August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

OPT: Slashdot | Florda County Asks Students To Crack Elections
by Jim Choate 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/16/214219.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

"No Thanks, I'm Just Browsing!"
by Declan McCullagh 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

[I do not vouch for the validity of this message or the safety of this .exe file, if it even makes its way past majordomo. --Declan] >From: "Press Release" <pressrelease(a)encrypt-now.com> >To: <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: "No Thanks, I'm Just Browsing!" >Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:14:27 -0700 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >AUGUST 16, 2001 > >Contact: Fred Tuttle > >Encrypt-Now > >253.576.7222 > > > >*BROWSE WITH FOGBANK-NOW.COM* > > > >Redmond, WA Fogbank-Now.com today announced a Web-based service in >response to Internet privacy concerns. This service enables anonymous web >browsing over the Internet from the time the user logs on to the end of >their session. Subscribers do not need to purchase any software or hardware. > >Fogbank-Now is part of the family of privacy products from Internet >Encryption Service and Supply (I.E.S.S.). As a value-added service to >customers, Fogbank-Now.com has teamed up with the local Redmond-based ISP >Isomedia.com to launch its consumer privacy kit. This privacy kit includes >the web browsing product, "Fogbank", a document shredder, and links to >encryption and messaging services. The I.E.S.S. privacy kit was >distributed to 10,000 security-conscious individuals and businesses. > ><http://www.fogbank-now.com/>www.fogbank-now.com [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of FogNowLoader.exe]

1 0

[Zero-Knowledge Press Release] Royal Bank To Test Zero-Knowledge Systems' Internet Privacy & Sec urity Tools For Home Use (fwd)
by Jim Choate 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:17:08 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com>, cryptography(a)wasabisystems.com, dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Subject: [Zero-Knowledge Press Release] Royal Bank To Test Zero-Knowledge Systems' Internet Privacy & Sec urity Tools For Home Use --- begin forwarded text

