December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

American Cyber Mall
by rgwjr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AMERICAN CYBER MALL http://www.usacm.com FREE WEB PAGE CONTEST, WEEKLY DRAWING !!! Visit the American Cyber Mall http://www.usacm.com and you can register to win a FREE web page with FREE 12 months hosting !!! Just our way of say thanks for visiting our new award winning cyber mall. American Cyber Mall http://www.usacm.com TO BE REMOVED FROM LIST REPLY WITH SUBJECT = REMOVE

1 0

Sandy is God...Listen to Him!
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Don't understand all this issue about Sandy and John filtering the list. Don't we want order and control? We need Sandy to decide whether our articles should be read by others. Sandy is our spokesman, our leader, our navigator. When he founded the Cypherpunks group, he wanted ``order and control, ``and now he has been forced to re-assume control of the group to put controls in place. Hey, if Sandy and John say we have to stick to certain topics, well, dammit, they are in control and we have to do what they want. Sandy and John are our leaders. Forget this stuff about the Cypherpunks list being a group seperate from toad.com. Forget this idea that John is just the host of the list...he is actually the co-controlled. And we'd better pay attention. Why didn't Sandy and John just announce a new filtered list, like Blossom has? Why make their control the default for the whole list, with the the unfiltered list harder to subscribe to and eventually to go away completely? Good questions! Ask not the reasons for God's decissions. This is Sandy's list, and John's machine, and if they say they know best what is a flame and what is not, I say we should just take our medicine and learn to love their wise decisions. If they say we can only write flames if they approve, OK. If they say we must only write about libertarian topics, OK. If they reject our messages without explanation, OK. Sandy is our Leader. And anyone who doesn't respect our Leader should just leave. Bye -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 07dTgUBMs4Q8hvikii9febJAQEbrAQAmgwAeqSsi2qIkqakNRPCpwCwNnYudNop zyxE2LueC+WuhugtLeyDDet+WgefE9X84F4qxn/QVB+tJAGbZzfCPO24shelX21k mk80oevKqzcfAAzbB4tMtXe5gl6+zykExXjsx4J/KjMNPL0QAE490uvnKqus/a2H 0l2AU9k/Kp8= =ix2B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The Upcoming DES Challenge
by Liz Taylor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is nothing unglamorous about a known plaintext attack, if the plaintext is choosen carefully. I don't know anything about bank ATMs and the protocols they use, but I presume the PIN is stored on the card single DES encrypted. If this is so, anyone can take an ATM card, attack it to recover the key and then use that key to recover the PIN for any stolen ATM card of that bank (or that branch). Hopefully, the ciphertext/plaintext pair that RSA announces will be a real target like this, with the actual key disabled. Once the key is recovered, the press can then claim that ATM cards are not safe any longer. On a related note, do you think the key will first be recovered by a hardware device or by the Great Internet DES Key Search? Hardware is much faster, but no such device exists in the private/amateur sector now. Estimates are that it will take 10 months to actually build such a device. Opinions?

1 0

Re: Thoughts on moderation
by Douglas Barnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Goodness knows most people who are fully engaged in a mailing list get involved in an unproductive discussion or argument from time to time. My main assertion about Sandy is that although he has his likes and dislikes (and is not shy about sharing them) I can't see him bouncing messages just because someone was disagreeing with him. There might be someone who is less opinionated, but I think that you need to find someone who cares enough about a subject to be interested in moderating it (one antonym of "opinionated" is "dispassionate" -- think about it.) The only way to tell if Sandy will be fair _as a moderator_ is to give him a chance. Years of knowing him as a friend, and four months of sharing an office indicate that while he's stubborn and opinionated, he's also extremely fairminded, and will not bounce for content he disagrees with. He also has a broad concept (some might argue too broad) of acceptable list topics, but since we're looking primarily to screen out the worst dreck & outright spam, he seems like a logical choice as moderator. I don't see this move as censorship of any sort -- cleaning the Augean stables is more like it. I am profoundly tired of wading through completely worthless and vapid trash accusing Tim and John of various sexual perversions. (Note that if the writers actually knew these folks, they'd at least be able to write better or more interesting libel.) At 10:35 PM 1/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >Douglas Barnes wrote: >> 1) I've known Sandy for a couple of years, and I trust him to >> use good judgement as a moderator. It will be important to >> develop guidelines so that the job can be rotated, but it's also >> important that the moderator be someone who doesn't have any >> major axe to grind. Sandy has his personal likes and dislikes, >> but I don't think he'll ever stoop to tossing out opinions that >> he disagrees with. > >Wishful thinking, Doug. Sandy will take an emotional (non-objective) >position on an issue, and argue it beyond any reasonable limit. I wish >I had all his replies to things I've said - you'd see what I mean. > >Not to promote anyone who I might not be a friend of, but, there are >people on this list who are "well respected" who are light-years ahead >of Sandy in areas that are important for a list moderator. > >Maybe Gilmore should have publicly announced for a moderator, and then >let the subscribers pick.... > >

