December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 PM 7/18/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: >I am not saying that a private entity doesn't or shouldn't have the Legal >Right to censor, but I am saying that censorship of any form by any >entity is a Bad Thing and the public (not the government, mind) should >fight it on all fronts. This, in my mind, is the only reason to be >dismayed by the decision on the CDA. It was found that the government >shouldn't censor on the Internet because there were forms of Corporate >censorship available. It would have truely been a great day if the >decision had been that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet >because censorship is wrong. Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and "peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing about. If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where there views are already basically set. I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can and can't do. Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." (As a libertarian, I really don't care what sexual practices others practice, so long as I am not forced to either fund or witness their practices. And so long as I am free to filter out their practices as I see fit, including for my minor children and/or members of my household.) >That is another problem, not the Real Problem. The Real Problem is that >parents are scared to have to explain to children why something they've >seen is wrong or bad. They are afraid to teach their children their >beliefs and values, so instead would rather just filter everything that >conflicts with those beliefs, so that they believe it by default. This is Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for schools their own children are no longer using). Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which I don't). I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay for the research. What do you call ten million AIDS deaths? You figure it out. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

8 11

********Apology**********
by Charles Senescall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the dozens of people subject to a careless error on my part and who would have received bounced mail from me I apologise. I have fixed the error. Sorry.

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > I wonder when and how raids in the U.S. moved from the "Come out with your > hands up" verbal announcement (for the cases that needed more than a knock > on the door) to this blast-in-the-doors approach, where the raiders are > dressed in "tactical black" and are wearing black Nomex hoods and carrying > MP-5s and blast any "perp" who looks at them cross-eyed? If people decide that they are going to permit widespread ownership of guns then these tactics are inevitable. They are rare in the UK because gun ownership is relatively rare. I find this type of talk typical wishy washy libertarian twaddle. There are dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like living in a country where the police are armed to the teeth then move to the UK where there are very few armed police. Of course you will find that the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff. If you want to own guns then you should accept the fact that you risk having your head blown off in the middle of the night by a SWAT team. Just as the car has introduced the risk of being killed in a trafic accident the gun has introduced new risks. If society dosen't like the risks then it can opt to ban the technology. If you want to own a gun because you have some kind of personality problem and you need to prop up your ego then Phill

8 14

No Subject
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! Sorry for the off topic. I want to ask how to install Netscape3.0b5a under NT. I keep getting "Netscape is unable to locate the server: home.netscape.com. The server does not have a DNS entry." Thanks

1 0

Periodic Mix-to-DOS Port Inquiry
by kdf＠gigo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Please reply via netmail - I haven't regular list access.) Is Mixmaster ported to DOS yet? Thanks... -- : Fidonet: John Erland 1:203/8055.12 .. speaking for only myself. : Internet: kdf(a)gigo.com

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >Nope, not true. Say what you will about California, but the one >thing it did right was pass a law that said anyone found in your >house at night is presumptively a threat to which you may respond >with deadly force. Shoot on sight, in other words. I find it hard to believe "anyone". If "anyone" happens to be law enforcement, as has been proven again and again: yer screwed no matter what (either dead or in jail forever). //cerridwyn//

