Re: No matter where you go, there they are.

At 8:53 AM 4/10/96, Hal is rumored to have typed:
> Peter - didn't they say that the checking station is also listening
> to the satellites?  That way they can tell that you are playing back
> signals that you taped earlier because they won't match what the
> satellites are broadcasting right now.

There is going to be processing and network delay involved here (unless
Denning et al have figured out some way to communicate faster than the
speed of light), so drift between the what you report and what the checking
station and repeaters are hearing _at that time_ is inevitable.  This is the
loophole which allows  Peter's attack, a loophole which cannot be closed
(because the spoofer can always claim to be on a slower link than she
really is and there is nothing the verifiyer can do to prove otherwise.)
If I want to pretend to be closer to the receiver than my true location I
simulate a slow link which gives me enough time to record what the signals
would be at the near location and then quickly resend them to give the
appearance of the spoofed location.

In fact, I think that this really all boils down to trying to use GPS
as a non-interactive proof of location, and the information posted about
the system does not address the obvious attacks on such systems which
are known from research into ZNPs.

> If their authenticated repeaters are used then you have to assume the
> checking station has all the satellite signals and again the best you can
> do is pretend to be a Mole Man.

The authenticated repeaters may collect all signals, _but the receiving
station does not get them all at once_ because it will take time for
the signals to propogate from the repeater back to the station attempting
to determine location. Having all of the signals does not help the
checking station other than allowing it to share a set of sats with
the person attempting to authenticate.  It still does not

And perhaps more importantly, do you really want anyone you connect to
on the net to know your location to the nearest 10 meters?  What is
Dennings fascination with building Big Brother?

jim

Jim McCoy wrote:

| And perhaps more importantly, do you really want anyone you connect to
| on the net to know your location to the nearest 10 meters?  What is
| Dennings fascination with building Big Brother?

	She read Snow Crash, and it scared her.

	This is flippiant, but I believe it comes close to the truth,
in that tends to provide a cogent explanation for her political
actions, as I've observed.  (Dorothy-- Since someone will forward this
to you, I'd be fascinated to hear your reactions in public or
private.)

	Snow Crash is a book about a future in which governments are
ineffective.  Companies run things, and have complete local control.
The world has gone to hell, and as a result, life is nasty, poor,
brutish and short.  Many people do not look forward to this world.
Thats an understandable reaction; when I first heard about anonymous
assasination markets, I thought it was pretty bizzare as a world to
look forward to.

	Then I heard Neal Stephenson speak.  And he brought up a very
good point, which was Hitler killed more people than Charles Manson
because Hitler had a big country, and its large army.  I look
forward to smaller, weaker government that can't put the Japs in
holding camps, surround and harras the Branch Davidians, etc.

	The debate, really, boils down to Hobbes v. Locke, or Plato v.
Aristotle.  Its not going to be resolved anytime soon by a
philosopher.  Many of us have read Mill, Hayek, Freidman, Nozick, and
decided that we prefer that world view.  That Dr. Denning has decided
that she likes Philosopher-Kings is not particularly unusual, except
in the computer business.  Go read Leviathan.  Think about what we're
talking about here.

	Its a scary new world that I expect will be created, by the
UNSTOPPABLE advance of technology.  There is no weapon created that is
not used by someone who judges the cause to be worthwhile.  Nukes,
chemicals, and biologicals have all been used against civilian
populations.  I judge that stopping the advance of cryptoanarchist
technology will fail (in the long run), and not be worth the price.  I
suspect Dorothy disagrees, and there lies her fascination with
building in Big Brother.

Adam


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

> 	Snow Crash is a book about a future in which governments are
> ineffective.  Companies run things, and have complete local control.
> The world has gone to hell, and as a result, life is nasty, poor,
> brutish and short.  Many people do not look forward to this world.
> Thats an understandable reaction; when I first heard about anonymous
> assasination markets, I thought it was pretty bizzare as a world to
> look forward to.

I agree with you that it's a pretty bizzare world to look forward to, but 
how likely is it?  It's always seemed to me that both sides of the crypto 
debate have been overselling the changes crypto is going to bring.  
Crypto won't make surveillance impossible, it will make it expensive.  
That's a big difference.

My computer is loaded up with crypto.  I use pgp, ssh, sfs, cfs, etc., 
every day.  I've picked strong passphrases, and I edit sensitive files on 
a ram disk.  But getting my data would be child's play for the nsa if 
they were interested enough in me to come into my apartment and make an 
active attack.

Military security depends as much upon military discipline and procedure
as it does on strong crypto tools.  When crypted email becomes the norm,
remember that 95% of the keys in the world will be sitting on hard drives
in the clear or protected by passphrases like "bob1".  Software that
forces people to pick strong passphrases won't be popular in the
marketplace.  I know:  I run an ISP, and everytime I tell someone how to
pick a password, they always come back with "bob1".