2 1

$2500 for a class c.
by faried nawaz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy To: hungry(a)hungry.com Cc: chris(a)uidaho.edu, people(a)kuoi.sub.uidaho.edu Subject: $2500 for a class c. Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 15:19:25 PST Message-ID: <7130.852679165(a)bear.cs.uidaho.edu> From: faried nawaz <nawaz921(a)bear.cs.uidaho.edu> (two messages follow) From: gjohnson(a)dream.season.com (Reality is a point of view) Subject: IP allocation goes fee based soon?! Newsgroups: ba.internet Date: 6 Jan 1997 16:08:04 GMT Organization: season.com [205.179.33.0] Path: news.uidaho.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!newshub.tc.umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!agate!news.ucsc.edu!news.scruz.net!gjohnson Lines: 18 Message-ID: <slrn5d28r9.34.gjohnson(a)dream.season.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.179.33.42 Xref: news.uidaho.edu ba.internet:12066 Take a look at http://rs.internic.net/arin for a quiet bombshell, especially Section 2.3. A Class C block for $2,500? If you think that isn't funny there are a few people that agree with you in threads elsewhere. Try a dejanews search on $2500 Class C. You might also want to take a peek at http://www.iahc.org for news about a commentary period that ends in the next few days. - -- Gary Johnson "Wahoo." gjohnson(a)season.com Remember why... later in the thread -- From: davidm(a)them.com (David Mandala) Subject: Re: IP allocation goes fee based soon?! Newsgroups: ba.internet Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 19:10:07 GMT Organization: Them Productions Path: news.uidaho.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!news.uoregon.edu!marlin.ucsf.edu!overload.lbl.gov!agate!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!nntp1.best.com!davidm Lines: 32 Message-ID: <5au72j$rnn(a)nntp1.best.com> References: <slrn5d28r9.34.gjohnson(a)dream.season.com> <e3mca8.3mx(a)oriole.sbay.org> <southernE3MJxJ.FKq(a)netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: davidm.vip.best.com X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #2 Xref: news.uidaho.edu ba.internet:12120 I've since heard that their contract run out in 1998, now since they have gone from a small nothing company to a widly known disaster, if follows that they are making money hand over fist. So before the contract opens we need to make enough noise with the goverment that the contract is NOT relet to them but rather to open bid, or to a true non profit alliance of Internet professionals to provide the service at cost (which in reality is quite small). Only we can make the difference. In article <southernE3MJxJ.FKq(a)netcom.com>, southern(a)netcom.com (Shawn) wrote: >In article <e3mca8.3mx(a)oriole.sbay.org>, George Bonser wrote: >: Billions and Billions of IP addresses are right around the corner >: and they are going to use the current shortage to set a precedent >: (sp?) of charging $2500 per block of 256? That would put them in a >: position to make an absolute KILLING when IPv6 comes out. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Give that man a ceegar. > >That is, I believe, the point. > >All, of course, at $50/year per domain name. > >With that kind of income, they might give Microsoft a run for their >money as being one of the most profitable computer companies in the >world. <tounge FIRMLY in cheek> :-) > >Shawn /************************************************************* David Mandala Them Productions San Francisco, CA Internet: davidm(a)them.com CIS: 74156,221 AOL: dism *************************************************************/ faried - -- i don't hate people. | my other car is a cdr why, some of my closest | linux, the ms-dos of the nineties friends are people. | <zorgo> cable and internet.. who needs a life? -- stevi(a)aa.net | http://www.hungry.com/~fn/ ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

1 0

Re: The Upcoming DES Challenge
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> There is nothing unglamorous about a known plaintext attack, if the > plaintext is choosen carefully. I don't know anything about bank ATMs > and the protocols they use, but I presume the PIN is stored on the card > single DES encrypted. If this is so, anyone can take an ATM card, attack it > to recover the key and then use that key to recover the PIN for any stolen > ATM card of that bank (or that branch). Hopefully, the ciphertext/plaintext > pair that RSA announces will be a real target like this, with the actual key > disabled. Once the key is recovered, the press can then claim that ATM > cards are not safe any longer. Stolen ATM cards are actually not that valuable. They have fixed limits and require physical presence to exploit. Try swift/forex/etc. secret des keys.. those are valuable. -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 President FAX: 510-986-8777 C2Net C2Net is having a party: http://www.c2.net/party/ http://www.c2.net/ sameer(a)c2.net