1 0

Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech
by Tim May 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 02:09 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> However, in a free society with protections similar to the First >> Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what >> government >> may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows >> government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of >> expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing. > > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated > as > equal to other speech, but considering the strength of the opposite view > nowadays, I would not be surprised if the First was gutted in this > regard. > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have > some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political > speech, > even if the meaning is implied. Many of us don't believe this common belief today, that the First is mainly about political speech, is consistent with the intent of the Framers. The Framers were well aware that when the King can decide who can speak, and where, and in front of which others, then the King has more power than any government should ever have. This would have applied to whether Ben Franklin coudl publish his electricity research, Patrick Henry his cure for baldness, or Thomas Jefferson his advertisements for his fine tobacco products. The notion that the King's men get to control what is said about electricity research (pace recent cases in crypto, cloning, etc.) or what is said about baldness cures (pace FDA, advertising laws, etc.), or what is said about fine tobacco products (not in front of children, not on television or radio, and not in increasing numbers of places--and some of these are the result of "voluntary" (in the Orwellian sense) deals the tobacco companies agreed to. The First was designed to stop this kind of intrusion into personal, political, religious, and commercial speech. >> (The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do >> with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but >> the >> "online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said >> may >> be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? More gnawing away at the First, of course. Given the notion that a local community may ban certain items because they violate the "community standards" of the community, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that a local community could also ban Mormonism, or Catholicism, or any religious practice they deemed to be violative of their community standards. Ditto for community standards for gun ownership (cf. New York, Washington, California, etc.). Ditto for community standards for numerous other rights. A law student recently reminded me that the "incorporation doctrine," coupled I presume with the language of the 14th Amendment (esp. the "equal protection" clause), says that the states (and even smaller divisions of political units, e.g., cities and counties) are BOUND to obey the U.S. Constitution. It took a long while for this to be hammered home with landmark cases, such as ones dealing with New York's version of press censorship. (The Second is in a peculiar situation, for reasons I don't have time to write about now.) I see no reason under this reading why Idaho, for example, would be able to ban "Playboy." Their "community standards" might be offended by "Playboy," but then this is just as good a reason to ban Jews. What's the difference? Either the U.S. Constitution applies in Idaho and everywhere else, or it doesn't. We talk a lot here about the Constitution. Strange for two reasons: first, this is an international list, second, many of us are not exactly supporters of government in general. However, practically speaking, history is showing us that only a "robust kernel," to use some computer science notions, can stop the predations of the state. Or slow them down. In the legal arena, that is. If technology or custom push into new regimes, the law may be bypassed or forced to change. Countries without a hammered-out series of ironclad (to mix some metaphors) constitutional prohibitions on what government can do find themselves with laws like Britain's "R.I.P." laws, or bans on crypto like in South Africa ("No RSA in RSA!"), Russia, France, etc. Without the extremely strong language of "Congress shall make no law....," the U.S. would have had zillions of laws passed by do-gooders and well-meaning Congresscritters. (We have it with commercial speech, because the courts went off the track and bought your theory that the First is about "political" speech, not "commercial" speech. That, and overbroad interpretations of the Commerce Clause. I've written too much about this issue already.) Enough for now. One last item: >> Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my >> words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a >> Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether >> I included material "offensive" to Creationists. > > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even > afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of > people > most vocal about banning online speech. Fuck that noise. None of the proposals for "voluntary self-labelling" are actually about any kind of voluntarism except in the Orwellian meaning of the term. And self-labelling is a foolish idea. No one is "tricked" into learning that "Tropic of Cancer" has sexual content....Miller did not need to plaster a warning label across his novel's cover. As we discussed several years ago when the CDA was being debated, there are profound problems with self-labelling. Some people will self-label "incorrectly" for various reasons. Much debated several years ago. My self-rating .sig follows: V-CHIP CONTENT WARNING: THIS POST IS RATED: R, V, NPC, RI, S, I13. [For processing by the required-by-1998 V-chips, those reading this post from an archive must set their V-chip to "42-0666." I will not be held responsible for posts incorrectly filtered-out by a V-chip that has been by-passed, hot-chipped, or incorrectly programmed.] ***WARNING!*** It has become necessary to warn potential readers of my messages before they proceed further. This warning may not fully protect me against criminal or civil proceedings, but it may be treated as a positive attempt to obey the various and increasing numbers of laws. * Under the ***TELECOM ACT OF 1996***, minor CHILDREN (under the age of 18) may not read or handle this message under any circumstances. If you are under 18, delete this message NOW. Also, if you are developmentally disabled, irony-impaired, emotionally traumatized, schizophrenic, suffering PMS, affected by Humor Deprivation Syndrom (HDS), or under the care of a doctor, then the TELECOM ACT OF 1996 may apply to you as well, even if you are 18. If you fall into one of these categories and are not considered competent to judge for yourself what you are reading, DELETE this message NOW. * Under the UTAH PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 1996, those under the age of 21 may not read this post. All residents of Utah, and Mormons elsewhere, must install the M-Chip. * Under the PROTECTION OF THE REICH laws, residents of Germany may not read this post. * Under the MERCIFUL SHIELD OF ALLAH (Praise be to Him!) holy interpretations of the Koran of the following countries (but not limited to this list) you may not read this post if you are a FEMALE OF ANY AGE: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority. Non-female persons may also be barred from reading this post, depending on the settings of your I-Chip. * Under the proposed CHINESE INTERNET laws, covering The People's Republic of China, Formosa, Hong Kong, Macao, Malaysia, and parts of several surrrounding territories, the rules are so nebulous and unspecified that I cannot say whether you are allowed to read this. Thus, you must SUBMIT any post you wish to read to your local authorities for further filtering. * In Singapore, merely be RECEIVING this post you have violated the will of Lee Kwan Yu. Report to your local police office to receive your caning. * Finally, if you are barrred from contact with the Internet, or protected by court order from being disturbed by thoughts which may disturb you, or covered by protective orders, it is up to you to adjust the settings of your V-Chip to ensure that my post does not reach you. *** THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN COMPLYING WITH THESE LAWS ***