There's a mindset out there that says, "the only way to fight crime is to
do massive surveillance." I don't buy it.  Surveillence technology is
fairly new, and there were law abiding societies before it was deployed.
It's like people who feel that the only way to stop violence in cities is
to take away guns.  If that's true, how come there are so few murders in
Western Nebraska (I have family there), where almost everyone is armed?

The truth is the police do surveillence easily and cheaply now, and it's
not working.  Things are getting worse in many places, not better.  Beat
cops who talk to people and who know the neighborhood are more effective
than spooks in vans or centralized monitoring facilities with
sophisticated electronics.  If we don't want crime, we're going to have 
to make sure people have enough skills to develop other economic 
opportunities.  The answer is jobs, not a telescreen in every home.

It is true that law enforcement has been building up a giant surveillance
apparatus over the past couple of decades, and that crypto is going to
kill it.  But it's also true that the buildup in surveillence has 
coincided with a decrease in the effectiveness of police forces in 
general.  Surveillance is good for massive beauracracies with bloated 
budgets who work behind closed doors and who aren't held accountable for 
their failures.  It's not good for fighting neighborhood crime.

I reject the opposition's premise:  surveillance is not necessary to keep
the four horsemen at bay.  How can they have the chutzpah to demand that I
sacrifice my civil liberties in the name of the drug war, when everyone in
Chicago knows that dealers are allowed to sell without harassment on
literally thousands of street corners in this city?  They don't need
clipper to stop the crack trade, they need to send cops out to arrest the
people who are standing out in broad daylight selling and buying.

It doesn't take a gps system to track them down.

Alex Strasheim wrote:

| > 	Snow Crash is a book about a future in which governments are
| > ineffective.  Companies run things, and have complete local control.
| > The world has gone to hell, and as a result, life is nasty, poor,
| > brutish and short.  Many people do not look forward to this world.
| > Thats an understandable reaction; when I first heard about anonymous
| > assasination markets, I thought it was pretty bizzare as a world to
| > look forward to.
| 
| I agree with you that it's a pretty bizzare world to look forward to, but 
| how likely is it?  It's always seemed to me that both sides of the crypto 
| debate have been overselling the changes crypto is going to bring.  
| Crypto won't make surveillance impossible, it will make it expensive.  
| That's a big difference.

	I no longer feel its a bizzare world, but rather a fascinating
one.  If you're not working for the government.

| My computer is loaded up with crypto.  I use pgp, ssh, sfs, cfs, etc., 
| every day.  I've picked strong passphrases, and I edit sensitive files on 
| a ram disk.  But getting my data would be child's play for the nsa if 
| they were interested enough in me to come into my apartment and make an 
| active attack.

	But you're one person.  The cost of a wiretap is ~ $150,000
per person.  If there are a few hundred cpunks using the remailers, we
lose.  When there are thousands of people using penet, we win.  The
work that needs to be done is good remailer interfaces.  I'm playing
with Premail right now.  PEP is available for the Mac, and I've heard
good things about both Pegasus & Private Idaho on Wintel.

| Military security depends as much upon military discipline and procedure
| as it does on strong crypto tools.  When crypted email becomes the norm,
| remember that 95% of the keys in the world will be sitting on hard drives
| in the clear or protected by passphrases like "bob1".  Software that
| forces people to pick strong passphrases won't be popular in the
| marketplace.  I know:  I run an ISP, and everytime I tell someone how to
| pick a password, they always come back with "bob1".

	But thats ok.  All of this is about economics.  If its as
cheap for me to have a bank account in the Seychelles as it is to have
one in Boston, why have one in Boston?  And if my account isn't in
Boston, the cost of finding out about my finances goes from a few
hundred dollars to a few tens of thousands.

| The truth is the police do surveillence easily and cheaply now, and it's
| not working.  Things are getting worse in many places, not better.  Beat
| cops who talk to people and who know the neighborhood are more effective
| than spooks in vans or centralized monitoring facilities with
| sophisticated electronics.  If we don't want crime, we're going to have 
| to make sure people have enough skills to develop other economic 
| opportunities.  The answer is jobs, not a telescreen in every home.

	The answer is to decriminalize things like drugs and
prositution.  The drop in taxes would create a jobs boom. :)

| I reject the opposition's premise:  surveillance is not necessary to keep
| the four horsemen at bay.  How can they have the chutzpah to demand that I
| sacrifice my civil liberties in the name of the drug war, when everyone in
| Chicago knows that dealers are allowed to sell without harassment on
| literally thousands of street corners in this city?  They don't need
| clipper to stop the crack trade, they need to send cops out to arrest the
| people who are standing out in broad daylight selling and buying.
| 
| It doesn't take a gps system to track them down.

	I agree, but why arrest them?  Why not tax them a little?

Adam


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

Adam Shostack writes:
> 	Snow Crash is a book about a future in which governments are
> ineffective.  Companies run things, and have complete local control.
> The world has gone to hell, and as a result, life is nasty, poor,
> brutish and short.  Many people do not look forward to this world.

Snow Crash is hardly scary. You have characterized it as a
story where life is nasty brutish and short but that isn't the same
book that I read. at all.