1 0

Re: [CRYPTO] Quadratic residues
by miner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:37 PM 1/7/97 -0500, Anonymous wrote: >Timothy May's family tree goes straight up. All of his >ancestors were siblings, to dumb to recognize each other in the >dark. > > /\ o-/\ Timothy May > ///\|/\\\ > / /|\ \ Counting the days till I don't have to see anymore of these, certainly a product of one of the 3 people already in my killfile. Thank you John and Sandy in advance

1 0

RE: Thoughts on moderation
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Douglas Barnes I don't see this move as censorship of any sort -- cleaning the Augean stables is more like it. I am profoundly tired of wading through completely worthless and vapid trash accusing Tim and John of various sexual perversions. .................................................. So what about determining the lowest parameter of tolerance for style & content - how low you can go before your messages are transferred to the "flames" division? Then, for instance, Uni could say to Dale: "you will find my detailed retort to your deluded accusations on the other list" (which Dale would, of course, go over there and read <g>). In any case, everyone would know what that sensitive, low point of intolerance is such that if they descend to it they will be sifted out and recategorized. .. Blanc

1 0

About ICF(International Cryptography Framework)
by Starr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone heard anything or been paying attention to the development of the ICF(International Cryptography Framework) standard. This seems to be an attempt of the US Gov and a FEW of our favorite corps to completely control cryptography standards as well as to have the keys to all cryptographical content. The only information I've found so far is on HP's website http://www.dmo.hp.com/gsy/security/icf/main.html I've also managed to get a hold of Ray Bamford (ray_bamford(a)hp.com)at HP who seems to have some PR role in this wool over the eyes attempt. It seems to be just another (souped-up, in disguise attempt at the clipper chip except on an International basis). When I spoke to him he told me that the only information that has been issued is what you seen in the technical paper, and that the info they have is extremely exclusive, even if you are a legitimate company working on cryptography issues, etc. Check it out...I would definitely like to hear your opinions as well as if any of you have more information on this subject(newsgroups, mail lists, etc). -spanky

2 2

How To Repair "YOUR OWN " Credit !
by native＠media.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CREDIT REBUILDING OF AMERICA * REBUILD YOUR OWN CREDIT* PLEASE FORGIVE THIS E-MAIL INTRUSION BUT IF YOU CAN USE THIS SERVICE? PLEASE KEEP READING! *** Have you ever been turned down after you applied for a credit card, department store card, or a gas credit card, or that new car you have wanted? The reason was probably because of something the creditor found on your credit report. Thousands of people are DENIED CREDIT because of something that appears on their credit report that is not correct OR they would like REMOVED from their credit report FOR GOOD!! There are many companies out there that can remove tems on your credit report but want to charge you any where from $300.00 to $1,000.00 . "BE CAREFUL", most of these companies cant do anything to repair your credit that you cant do yourself with my CREDIT REPAIR PACKET. Once I found out just how the " BIG " companies were doing this, I put all the information down on a simple twelve step process. ** DO IT YOURSELF ** why pay their high prices to repair your credit, when you can do it yourself for only $19.95 plus 2.95 for S&H. I spent over two years to perfect this process, and if followed to the letter, it will work!!! HAVE the NEW CAR you want, the CREDIT CARDS you want. You dont have to wait SEVEN to TEN YEARS for these items to be taken off your credit reprot. DO IT YOUR SELF!! and feel GOOD AGAIN!! Just send your check or money order to: Robert C. Roy, Jr. P.O. Box 1052 Delray Beach, Fl. 33447-1052 I will send you by return mail the complete twelve step packet so you can get started RIGHT NOW!! SEND NOW!! due to the unbelievable responce for this packet the introductory price of $19.95 (+) $2.95 S&H, will not last long! HAVE A GREAT DAY! & THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ORDER!!