3 3

Inferno: Fw: MySQL.org's position (fwd)
by Jim Choate 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Widenius" <monty(a)mysql.com> To: "Philippe Paravicini" <quietsky(a)pacbell.net> Cc: "MySQL" <mysql(a)lists.mysql.com>; <mike(a)mysql.org> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:15 PM Subject: MySQL.org's position > > Hi! > > Thanks Philippe for forwarding this to us: > > >>>>> "P" == Philippe Paravicini <quietsky(a)pacbell.net> writes: > > P> mySql.org's position (whomever they are) > P> *** > P> Dear Philippe: > > P> mySQL.org is a not for profit organization dedicated to promoting > P> and further enhancing the mySQL database engine. Like all open > P> source projects we welcome community input to help enhance the > P> product. > > P> The MySQL AB company is a commercial entity that sells licensed > P> versions of the mySQL database. They can do this because they > P> own the copyright of all the source code they license and do > P> not accept community contribution unless they can obtain the > P> copyright from the contributor. Obviously you can see that > P> this goes against the spirit of Open Source development, hence > P> mySQL.org has been formed. > > P> mySQL.org is not involved in any litigation with either NuSphere > P> or MySQL AB. While it is true that NuSphere and MySQL AB are > P> involved in a legal battle over some sort of contract, we here > P> at mySQL.org have chosen not to take sides or speculate on the > P> issue. > > P> If you have questions or concerns over the NuSphere/MySQL AB > P> lawsuit (which it appear that you do), please address your > P> questions to either NuSphere or MySQL AB. > > P> Regards, > > P> Mike Furgal - mySQL.org - Where mySQL is your SQL. > > Thanks Philippe for forwarding this. > > I find Mike's position a little strange here. > > Mike Furgal is a full time employee of NuSphere Inc. As NuSphere has > violated the GPL license, he has no right to use, modify or distribute > the MySQL source code anymore. (This is straight from section 4 of > the GPL license). Mike has the full right to do modification to > Gemini, but he can't touch the MySQL code. That NuSphere did release > the source code for Gemini after we sued them for violating the GPL > license doesn't give them back the right to use MySQL under GPL. > > It's NuSphere Inc that formed mysql.org and it's NuSphere that is the > driving force behind mysql.org. To say that mysql.org is not a part > of this dispute is a strange statement. > > mysql.org is involved in litigation with MySQL AB as MySQL AB has sued > NuSphere for tradmark infringement, of which mysql.org is a part. > Even under the interim agreement we did with NuSphere, we never > granted NuSphere to use our trademark in this way. > > It's true that for changes into the core parts of the MySQL server we > require the submitter to give us a shared copyright to the code, but > this is something also other open source projects requires. For > example FSF also require the author to sign over the copyright of any > contributed code to them. > > The reason that we need to get the copyright for the parts that goes > into the core server is that to finance MySQL development we need to > be able to sell embedded MySQL servers to our commercial customers. > There is nothing strange with this and many open source companies does > the same thing. > > If NuSphere really would have thought that we are doing the wrong > thing here they would have launced Nusphere.org for this, but instead > they decided to violate our tradmark rights by launcing mysql.org. > > When it comes to NuSphere we have never required them to sign over the > Gemini code to MySQL AB, as this is not something that is in the core > MySQL server. It was also NuSphere's who decided that they didn't > want to push the Gemini code into MySQL 3.23, which we had previously > agreed upon. > > Mike also conveniently forgets in his email that it's the people > behind MySQL AB that are the creators of the MySQL code and is > driving the development of the server parts of the MySQL code. > > You can find more about this issue at: > > http://www.mysql.com/news/article-75.html > > We are constantly updating the above FAQ with new facts, to clarify > our position in this issue. > > Regards, > Monty > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Before posting, please check: > http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) > http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) > > To request this thread, e-mail <mysql-thread82780(a)lists.mysql.com> > To unsubscribe, e-mail <mysql-unsubscribe-gomes=www.navigo.com(a)lists.mysql.com> > Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php

1 0

Surveillance by Design By Wendy Grossman
by Matthew Gaylor 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

Surveillance by Design http://www.sciam.com/2001/0901issue/0901scicit5.html WILL A NEW CYBERLAW BYPASS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? --BY WENDY M. GROSSMAN Wendy M. Grossman, who writes about cyberspace issues from London, is also on the board of Privacy International LONDON--A legislative move in Europe that would also affect the U.S. is threatening the sometimes controversial ability of Internet users to mask their real-world identities. The move, which is heavily backed by the U.S. Department of Justice, is the cybercrime treaty, designed to make life easy for law enforcement by requiring Internet service providers (ISPs) to maintain logs of users' activities for up to seven years and to keep their networks tappable. The Council of Europe, a treaty-building body, announced its support of the cybercrime effort in June. Anonymity is a two-edged sword. It does enable criminals to hide their activities. But it is also critical for legitimate citizens: whistle-blowers, political activists, those pursuing alternative lifestyles, and entrepreneurs who want to acquire technical information without tipping off their competitors. Even without the proposed legislation, anonymity is increasingly fragile on the Net. Corporations have sued for libel to force services to disclose the identities of those who posted disparaging comments about them online. Individual suits of this type are rarer, but last December, Samuel D. Graham, a former professor of urology at Emory University, won a libel judgment against a Yahoo user whose identity was released under subpoena. Services designed to give users anonymity sprung up as early as 1993, when Julf Helsingius founded Finland's anon.penet.fi, which stripped e-mail and Usenet postings of identifying information and substituted a pseudonymous ID. Users had to trust Helsingius. Many of today's services and software, such as the Dublin-based Hushmail and the Canadian company Zero Knowledge's Freedom software, keep no logs whatsoever. But if the cybercrime treaty is ratified, will they still be able to? Would they have to move beyond the reach of the law to, say, Anguilla? More than that, will the First Amendment continue to protect us if anonymity is effectively illegal everywhere else? Says Mike Godwin, perhaps the leading legal specialist in civil liberties in cyberspace: "I think it becomes a lot harder for the U.S. to maintain protection if the cybercrime treaty passes." Godwin calls the attempt to pass the cybercrime treaty "policy laundering"--a way of using international agreements to bring in legislation that would almost certainly be struck down by U.S. courts. (On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Justice explains that no supporting domestic legislation would be required.) In real-world terms, the equivalent of the treaty would be requiring valid return addresses on all postal mail, installing cameras in all phone booths and making all cash traceable. People would resist such a regime, but surveillance by design in the electronic world seems less unacceptable, perhaps because for some people e-mail still seems optional and the Internet is a mysterious, dark force that is inherently untrustworthy. Because ISPs must keep those logs and that data, your associations would become an open book. "The modern generation of traffic-analysis software not only can link to conventional police databases but can give a comprehensive picture of a person's lifestyle and communications profile," says Simon Davies, director of Privacy International. "It can automatically generate profiles of thousands of users in seconds and accurately calculate friendship trees." In the not too distant future, nearly everything that is on hard copy today will travel via e-mail and the Web, from our medical records to the music we listen to and the books we read. Whatever privacy regime we create now will almost certainly wind up controlling the bulk of our communications. Think carefully before you nod to the mantra commonly heard in Europe at the moment: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Do you really want your medical records sent on the electronic equivalent of postcards? __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- FOR ME BUT NOT FOR YOU? As counterculturalist Stewart Brand has said, anonymity can be toxic to community, because it can foster irresponsible activity and sow mistrust. But an experiment some years back on the WELL, the San Francisco--based electronic conferencing system, showed that people typically wanted anonymity for themselves--just not for others. PRECEDENTS FOR PRIVACY In the U.S., the right to be anonymous is protected under the First and Fourth amendments. According to Mike Godwin, author of Cyber Rights, two significant Supreme Court cases establish the precedents. NAACP v. Alabama The 1958 ruling upheld the NAACP's refusal to disclose its membership lists on the grounds that this type of privacy is part of the right to freedom of assembly. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission The 1995 ruling struck down a requirement, instituted to control campaign spending, that political pamphlets include the name and address of their issuer. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

Username/password
by webmaster＠us.oracle.com 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

Thank you for requesting your account information. Please use the following Username and Password to access the following services: my.oracle.com... http://my.oracle.com Oracle.com... http://www.oracle.com Oracle Technology Network... http://otn.oracle.com Oracle Applications Network... http://appsnet.oracle.com Oracle E-Business Network... http://www.oracle.com/ebusinessnetwork Oracle Learning Network... http://www.oracle.com/education/oln Username: jcpunk Password: jcpunk

1 0

Leiloes ao preco da Banana!
by info＠giganetstore.com 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

<http://www.gigaleilao.com.pt> Os leilões ao preço da Banana no Gigaleilão.com.pt <http://www.gigaleilao.com.pt> Não perca estas oportunidades... <http://www.gigaleilao.com.pt/gView.asp?id=1608361659579> Impressora Lexmark Z32 Impressora de qualidade, nova e a preço de saldo? Lexmark Z32 para imprimir com alta performance! Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 9.500$ <http://www.gigaleilao.com.pt/gView.asp?id=1608361710549> Aproveite agora! Impressora HP 840C+Scanner 3300 O preço mais acessível para dois artigos novos de qualidade garantida! Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 29.500$ <http://www.gigaleilao.com.pt/gView.asp?id=1608361740219> Perigo a Bordo Agarre-se ao seu colete salva-vidas. Estrondosa sequela do mega-sucesso SPEED! Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 900$ <http://www.gigaleilao.com.pt/gView.asp?id=1608361755079> Assalto Ao Aeroporto - DVD Adrenalina e Bruce Willis em imagens espectaculares num clássico inesquecível!. Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 900$ E muito mais... em www.gigaleilao.com.pt <http://www.gigaleilao.com.pt> . O novo serviço de leilões da giganetstore.com inédito e inovador no mercado online português. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com/> , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list clique em Retirar Mail <http://www.giganetstore.com/retirar_mail.asp>

1 0

remove
by Beth Kester 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

1 0

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity)
by Seth Finkelstein 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

[cypherpunky cryptobabble libertopians should take note!] Available at: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) Abstract: This report examines a secret category in N2H2's censorware, a product often sold under the name "BESS, The Internet Retriever". This category turns out to be for sites which must be uniformly prohibited, because they constitute a LOOPHOLE in the necessary control of censorware. The category contains sites which provide services of anonymity, privacy, language translation, humorous text transformations, even web page feature testing, and more. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf(a)sethf.com http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

8 15