In any case, however, the future is pretty much not stoppable. There
was a time where the nobility tried to stop the crossbow, and then
firearms; there have been those who tried to stop the translation of
the bible, and to stop factories, and to stop genetic
engineering. Ideas aren't amenable to restraint. Nothing is as
inevitable as an idea who's time has come. The key to a liveable
future is learning how to adapt to the changes, not how to try to
prevent them.

Perry

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

| Adam Shostack writes:
| > 	Snow Crash is a book about a future in which governments are
| > ineffective.  Companies run things, and have complete local control.
| > The world has gone to hell, and as a result, life is nasty, poor,
| > brutish and short.  Many people do not look forward to this world.
| 
| Snow Crash is hardly scary. You have characterized it as a
| story where life is nasty brutish and short but that isn't the same
| book that I read. at all.

	The CIA privatized & selling data to all comers?  An
unstoppable wave of illegal immigration coming to California?  Sounds
pretty scary to many people.  There are other readings, but that one
is there.

| In any case, however, the future is pretty much not stoppable. There
| was a time where the nobility tried to stop the crossbow, and then
| firearms; there have been those who tried to stop the translation of
| the bible, and to stop factories, and to stop genetic
| engineering. Ideas aren't amenable to restraint. Nothing is as
| inevitable as an idea who's time has come. The key to a liveable
| future is learning how to adapt to the changes, not how to try to
| prevent them.

	I said as much.  I'm not purporting this as my opinions, just
my understanding of Dr. Denning.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

Adam Shostack writes:
> Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> | Adam Shostack writes:
> | > 	Snow Crash is a book about a future in which governments are
> | > ineffective.  Companies run things, and have complete local control.
> | > The world has gone to hell, and as a result, life is nasty, poor,
> | > brutish and short.  Many people do not look forward to this world.
> | 
> | Snow Crash is hardly scary. You have characterized it as a
> | story where life is nasty brutish and short but that isn't the same
> | book that I read. at all.
> 
> 	The CIA privatized & selling data to all comers?  An
> unstoppable wave of illegal immigration coming to California?  Sounds
> pretty scary to many people.  There are other readings, but that one
> is there.

Lets be concrete. You say that life in the book is nasty, brutish and
short. The book does not depict people's lives as being short, and it
especially does not appear that most people living in that world have
lives that end in violence. Furthermore, it doesn't depict their lives
as nasty -- it seems like America only more so, with ever escalating
guarantees that your pizza will be delivered on time and fairly normal
lives being lead.

As for illegal immigration, I saw no depiction of it in the book, and
so far as I can tell the legal structure depicted in the book has no
such concept as "illegal immigration".

I can't see that you read the same book.

As the cypherpunks significance of this is rapidly vanishing, I'd
suggest that this be taken to private mail.

.pm

Perry E. Metzger wrote:
| Adam Shostack writes:
| > Perry E. Metzger wrote:
| > 
| > | Adam Shostack writes:
| > | > 	Snow Crash is a book about a future in which governments are
| > | > ineffective.  Companies run things, and have complete local control.
| > | > The world has gone to hell, and as a result, life is nasty, poor,
| > | > brutish and short.  Many people do not look forward to this world.
| > | 
| > | Snow Crash is hardly scary. You have characterized it as a
| > | story where life is nasty brutish and short but that isn't the same
| > | book that I read. at all.
| > 
| > 	The CIA privatized & selling data to all comers?  An
| > unstoppable wave of illegal immigration coming to California?  Sounds
| > pretty scary to many people.  There are other readings, but that one
| > is there.
| 
| Lets be concrete. You say that life in the book is nasty, brutish and
| short. The book does not depict people's lives as being short, and it
| especially does not appear that most people living in that world have
| lives that end in violence. Furthermore, it doesn't depict their lives
| as nasty -- it seems like America only more so, with ever escalating
| guarantees that your pizza will be delivered on time and fairly normal
| lives being lead.

	Given that 'nasty, poor, brutish and short' is clearly an
allusion to Hobbes, I'm not sure I should defend it literally.

	However, I'd see life in a converted self store (where Hiro &
Vitaly live), or in a job with a lie detector test every 2 weeks (such
as YT's mom is forced into), or working in a computer industry where
brains get fried (da5vid), as nasty.

	See below for brutish.

| As for illegal immigration, I saw no depiction of it in the book, and
| so far as I can tell the legal structure depicted in the book has no
| such concept as "illegal immigration".

	And how do you think the people panicking over the raft's
arrival see the 'yellow peril?'  I would expect that parts of the
remaining US government are quite distraught over it, and consider it
illegal.

| I can't see that you read the same book.
| 
| As the cypherpunks significance of this is rapidly vanishing, I'd
| suggest that this be taken to private mail.

	The Cypherpunks relevance is that you & I see Snow Crash as a
neat place to live, while Dorothy sees it as a hell.  I'm attempting
to explain that viewpoint.  If you'd like to continue in private mail,
thats fine.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume