December 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Final Carnivore Report Offers No New Answers
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

It's all well and good to hear this coming from a Congressman but this is a Republican Congressman who is using it as a opportunity to attack a Democratic Administration : should we read anything into this statement regarding some significant difference between the two parties in regards privacy and 4th Ammendment issues? Hardly. Mike > This just in from US House Majority Leader Dick Armey: > > - Final Carnivore Report Offers No New Answers > A newly released, final version of the report on the Carnivore > cybersnooping system offers no assurance that online transactions > will be kept confidential. > > http://freedom.gov/library/technology/carn-review3.asp > > US House Majority Leader Dick Armey made the following comments about > the newly released, final report on the Carnivore cybersnooping > system: This superficial review doesn't get to the heart of the > matter. It does nothing to restore the confidence that Americans > should have in the confidentiality of their online transactions. > > Why should average Internet users have to wonder whether a rogue > agent could snoop through their emails and other online transactions? > > If this Administration were actually interested in an honest > evaluation of Carnivore, it would have shut the system down until the > serious privacy concerns had been adequately addressed. Instead, this > review by a team with clear ties to this Administration raises more > concerns than it answers. > > Regards, Matt- >

1 0

Re: This is why a free society is evil. [Re: This is why HTML email is evil.]
by Tim May 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

At 9:40 AM -0500 12/15/00, auto58194(a)hushmail.com wrote: >Tim May wrote: >> >> In a free society, free economy, then employers and employees are >> much more flexible. A solid contributor would not be fired for >> something so trivial as having a porn picture embedded in some minor >> way. Hell, a solid contributor probably wouldn't be fired even for >> sending MPEG porn movies to his buddies! >> > >Depends on your definition of a free society, free economy. In my definition, > free society, free economy property holders are free to use the power derived >from their property in order to protect their property and also to advance >their own agenda. > >I don't know if your example involved a claim the Personnel Dept. bimbo >was acting as an agent of the company's property holders or not, but that's >just the advancing agenda situation. The reason the company now prohibits all sorts of activities, and the reason the Personnel Commissar is inspecting offices, is because of _externalities_ like lawsuits, harassment charges, etc. In a free society, these externalities would vanish. >I suspect you'd be happier if property >holders didn't hire people prone to making decisions advancing their own >individual agendas. Unfortunately, it's hard to find perfect people and >it's still the decision of the property holder to hire them and allow them >to make decisions without supervision. You seem to fundammentally misunderstand the situation. The reason the Personnel Commissar is ordering sensitivity training, workshops, and is requiring that posters of Brittny Spears be removed from office walls is because government and lawyers have made companies liable in various ways for "discriminatory" or "sexist" or suchlike behaviors. One of my fellow engineers at Intel had a large poster of the famous early 80s porn star, "Seka," on his walls--she was, in this poster, clothed, albeit skimpily. Some of the secretaries clucked, and retaliated by putting up Chippendales calendars, including full frontal nudity. Would such things be tolerated today? Nope. And not because of the personal choices of a particluarl Personnel bimbo. Nope, the fear is of lawsuits. This was my point about a free society. > >Even so, a property holder is equally free to protect their property by >deciding that firing an individual accused of an action is less of a cost >than the legal actions and/or bad press that might otherwise result. Firing >actions don't have to be rational and property owners are free to be gutless. You're really missing the point, aren't you? Go back and think about the issues more deeply. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay(a)got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: 1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

2 2

hi
by root 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

hi

3 2

hi
by Igor Chudov 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

hi

1 0

Re: AT&T signs bulk hosting contract with spammers
by Tim May 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

At 11:26 AM -0500 12/15/00, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Ah, sorry for not explaining. I provided a link to a photo of the >>particular Fed (of the NIPC) who said that, and the event at which >>he did. No article on the topic, though you can find out more about >>the event at netspionage.com, I believe. --Declan >> >>>BTW the first things the Feds are now saying when they speak in public >>>(http://www.mccullagh.org/image/950-17/aba-netspionage-broadcast.html) >>>is that they do not come in and cart off everything you own. At least >> >that's the latest spin. :) I have no idea what they are saying now, or then, but the "cart off everything you own" has never been a practical reality. Most folks have too much stuff, so the Feds are not interested in clearing a place of everything. I assume this notion got started, at least in our community, during the Steve Jackson Games of a decade or so ago. In that case, the Feds took everything in the office they figured might be helpful...computers, disk drives, even printers. Thrown into boxes, more or less. Lots of damage. Presumably they left office chairs and pen holders. When they raided Bell, they didn't take everything in the house he was in. So, I agree with Ray Dillinger. I don't see any news here. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay(a)got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: 1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

1 0

Inquiry RE: audiobook reviewers
by Dwayne Parsons 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Found your request on Editor's Choice. I'm a professional writer, avid reader and believe in audiobooks. Spend a lot of time driving across rural Montana. What's your terms? Can you be more specific if your need still exists. I'm capable and interested and have done numerous book reviews from print. Dwayne Parsons netenhance(a)sofast.net

2 1

Texaco secrets received
by Tim May 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

At 9:15 AM -0800 12/15/00, DHT_USA wrote: >:: >Request-Remailing-To: tubbsdh(a)texaco.com > >Alpha 501 121500, end. > Confirm receipt of information regarding Texaco's refinery output. Need additional information re: effects of disabling Motiva refineries as per plan. Payment deposited, Cayman bank.

1 0

minder.net is back
by BMM 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Traffic should be flowing normally. Thanks, -Brian On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, BMM wrote: > minder.net's ISP's T3 to sprintlink has been down for ~12 hours. This has > caused us to disappear from large portions of the 'net (hence the 30k > messages stacked up in the mail queue). > > Thanks, > > -Brian > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > Been receiving a lot of bounces from minder.net. I've removed the site > > from the CDR feed for the time being. > > > > Anyone know what the problem might be outside of a DNS issue? > >

1 0

Perry's Paint Fable comes to mind...
by R. A. Hettinga 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

At 11:35 PM -0600 on 12/13/00, by way of believer(a)telepath.com wrote: > FOR ALL TO SEE > It's a spray which renders sealed envelopes transparent, making the > letters inside as easy to read as postcards. "It leaves an odour for 10 > to 15 minutes," says the spray's inventor, but, apart from that, "no > evidence at all" that it's been used. While the manufacturer describes > "See-Through" as a "non-conductive, non-toxic, environmentally safe > liquid", human rights activists believe "it's an ethically questionable > product" which could tempt security forces to bend laws. > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns226930 -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

4 6

RE: RE: Re: About 5yr. log retention
by Carskadden, Rush 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Comment below: > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Vogt [mailto:tom@ricardo.de] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:21 AM > To: James A. Donald > Cc: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > Subject: Re: RE: Re: About 5yr. log retention Tom Vogt: > > > you won't find a "because" that has the structure of, say, a > > > mathematical proof. James A. Donald: > > You cannot prove that iron is iron with the structure of a > mathematical > > proof, because it is a fact about the world, and empirical > fact, ultimately > > resting on the evidence of the senses. To deduce the > necessary "because", > > one must start from the nature of man, and the nature of the world. Tom Vogt: > that's why the "say" is there. it's an example, one possibility, a > counter-point to the ethical argument. it's not all-inclusive. I disagree. An ethical concept can be proven through rhetoric (though it is a challenge sometimes). Morals, on the other hand, are different. According to your particular side of the debate about the nature of morals, they either cannot be proven at all, or they are proven by widespread internalization and adoption lifespan. But that tends to be a philosopher vs. theologian argument, and that very fact is why I tend to Choate the whole thing and say "bullshit" either way.

2 1