains that his internet service is
> lousy, he is saying that `we deserve better than this'. `we deserve some
> basic amount of service'. `we have expectations'. these are the same
> thoughts that motivated the writing of the bill of rights.
> 

	I am wondering why every statemetn revovles aroun tc may?
	he's cool and all but... do you have an unatrual
	attraction for him or do you se him as my leader?  I have
	never seen these complaints so I cant respond to this in
	an informed manner.

> >	my answer is to make it as
> >	open as possible, the more people providing the more
> >	freedom and competition to drive down prices.  
> 
> it is not always the case that regulation guarantees that freedom
> and competition will be stifled. there is a very strict code of 
> entry into the nasdaq stock exchange or any other stock exchange, 
> yet companies manage to flourish within this framework. the internet
> is *crying* for a universal policy that everyone can agree, `this
> is what it means to be on the internet'
>
	The nasdaq in my opinion is far from a ample model for
	cyberspace.  The internet is not crying for a policy
	at all.  I dont se what prompts this notion.

> 
> none of these guarantee you a connection. 
>
	And as I said before, neither would an organization or
	bill o rights.  Or have you noticed that constitutional
	rights mean nothing in this country anymore? 8)

> you seem to argue again that cyberspace = anarchy or at least
> cyberspace will always lack the security necessary to prevent certain
> accesses. well, consider this argument. the nsa has a network. in
> a sense it is `cyberspace'. but you don't have access, try as you might.
> wouldn't you like to poke around that corner of cyberspace? you can't.
> there is a titanium lock in front of you.
>
	I coudlnt, others could.  Also, the NSA space is not of
	the same nature as Inet.  you comparing a closed system
	to a naturally open system.

> absurd statement given the rest of your commentary. you sound to me
> like a thief saying, `i can break any lock'. well, yes, but that is
> no reason to stop building strong locks, and rational people will
> use them.
>
	And that is my point.  Make your own locks, but DONT go
	out and try to force them on others, you can suggest
	them, yes, but dpont ry to initiate some global policy.

> apparently none of the cpunks will. but you may find that in the blink
> of your eye, all the rest of the world has, and you are left with nothing
> but a small sandbox to play in. <g>
>
	Not likely.  We're out of the realm of small sandboxes,
	and into interconnected beaches 8).  and PLEASE do not
	lump Cpunks at all.  The rest of the world may try and
	regulate is, but the problewm IS that I can just add my
	little space that isnt regulated, be it legal or illegal,
	and if it comes to bieng illegal to get my words out,
	than so be it.  Im prepared for that, and I think alot of
	people on this list are too.


> pseudonymously yours,
> --tmp
> 

	You're eqipped with a hundred billion nueron brain, that's
	wired and fired, and it's a reality generating device, but
	you've got too do it.  Free youself  ----Tim Leary----

tmp@netcom.com says:
> 
> >	I will always have connection to the internet if I desire
> >	it, be it legal or not, 
> 
> pure faith. nothing guarantees this to you.

In spite of being a complete asshole, Detweiler, you've managed to get
account after account. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

Perry

C'punks,

On Tue, 5 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:

> [a shit-load of nonsense.]

Oh boy, looks like it's time for another Detweilerian Pledge.

TMP, I don't care who you are, you're on my "D-list."

C'punks, take the Pledge.

Bye,

 S a n d y  (Eric May's testicle)  S a n d f o r t