2 1

Re: MSNBC and cookies
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:25 AM 7/19/96, Joel McNamara wrote: >In attempting to check out different Net media coverage of TWA 800, it >appears the msnbc.com site won't let you in without a cookie. Repeated >cookie cancels with Navigator 3.0 drop you into an indigestive loop of the >server continuing to try to force feed you cookies. When you finally click >OK, you get in. > >Am I spacing, or is this the first site anyone's stumbled on that requires a >cookie for access? I've never been shut out of a site for canceling a >cookie. The first cookie request does have a user ID field. If the server >(or client) isn't misbehaving, this seems like a wee bit of a privacy issue. > >I tried accessing the page (http://www.msnbc.com) on 7/18/96 around 9:15 PM >PDT. Anyone care to confirm this. Microsoft and GE, the parent corporation of NBC, are participants in the FBI's "Web Awareness Program." Like the FBI's "Library Awareness Program," which tracked which books were being checked out by which patrons, the Web Awareness Program tracks user interests at Web sites. The WAP has already allowed the FBI and other intelligence agencies to check up on several people who appeared to have an unusual interest in the TWA 800 case. (Don't spend too much time in certain sites, friends.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:27 AM 7/19/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> >> > If you had a metal door, you would have enough time to wake up >> > and assess the situation. >> >> This is good advice though. Ironically, the only person I know >> with such a door is an ex-cop. Who should know better? > >That was the essense of my letter. The problem of Tim's approach is that >he has no time to react to a situation. The intruders will kill him >faster than he will be able to shoot. Look, I took this discussion to private e-mail with Igor earlier today, figuring the rest of you had already gotten my basic point in my main article and did not need further explanations. However, as Igor is imputing motives and plans to me, I have to comment. First, as I explained to Igor in e-mail, my home has _multiple_ (7 or 8) windows on the ground floor, several (3) sliding glass doors, and a couple of outside doors. The expense of fortifying each to Igor-recommended, Ninja-resistant levels would be quite high. (And I have seen houses with bars on all the windows...not a pretty sight, and not something I moved to my hill to turn around and imprison myself with. Not only are such bars ugly, they are expensive. And a potential fire hazard, as several cases have shown; people have been trapped in burning homes, unable to unlock the bars.) Second, and in line with Sandy's comments, I am quite aware--and quite careful--when visitors or guests are staying in my home. The scenario of my not realizing a noisemaker is one of my guests is implausible. In any case, most of the time I have no guests. Those who train with guns understand the dangers, the risks, and the proper handling of situations. Third, there are no plausible scenarios for "someone peaceful who entered your home with good intentions." If someone is in my home, uninvited and without my knowledge, the law in California and in most other states says that I am justified in firing. Period. I don't have to read him his rights, I don't have to ask if his intentions are peaceful, I don't have to have proof that he plans to shoot me. All I have to have is reasonable fear that I or my family/guests could be in danger. (The exact legal wording is something like this, but may be slightly different.) I know of few if any cases where a prowler was shot in a darkened house--or even during daylight--and any successful prosecution or lawsuit resulted. Fourth, the huge increase in "home invasions" in recent years should cause anyone to stop and ponder self-protection. ("Home invasion" is the practice of a gang of robbers hitting a house hard and fast, tying up or shooting the occupants, and then ransacking the place for anything they can carry. Often the occupants are shot execution-style.) Cops are not likely to be of much help. Fifth, when intruders, robbers, wandering drunks, and home invaders think there is no chance of a homeowner defending himself, crime rates tend to be high. In communities of the West where large percentages of homeowners have shotguns and assorted handguns, the crime rate appears to be much lower than in "disarmed" places back East. (We could argue the statistics on this til the cows come home, and I don't plan to. Talk.politics.guns is the place.) >Also, do not forget that if you sleep at night, your eyes will not be >used to bright light. Thus, an intruder with a bright flashlight would >be able to make you almost blind (and yes, you can keep the flashlight >away from your body). Your point being? I have no idea if intruders are planning to use flashlights to blind victims, but I rather doubt it. The nature of the most common intruder-defender situation is that the intruder typically does not want to awaken the defender...indeed, he tries to strike when he thinks the defender is away. (And most cases of intruders killing the defenders is when the defenders surprise the intruders.) Obviously there are all kinds of scenarios, but I'm skeptical that flashlights are a useful strategem for either side to count on. (I am thinking about getting a ultra-bright flashlight, though.) >I of course have no idea about Tim's accommodations, but in my apartment >it takes about one second to break into my door if you have a heavy axe. >Then three seconds after you break into the door you are in my bedroom and >can shoot at me. Would a gun under my pillow help? I don't think so. The good news for we defenders, and this applies to both the gun case and the hypothesized "flashlight" case is that most intruders are poorly trained in gun-handling, are armed with fairly wimpy guns (e.g., .38s), have practiced very little, and rarely carry high-power flashlights (such as the extremely bright "Sure-Fire" tactical flashlights). Cops are, of course, another story. The point being that a citizen who practices at the range, firing at least 500 rounds a year or so at combat-range targets, is usually _much_ better-prepared to win a firefight with a street punk carrying a .38 or .25 he's never fired before. (Ninjas are another story, of course.) (However, to a person who is unarmed, a shot from a .38 or a .25, or even a .22, can result in death.) >Now if I had a good door, I would have tim to wake up, cock the gun, >maybe call for help, and so on. Quite a different situation. Yeah, fine, you've now made your "good door" point several times, here and in private mail to me. So get a "good door" already! (BTW, my door is a solid-core heavy door, with Schlage lock and deadbolt, so it ain't wimpy. Ninjas have special tools to zap even such doors, but, frankly, I'd expect them to come in through the windows. As I said, I don't plan to spend thousands of dollars installing Lexan windows and bars, for various reasons. And windows are almost always the point of entry for burglars, not crashing through the front door.) >If you do not believe me, refer to the rec.guns FAQ. It has all >been discussed there. Puh-leese! As Perry would say, don't teach Grandpa how to suck eggs. I've been shooting since 1974 (not counting childhood target practice) and am pretty well-versed in such things. >I am not asking Tim to get rid of his gun -- I am merely suggesting >how to _improve_ security. Yeah, but you have a one-track mind ("get a good door"). And bringing in all the nonsense about bad dreams and sleepwalkers and lawsuits by people strolling through living rooms for "peaceful purposes" (though not invited by the owner!) and the like...this set of nonsense can only be interpreted in the context of your thinking that having guns in a house is dangerous. Do as you wish, Igor. Please, by all means, replace your apartment door with a heavier one, even a steel-core one. But don't conflate this advice with nonsense about dreams, sleepwalkers, getting arrested for defending a home, and suchlike. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: New Infowarfare Panel
by Llywarch Hen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I'm certainly not saying "information warfare" is impossible--for example, >I did some work in the late 70s for DARPA on knocking out satellites with >particle beam weapons. Specifically ... There is an interesting document at http://www.rand.org/publications/electronic/. _Strategic Information Warfare: A New Face of War_, by Roger C. Molander, Andrew S. Riddile, and Peter A. Wilson. -- Llywarch Hen

