October 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: On suing Marcy Hamilton for being a bimbo
by Major Variola (ret) 05 Oct '03

05 Oct '03

At 10:17 AM 10/5/03 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote: >On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > >> So don't use their tools. > >You don't know how much I'd love to. Ditto, sir. Along with the amazingly irregular "English", and various other systems subject to Metcalfe's Law (aka the fax effect). However, I have to live in the Real >World, and I have to interact with other people, which involves receiving >data from them. (If I could just ignore them, I'd do so and won't get >angry about the issue.) Feh. You may choose not to work for the military. I do. You may also choose to work with folks who require MShit. The cost of either decision is pretty high nowadays. >I also have to share the Net with them, which - even if I do the best - I (and you) have to share the planet with a population *half* of which is subaverage in intelligence. A population that loves Fox News and Bush and Brittny and ESPN etc. So what? Its our albatross. You don't use govt violence to correct this. >> It is simply wrong to blame a gun or drill or code maker because some >> evildoer (virus propogator) used the tool against you. > >Is it also wrong to blame a door maker when the lock that was marketed as >safe can be opened with a creditcard (which is then touted as convenience)? One can assume that Joe Sixpack has seen the creditcard trick, and makes locally rational decisions. Hell, my Dad read about Blaze's "master key" attack in the paper. >> Let me guess: the State gets to decide how many bugs per line of code? > >I don't have the answer here. I usually don't have accurate answers to >policy things. Ok. But do you see my point? You do not want the State to decide what is good, fair, publishable, etc. The 1st amendment permits all kinds of objectionable bits. I rather like that, although I don't like many of the bits or their effect on many members of my species. Here in the US, we don't sue folks who write inflammatory books because their readers have done some wrong. It should be the same with machine-executable bits. >> Again, the maker's choice; your choice to purchase. > >Not when I become collateral damage. Actually, yes. Though I very much like your use of that phrase. I can't sue Fox for polluting the minds of people I might encounter. Similar for rendering HTML in mails; I never saw a >SINGLE mail with javascript inside that won't be spam (where it's for >annoying but otherwise harmless effects) or worm (where it's actually >malicious and used for spreading), a boolean for call for scripting engine >to return without any action shouldn't be problematic. Whatever. There was generally a reason for introducing abilities else it wouldn't have been invested in, assuming rational actors. That <feature X> was a horrible security/privacy risk didn't occur to them, or was ignored, is irrelevant as far as legal culpability should be concerned. >>> Not even mentioning the tendency of the patches (and following patches >>> to patches) to break something else. >> >> And this doesn't happen with other OSes? Please. > >That happens everywhere. But only one major vendor so far managed to get >it from something exceptional to something expectational. :-) >> And every version of *nix has always shipped with everything off, >> maximally locked down? Right. > >OpenBSD. (Though on the other hand there are opinions that its security is >based mainly on the difficulty of getting anything to work on it.) I thought NetBSD was the tight one. I've run FreeBSD. *Whatever* But your comment again illustrates: security vs. convenience. *BSD biasses are different (and clearly superior from a security point of view) than other OSes. But this is *irrelevent*. We're not talking tech here, we're talking law. >> And does MS even support SSH? ] > >Not. Another of my pet peeves, but not *that* critical, and there are >various third-party implementations, eg. Cygwin port of OpenSSH. Not >exactly stellar (or I didn't manage to configure something correctly), but >passable. Right. And MS has zero obligation to support anything it doesn't want to. >>> Or when I had to reboot instead of just restarting the updated service. >> >> Yawn. > >I see you are familiar with "boot wait". Yes, it's boring. :-) But what I meant was this decision is irrelevant. Or would you have Ashcroft aim his guns at Redmond for that (perhaps poor, perhaps required, I don't know the rationale) design decision? >>> If for nothing other than for running scripts in incoming mails by >>> default, MSFT deserves it. (Yes, I admit bias. Having to admin a couple >>> machines running their software should be enough to justify it.) If they were easier to admin, perhaps you would not have a job :-) Armies need enemies, after all. >> Your bias is turning you into something dark. I sort of expected >> this reaction, since I was defending MS's right to exist. >> But if MS is treated this way, so is Joe Coder. > >I can ignore Joe Coder. I can't ignore MSFT. YOU ARE JOE CODER. Do you want to threatened with state violence because someone doesn't like your design decisions or implementation quality? >> If Marcy clicks on attachments, runs mail clients >> that run embedded scripts, basically spreads her legs and >> lets everyone in, how is this different from someone who >> rolls their SUV because they were clueless as to physics? > >The analogy that would be more accurate is exploding tires. Marcy operates >the machine within vendor-suggested operational parameters (eg, defaults). Exploding tires are dealt with by Consumer Reports and other reputation modifiers. >>> Though I am not sure if the personal-informations-disclosure venue is >>> the good one. >> >> Au contraire, I'm sure someone who asserts class-action status is >> interested in hearing from the public she is so kindly protecting. > >Misunderstanding. I meant the law she's attempting to use as the base of >the lawsuit. Sorry for not being clearer. (I suppose her address is in the >court materials anyway; besides MSFT defenders are far less dangerous than >eg. $cientologists.) I'm not sure whether being an implied MS defender is any better than being associated with the folks who took L Ron seriously. I'll let this one pass since I was borderline abusive before. >> Its a real shame when (albeit deserved) MS-hostility/contempt biasses >> folks into immorality or irrationality. > >Monopoly-like system reinforces itself and favors measures that would kill >their proponent if there would be several smaller players. Yes, Esperanto has no hope, though it may be better designed. Metcalfe again. >(There is a hope, though. Billy the Greed managed to be disliked by mostly >everyone. With some luck, a critical mass will be reached and the balance >tilted back, with the inevitable sound effects of MSFT management crying >"unfair". Let them whine. So long as they don't use state violence (eg DMCA) against others. >> Its like blaming the authors of the SMTP RFC for spam. > >They at least knew it can happen; see RFC 706. Doesn't that make them legally *more* liable, realizing they have "erred" yet continuing?

1 0

Marcy Hamilton suing the disco where she got STDs
by Major Variola (ret) 05 Oct '03

05 Oct '03

(resent) At 09:22 PM 10/4/03 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >I also have a >firewall and a router, neither of which I have truly geek-levels of intimacy >using. True. Not even expensive. Don't even need hardware. Marcy is blaming the Redmond disco for the STDs she picked up by banging anything that smiled at her there. When she could have protected herself and even enjoyed that disco, if that's her taste. Given freedom to act, you wear a condom. You don't sue the disco for failing to dispense free condoms, or failing to screen its clients. Or even failing to prevent you from being promiscuous. Marcy is doing that. She may as well sue Postel's estate, or the SMTP RFC authors for spam. The law should not protect against stupidity, or even masochism, or their consequences. Just *nonconsensual* transactions. Pretty simple. >The tool analogy may be a weak one, though. Imagine a drill that somehow >pollutes the electical supply so much that the guy next door can't use his >electronics. What part of "shall accept all interference and not generate interference" is difficult to understand :-) Or in the modern world, what part of "unlicensed spectrum" is? In the optical domain: My local police log had "incident: victim offended by religious sticker on vehicle" in their police log. I have written to them asking if this is a joke, or if they were being polite to some crackpot by taking a report. Accept all interference, baby. Do not sue the printer of stickers you can't handle. Or imagine a car that actually disengages the steering wheel at >random while driving: it's one thing to affect the driver, but if he's going >to take me out because of his tool then it's time to get that crap off the >road. Agreed. Where I grew up, a car had to have a brake exam every year. In Calif, no such test, only smog occasionally. The brake exam seems fairer, because the harm you can do to others is more focussed. Though given the pop density and atmospheric conditions, and that pollution beyond your property is a legit libertarian harm, Calif's smog check is probably reasonable. ... Some dude found that if you spin up a CD on a Dremel it will spray sharp shards when it disintegrates. Should we sue Phillips or Dremel? Maybe we should call Dana Taschner, *he'll* know. (Hint: Who has more money, Phillips or Dremel?) ... People who are willing to rely on the government to keep them safe are pretty much standing on Darwin's mat, pounding on the door, screaming, "Take me, take me!"--Cael in A.S.R.

1 0

The Register - Smart cards get really smart (fwd)
by Jim Choate 05 Oct '03

05 Oct '03

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/33218.html -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

Yahoo! News - Israel Strikes Terrorist Base in Syria (fwd)
by Jim Choate 05 Oct '03

05 Oct '03

Oh shit. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/2003… -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