1 0

Re: "address verification databases"? (was: Netscape download...)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Personally, I don't mind being in a data base of people interested in products with strong crypto. (For another one, ask majordomo(a)toad.com.) BTW, I must be lucky, I down loaded it on the first try. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: "address verification databases"?
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:57 PM 7/17/96 -0700, Tim May wrote: >At 9:45 PM 7/17/96, Jeff Weinstein wrote: > >> Because we have not yet been able to obtain the address verification >>databases that we need for Canada. There is someone working on >>tracking this down right now. When we get the proper database we >>will add access to canada. >> >> --Jeff > >Jeff, can you tell us anything more about what these "address verification >databases" are? > >For example, are they derived from government sources? Census data? (Naw, >can't be, for at least two obvious reasons). Voting records? (Naw.) Credit >card purchases? (??) I followed the links and explored the web site of the "address verification" provider ( http://www.abii.com ). The data they have about me is outdated (by at least a year) and apparently derived from a phone book or directory assistance. I picked up a copy of "The Net" magazine at the store tonight because it's got an article listing several of these Web-accessible address/phone databases. The article doesn't say anything especially fascinating but it does list three such sites: http://www.abii.com/lookupusa/adp/peopsrch.htm http://www.searchamerica.com/ http://www.switchboard.com/ -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

1 0

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd rather say, filtering out TCM is OK. Bert-Jaap

1 0

Re: Netscape download requirements
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I realize you're probably overloaded with email/etc, but as you don't read c'punks, I'll take a chance with a personal note anyway... >> Well one 'ITAR gangsta' can alwas upload the linux version to a >> 'liberated ftp site'. >Great. Convince the government to withdraw our permission >and never to give it again while the current laws stand. >Please don't do this. Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give us their permission and we've lost everything. The government should need OUR permission, not the other way 'round. To give the government the impression that we will bow to it's power on these matters may be financially beneficial for a corporation, but is unacceptable and humiliating for free individuals. >I'd bet on the first. Why screw with this? We worked hard >to make this possible and you want to ruin it. Sheesh. Because freedom doesn't come in degrees, it's all or nothing. >"I hate the government so I'll blow up a federal building >and then the FBI will get more money and attention and >power and, um, that'll show 'em, er, ah....." Exporting crypto-systems and killing people is comparing apples and hand grenades. Please come up with a relevant analogy. >For those of you who think some of our info requests go too far: well, >my position to the US was: I want to do a download. I'll do what it >takes. Given all the ITAR vagueness and total lack of case law, I >think both sides did very well. While I don't agree with the While I am one of those who believe your info requests do go too far, I also appreciate the fact that you wouldn't be able to "do a download" without it. I thank you for your efforts on these fronts, and have two things to say regarding: 1) Please don't chastise individuals who take direct action and use civil disobediance as a measure to change bad laws and policies (ie by making your companies software available internationally). When done on a mass scale, the long-term benefits FAR outweigh the short term consequences. While you as a corporation find it much more difficult to take such actions, as they would most likely ruin your corporation, individuals acting in this capacity cannot be ruined quite so readily. 2) Please don't misuse the information you gain by logging all your network traffic. I like using Navigator, and would hate to have to give up using it due to some breach of trust by Netscape regarding someone's personal info. >wrong place to wage battle. Rather than attack some odd piece >of enforcement, participate in the debate over the regulations >themselves. Strides are being made. This is a good time for >your voice to be heard. If you don't like this mechanism, don't >use it. It's your choice. I agree mostly. I would rephrase, however, to say: In addition to attacking odd pieces of enforcement, participate in the debate over the regulations themselves. Besides, contrary to your gist, this is probably one of the most prominent pieces of enforcement, and therefore a very logical candidate for attack. //cerridwyn//

8 18

GOPHERD FOR SOLARIS 2.5
by dani＠193.144.104.4 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi!, IŽm looking for a gopher server for Solaris 2.5, IŽve tried in the Sunsite, but succesless. Does anybody know where else may I find a gopher server for Solaris 2.4?. Thanks in advance. Danny. dani(a)gva.es _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Daniel Díaz Luengo. dani(a)gva.es _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Consellerìa de Presidència _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ C/Micalet nº5. _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Valencia-(Spain) (96)-386-38-57

1 0

Re: MSNBC and cookies
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Microsoft and GE, the parent corporation of NBC, are participants in the >FBI's "Web Awareness Program." Like the FBI's "Library Awareness Program," >which tracked which books were being checked out by which patrons, the Web >Awareness Program tracks user interests at Web sites. > >The WAP has already allowed the FBI and other intelligence agencies to >check up on several people who appeared to have an unusual interest in the >TWA 800 case. > >(Don't spend too much time in certain sites, friends.) This is interesting. Where can one find reliable sources to verify this information? (The existance of a WAP, and the use of it in the TWA 800 case). //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: Reasonable validation of a software package
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:12 PM -0700 7/18/96, Carl Ellison wrote: > >The problem people overlook is that a CA binds a public key to a name but >the name is in the CA's name space. For me, a verifier, to derive any >value from a certificate binding (key,name), the name has to be in *my* >name space. > >If there were such a thing as a global namespace meaningful to everyone, >then we could both use it. That's the X.500 falacy/pipe-dream. Think of the common name on a certificate as if it were a first-come, first-served serial number of alphanumeric form. There's no reason to believe that John Smith is YOUR John Smith. Your John Smith might tell you he's John Smith 37. It's kinda like vanity license plates. The alternative is every privacy fan's nightmare--embedded SSNs or some such in certificates. Some of the problems, of course, will be of the users' own making and there they get to pay their money and take their choice. What I mean is that you can optionally include or suppress your e-mail address in Type I certificates, and real address in Type IIs. If you include it you improve the chances of being the "right" John Smith someone is after. If you prefer privacy you will also be less accessible. I see nothing unusual about that--after all, people with unlisted phone numbers are ultimately inaccessible except (pretty much) to those to whom they give the info. > >The fact is, no global name space could be held in one human's mind, so >there's no way a global name space could be meaningful to me. Nor is there any reason it should be. It isn't, now. > >So, to use a certificate from a CA, I need to map a name from its name >space (DN) into a name in my name space (nickname). Every time I've looked >at that process, I've had to have a secure channel over which to learn from >the person I call by that nickname what DN he goes by. Why does it have to be a secure channel? Why can't it be published (for instance by including the address in the certificate)? >If I have that >secure channel, then he could tell me his public key fingerprint ove that >cnnel -- and I wouldn't need the CA. Why wouldn't you use the certificate to bind the public key to the name and address? What need would there be for fingerprint communication? How is this different from 20 John Smiths in the phone book at 20 different street addresses? I'd better know the address of the John Smith I want if I'm to get his phone number from a directory. Note that I'm not attacking what you say. There's clearly something you're getting at that I don't understand--since you post sensible stuff (as far as I recall). Help me out here. David

1 0

Re: US versions of Netscape now available
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199607190709.IAA00119(a)server.test.net> you wrote: : Jeff Weinstein <jsw(a)netscape.com> writes: : > Adam Back wrote: : > > Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once : > > it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc. : > : > Just a minor nit. No netscape software is freely distributable. : > The license agreement does not allow people who download it : > to redistribute it. : Oh dear! So I am incorrect... but wait, what about people like : sunsite northern europe (Imperial College London: ftp.doc.ic.ac.uk) : who already have a license to be a Netscape mirror site. Would this : license allow them to distribute this latest 128 bit netscape beta : (were it to leak)? I would like to know what Netscape's position on the above mentioned scenario is .. (Uploading "possibly" received 128 bit binaries to official netscape mirrors outside the US, that is) (guess why ...) bEST Regards, -- -AJ-

2 1

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage >being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific >American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the >sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and >"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing >about. Choosing what you read and choosing what other people (including your children) read is the difference between filtering and censoring. I didn't say filtering was wrong, I said censorship was wrong. >If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away >from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where >there views are already basically set. I am sorry to hear. I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more harm than good. I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will leave it up to you to read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for very strong arguements in my support. >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the filtering programs we were discussing allow a user very little, if any, ability to "set his filters differently". >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. Again, I agree, and thought I had made that clear. However, that doesn't mean we can't object on a social (opposed to governmental) level. I repeat: just because a government doesn't have the right to oppose private censorship doesn't make it OK. >Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" >notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from >filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." I was under the impression that most on the list were avowed libertarians, and would rather the State didn't intervene in any part of your (or your son's) life. However, I would still argue that restricting your son's access is more of a detriment to your son than allowing it, then discussing why it is Wrong (or whatever) and why he feels it is necessary to read such things. I would also argue that you are right in that the State has no right to force you to raise your child in any way. But, as I stated in another post, the problem is not just the government. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). I fail to see how trying to breed attitudes that you allegedly avow is "propaganda". The book you cited is intended as a means of teaching acceptance, not necessarily approval. You say you tolerate homosexuals, but that is not a wide-spread practice yet. Violence and ridicule is the more common response to openly homosexual behaviour, and that book is meant to stop such bigoted reactions. You'll note that nowhere in the book does it say anyone *should* be homosexual, it merely says that it's okay if you are and you should accept others who are. >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). Please show me an instance where you or your children (if you had any) would have been forced into practicing homosexuality by anything taught in a public school or shown on a web page. Exposure to a lifestyle and having that life- style's practices forced on you are not the same. Would you allow your children to learn about Nazi Germany? I find the lifestyle of the Nazi positively disgusting, but wouldn't think to prevent my child from learning about it. Same thing with other cultures, religions, political principles, etc. The simple fact that this particular issue is regarding sexuality bears no significance to the arguement. A child (or any other person) should not be restricted access to any sort of information available about any topic, unless she is restricting her own access (filtering). <garbage regarding AIDS/etc ignored> //cerridwyn//

3 2

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:48 AM 7/19/96, Simon Spero wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage >> being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific >> American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the >> sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and > >Actually, the Economist has, er, come out strongly in favour of gay >rights on numerous occasions- most recently on the issue of same sex >marriages. Sure, and I didn't exactly state what my position _is_ on so-called queer rights. I said I have no interest in hearing nonsense about it, e.g., the drumbeat of propaganda, etc. Of course, it should come as no surprise that I believe everyone has the legal right to refuse to associate with anyone. Thus, a shop owner or employer, in my view, has every right to refuse service or employment to whomever he wishes. While many may not _like_ this (including me, when I am banned from certain businesses, as I am), it is part and parcel of liberty. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Sternlight writes: > Here's the problem in a nutshell: Everyone who has looked at our systems, > from Cliff Stoll A *famous* security expert. >on to blue ribbon scientific commissions, The last of which recommended that crypto be entirely deregulated. > Serious studies have shown that the kinds of protections to make the > systems we depend on robust against determined and malicious attackers (say > a terrorist government, or one bent on doing a lot of damage in retaliation > for one of our policies they don't like), have costs beyond the capability > of individual private sector actors. Defense is cheaper than attack in encryption because it is easier to make coherent information incoherent (see Usenet) than it is to make incoherent information coherent. > In such a case, where public benefits from government action greatly exceed > public (taxpayer) costs, and the private sector cannot (or will not) act > unaided, the classical basis for government action in the interests of the > citizenry exists. It's the economist's "lighthouse" argument. But since the Internet and the WANs and LANs that you are talking about are all "private value-added networks," the benefits of enhanced security a fully captured by the users of those networks and there is no "public goods" problems. (BTW, there were private lighthouses too.) Note too that major money center banks disagree with you. There was a recent article about the fact that they are not reporting computer intrusions and just fixing the problems themselves. They don't seem interested in official security "help" with all the disadvantages (publicity and security leaks) that it brings. DCF

2 1

No Subject
by weffross＠counsel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Inet unsubscribe weffross(a)counsel.com Thanks!

1 0

BIG_dif
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-19-96. NYP: "AT&T and Wells Fargo Investing in an Electronic Cash Card." The companies said that they would form the American affiliate of Mondex. Any one with a Mondex card can transfer electronic cash to anyone else with a card. This flexibility has raised concerns both about the possibility of counterfeiting and of money laundering. Because of these concerns, Mondex has been modified in the United States so that banks will be able to track card use. That will allow them to audit for fraud, if not recreate every transaction. Data from Mondex cards will be used for various product marketing. "We believe there should be privacy, but there is a big difference between privacy and anonymity," Dudley Nigg, executive vice president of Wells Fargo, said. ----- http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/bigdif.txt (4 kb) BIG_dif

1 0

Inventor of radio...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I would like to correct a misconception about who is credited with the invention of radio. Nikola Tesla has held the credit for the creation since the resolution of the original lawsuit in the mid-80's. Tata. Jim Choate Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Mail-order Ph.D.'s > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 96 07:37:24 EDT > > He also invented the radio, but Marconi+Popov stole the credit from him.

2 1

Re: Reverse Engineer
by elfgard＠pooh-corner.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What do you mean by "reverse engineer?" I have heard this word several times especially in the world of hacking, but... can someone tell me what it really meant? Interesting question. Hmmm... I would answer this question for you but then I would have to kill you. That is basically like asking a car thief to tell yuo about how he breaks into cars and what cars hes broken into lately. My suggestion to you is to pick up one of those MEGA lame books like "What is a Cyberpunk!" and read that. It may not tell you shit, but it will give you a broad understanding about what you want to know. Elfgard *The One and Only* elfgard(a)netlite.com http://www.netlite.com

2 1

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Troy Denkinger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:07 PM 7/18/96 -0700, you wrote: [Cerridwyn Llewyellyn's text snipped] [Lucid argument snipped, I was with you until right around here] >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. We have an interesting problem here, though. You say that the government has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo. However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even "national security" to guide it. [snip] I'll preface my following remarks by saying that I'm not a libertarian. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). First point first. The "propaganda" taught in schools is generally aimed at teaching our children how to think. Perhaps rote learning and cultural naivete make us all comfortable at night and let us sleep better, but in a world where critical thinking is undervalued I'd rather have my and my childrens' views challenged than constantly affirmed. (Btw, I have no children at this moment, so it's quite possible to contend I'm talking out my ass here; time will tell.) Public school funding is way off topic, so I'll concede your "point" and let it slide. [Now the meat of the queer bashing, how charming. Sad to see you sully what was a decent argument up to this point with ignorant foolishness] >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). When was the last time a homosexual attempted to force their practices on you? I'll leave your fictitious children out of it for the moment. Are you an active eschewer or simply a theoretical eschewer? Have you ever been hit on by a gay person? I have; I told them I wasn't gay and that was that. No one forced their "AIDS-spreading practices" on me. >I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed >for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no >tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on >such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay >for the research. I usually read your posts to this list and often find them insightful, however the above statement leaves me wondering if some ignoramus has taken control of your keyboard or if the above was a simple, but remarkable, typing error. Following your reasoning, it's also proper to say that cancer and heart disease as well as violent crime resulting in death of a victim are also "evolution in action" isn't it? Your assertions are absurd and unfounded. Your final point that those who "introduced the new vector" should pay for the research for a cure continues to spotlight your inchoate notions on this topic. Pray tell, who introduced the vector? Who was responsible for the spread of the virus? Who are the victims of this disease? Who are the future victims of this disease--do they have to pay because obviously they're engaged in some kind of risky behaviour? What part does an unresponsive worldwide health structure have to pay? How responsible are you for the social blight that leads the underclasses to participate in risky behaviour through hopelessness or lack of education? Really, Mr. May, look further than your own front yard for a change. You live in a world -- welcome to it. Troy Denkinger

6 6