Re: On suing Marcy Hamilton for being a bimbo
by Major Variola (ret) 05 Oct '03

05 Oct '03

At 05:50 PM 10/4/03 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote: >On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: > >> We'd like to file a class-action suit against >> MARCY HAMILTON >> For abusing the law, and holding toolmakers >> responsible for what lusers do with them. > >Not exactly good analogy. The mentioned "toolmaker" behaves so recklessly >they well-deserve some serious slapping. So don't use their tools. Don't abuse the law against the maker of a tool which can be used improperly. It is simply wrong to blame a gun or drill or code maker because some evildoer (virus propogator) used the tool against you. There is a huge difference >between making a bug time to time and release patch as soon as possible, >and reckless endangering of the whole world by both lousy code, Let me guess: the State gets to decide how many bugs per line of code? >intentionally wrong key architectural decisions, You mean decisions that don't fit *your* fancy. See below for others' possible motivations. and keeping everything >and the kitchen sink on by default, Again, the maker's choice; your choice to purchase. including services that next to nobody >(except worms) needs - if the users need it, they should be able to click >on "Enable" on their own. You don't understand the convenience vs. security tradeoff too well. Or the importance of convenience to sales. Not even mentioning the tendency of the patches >(and following patches to patches) to break something else. And this doesn't happen with other OSes? Please. And every version of *nix has always shipped with everything off, maximally locked down? Right. Can't remember >when an upgrade of OpenSSH or OpenSSL or any other contemporary bug >breeder of the MS-alternative bombed any of my systems. [Tech: Since when have MS SSL bugs had *anything* to do with worms and virii? And does MS even support SSH? ] There have been plenty of security and overflow bugs in Open* security apps. Or when I had to >reboot instead of just restarting the updated service. Yawn. >If for nothing other than for running scripts in incoming mails by >default, MSFT deserves it. (Yes, I admit bias. Having to admin a couple >machines running their software should be enough to justify it.) Your bias is turning you into something dark. I sort of expected this reaction, since I was defending MS's right to exist. But if MS is treated this way, so is Joe Coder. >Resorting to worn-out car analogies, it's quite like selling cars with >safety belts made of paper and with faulty brakes (not talking about the >occassional tendency of the mentioned cars to lose their engine, explode >in the middle of the road, or shred the luggage in the trunk). Caveat emptor. Some folks buy cars with no airbags; others buy cars with a dozen. Should everyone be forced to buy the safest car (as defined by the State, of course). If Marcy clicks on attachments, runs mail clients that run embedded scripts, basically spreads her legs and lets everyone in, how is this different from someone who rolls their SUV because they were clueless as to physics? >Though I am not sure if the personal-informations-disclosure venue is the >good one. Au contraire, I'm sure someone who asserts class-action status is interested in hearing from the public she is so kindly protecting. Its a real shame when (albeit deserved) MS-hostility/contempt biasses folks into immorality or irrationality. Its like blaming the authors of the SMTP RFC for spam.

2 1

Re: On suing Marcy Hamilton for being a bimbo
by Tyler Durden 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Variola wrote... "So don't use their tools. Don't abuse the law against the maker of a tool which can be used improperly. It is simply wrong to blame a gun or drill or code maker because some evildoer (virus propogator) used the tool against you." Well, although I am willing to agree that a giant corporation does not act very responsibly, I have to say that even though I use their email software here at home, I've never had a problem that I can detect: I don't even open email from folks I don't know, never mind attachments. I also have a firewall and a router, neither of which I have truly geek-levels of intimacy using. The tool analogy may be a weak one, though. Imagine a drill that somehow pollutes the electical supply so much that the guy next door can't use his electronics. Or imagine a car that actually disengages the steering wheel at random while driving: it's one thing to affect the driver, but if he's going to take me out because of his tool then it's time to get that crap off the road. Is that the case with MS? The "Geeks of Consequence" tell me so... -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)lne.com" <cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: Re: On suing Marcy Hamilton for being a bimbo >Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:12:57 -0700 > >At 05:50 PM 10/4/03 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote: > >On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: > > > >> We'd like to file a class-action suit against > >> MARCY HAMILTON > >> For abusing the law, and holding toolmakers > >> responsible for what lusers do with them. > > > >Not exactly good analogy. The mentioned "toolmaker" behaves so >recklessly > >they well-deserve some serious slapping. > >So don't use their tools. Don't abuse the law against the maker >of a tool which can be used improperly. It is simply >wrong to blame a gun or drill or code maker because some evildoer >(virus propogator) used the tool against you. > >There is a huge difference > >between making a bug time to time and release patch as soon as >possible, > >and reckless endangering of the whole world by both lousy code, > >Let me guess: the State gets to decide how many bugs per line of code? > > >intentionally wrong key architectural decisions, > >You mean decisions that don't fit *your* fancy. >See below for others' possible motivations. > >and keeping everything > >and the kitchen sink on by default, > >Again, the maker's choice; your choice to purchase. > >including services that next to nobody > >(except worms) needs - if the users need it, they should be able to >click > >on "Enable" on their own. > >You don't understand the convenience vs. security tradeoff too well. >Or the importance of convenience to sales. > >Not even mentioning the tendency of the patches > >(and following patches to patches) to break something else. > >And this doesn't happen with other OSes? Please. And every >version of *nix has always shipped with everything off, maximally >locked down? Right. > >Can't remember > >when an upgrade of OpenSSH or OpenSSL or any other contemporary bug > >breeder of the MS-alternative bombed any of my systems. > >[Tech: Since when have MS SSL bugs had *anything* to do with worms and >virii? >And does MS even support SSH? ] > >There have been plenty of security and overflow bugs in Open* security >apps. > >Or when I had to > >reboot instead of just restarting the updated service. > >Yawn. > > >If for nothing other than for running scripts in incoming mails by > >default, MSFT deserves it. (Yes, I admit bias. Having to admin a couple > > >machines running their software should be enough to justify it.) > >Your bias is turning you into something dark. I sort of expected >this reaction, since I was defending MS's right to exist. >But if MS is treated this way, so is Joe Coder. > > >Resorting to worn-out car analogies, it's quite like selling cars with > >safety belts made of paper and with faulty brakes (not talking about >the > >occassional tendency of the mentioned cars to lose their engine, >explode > >in the middle of the road, or shred the luggage in the trunk). > >Caveat emptor. Some folks buy cars with no airbags; others buy >cars with a dozen. Should everyone be forced to buy the safest >car (as defined by the State, of course). > >If Marcy clicks on attachments, runs mail clients >that run embedded scripts, basically spreads her legs and >lets everyone in, how is this different from someone who >rolls their SUV because they were clueless as to physics? > > >Though I am not sure if the personal-informations-disclosure venue is >the > >good one. > >Au contraire, I'm sure someone who asserts class-action status is >interested in hearing >from the public she is so kindly protecting. > >Its a real shame when (albeit deserved) MS-hostility/contempt biasses >folks into >immorality or irrationality. Its like blaming the authors of the SMTP >RFC for >spam. _________________________________________________________________ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com

1 0

On suing Marcy Hamilton for being a bimbo
by Major Variola (ret.) 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Dear Dana Taschner, Esq, We'd like to file a class-action suit against MARCY HAMILTON 2804 MCCONNELL DR LOS ANGELES CA 90064 (310)202-6333 For abusing the law, and holding toolmakers responsible for what lusers do with them. You will, of course, get your 1/3 contingency fee. We realize she hasn't anything like the billions you seek, but she is still culpable, right buddy? And anyone can sue anybody for anything, as your career so aptly demonstrates. Maybe we can $ettle out of court... that is what you're after, isn't it? And tell Marcy to buy a fucking firewall, stop clicking on attachments, and stop rendering HTML mail. She makes you wear a condom, right? Same thing. ------ http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-micro3oct03,1,1486558.story?coll=la-h… A Los Angeles woman fed up with computer viruses and malicious worms is using a new California law to try to force Microsoft Corp. to make its software less vulnerable to such attacks. In a suit filed this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Marcy Hamilton makes the novel claim that the world's biggest software company has run afoul of the new law, which requires businesses to warn customers when the firms believe personal information has been exposed to hackers or other unauthorized individuals.

2 1

U FLA castrates students, turns them into consumers
by Major Variola (ret.) 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Here, its not NAT turning people into consumers (cf Walker's Speak Freely rant), but a no-server policy which seems to be too broadly implemented --legit uses are also blocked. Maybe time for UDP protocols, or TCP-to-UDP proxies. Over DNS ports :-) When SYNs are outlawed, only outlaws will SYN. -------- There are some legitimate uses that are stifled as a price for reducing illegitimate uses," said John Vaughn, executive vice president of the Association for American Universities One student who asked not to be named said he was upset that he can no longer play LAN games with friends on his floor. Last year, he would regularly joust with 15 others, but the school restricts using a computer as a server, so he's given up the activity. http://wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60613-2,00.html

2 1

Test....[No Reply]
by Jim Choate 03 Oct '03

03 Oct '03

-- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0

SSZ node going down
by Jim Choate 03 Oct '03

03 Oct '03

Greetings, As of 17:00 Central today (10-3-03) the SSZ node will cease to operate. All subscribers should move to one of the other nodes to continue to participate in the list. That is my intention. Ta ta. -- -- God exists because mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exist because we can't prove it. Andre Weil, in H. Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.com www.ssz.com www.open-forge.com

1 0