1 0

Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:37 AM 1/7/97 -0800, Pierre Uszynski wrote: >Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)disposable.com> very correctly mentions: > >> 1) Moderator liability and anonymous posting. > >I agree that this is actually a critical problem with a filtering >moderation scheme. Such a scheme appears to provide the capability to >filter out possible "copyright violations" posts. From what I remember >of the Netcom/CoS case (without going back to the sources), that may >mean more liability for the reviewers (and the operator of the >machine). That's a major point against simple filtering moderation. I agree that this raises the spectre of liability for messages passed on, but I'm not sure it's a big problem. I see three broad categories of information which the moderation liability scheme may suppress: 1. Copyrighted items such as newspaper/magazine articles 2. Secrets which are being revealed (e.g., the alleged RC4 source, the Mykotronix trash stuff) 3. Defamation As to the loss of (1), I'm not heartbroken - much of this information is already placed online by its owners, and can be referred to with a hypertext link or a reference instead of being posted in its entirety. Also, some people (who I don't feel like singling out) currently provide access to third-party copyrighted information, but in a discreet manner. The "copyright violations" poster(s) could provide access in this way, unless they're committed to making John Gilmore and the remailer operators take the heat for someone else's actions. The loss of (2) is regrettable; but Usenet (and other unmoderated forums) are still available for hit-and-run disclosure of secrets. Also, it's unclear to what extent (2) will be lost. Given the recent California and Federal statutory changes strengthening trade secret protection, I think it's useful to be careful - but it's arguable that neither the alleged RC4 code nor the Mykotronix trash stuff would have been a trade secret violation. Also, let's weigh the value of what'd be lost (how many of these messages do we really get?) against the negative value of the crap we're currently subjected to, and the (speculative) value of posts we don't get because their authors have left the list because of disgust and annoyance. I'm not going to lose much sleep over (3). I can't call to mind a single instance of interesting or useful defamation that I've seen on the Net. >ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) responded: > >> [in another forum] >> After long thinking, moderator board has come with the following >> solution: >> >> 1) We do not know for sure if a certain post violates >> some copyrights or not >> [and more in the same line 2,3,4,5] > >Would any of this have mattered in Netcom/CoS? My hunch is that liability for infringement will focus on defendants' actions after they knew or had reason to know that a particular act of copying or distribution was a violation of the copyright owners' rights. Copying data from one place to another is the essence of the net; holding owners of machines (or moderators) responsible for violations they couldn't have stopped is nonsensical. I predict (but cannot cite cases so holding) that moderators/listowners will be held liable for copyright violations they could have detected and stopped with the exercise of some level of care; but that they will not be held liable where no reasonable amount of effort on their part could have prevented the copyright violation. And I think "reasonable" will depend on the facts at hand. (All of the contributory infringement cases I'm familiar with have involved a defendant who was aware of, if not actively assisting with, the underlying infringement.) >Instead, a system that would forward reviewers' opinions *after the >fact* does not have any of this problem. And we have already mentioned, >it is also more powerful (real time initial feed, easy multiple >feedback feeds, fully compatible with anything else...) although it >does not reduce bandwidth requirements. Can you name a software package which runs under Windows or the Mac OS which automatically processes reviewers' opinions against a mailbox of incoming mail? Better yet, can you name a Eudora plug-in which does so? Abandoning an imperfect but workable solution because it's possible to imagine that someone will create something better someday strikes me as silly. Comparing theoretical software/strategies with currently implemented software/strategies is comparing apples and oranges. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.

7 6

Moderation and the Polymorphic Virus
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perhaps with proper moderation, having access to a cloistered environment without all of the 'noise', cypherpunks will be able to come up with a true polymorphic virus that will make the Atom Bomb look like a child's toy. The rabble who rant on endlessly about 'social issues' can surely not be trusted to contribute anything of value on what are, in fact, merely a question of 'numbers'. It is up the the elite, the code writers, to lead the cypher- punks into a New World Order, in which the results of cryptography are only used for proper, approved purposes. Toto

1 0

Get Quick Results!
by owner-cypherpunks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

***** The BEST Way for YOU to Market Successfully ***** ********5 Million E-mail Addresses Available ******** Nothing works better than mass e-mail to get quick results. Nothing! There are plenty of programs you could buy such as Floodgate to pull your own addresses however, these programs (even when used properly) can take up to 6 months just to pull as many as 750,000 addresses! And after THAT time has elapsed you're database will have plenty of addresses that are undeliverable. Why wait? Get started by using our SUPER responsive list that was generated just last month! We purchase current lists only. Imagine 5 Million deliverable addresses that can bring you more orders than you have ever seen!!! Imagine, the potential profits from your offer(s)! If you only get 1/2 of a percent that's 25,000 orders!!! These addresses can be mailed using Pegasus or other mailing programs. Everything has been saved in a text (.txt) format. Each group of names comes in lots of 100,000. You can mail any quantity you wish! Just drop the quantity you want to send and that's it! This list originally cost over $3000. I'm offering the complete list for only $159. That's right OVER 5 MILLION addresses for only $159. Think about it. If you get just 1/2 of a percent that's 25,000 orders!!! Do you think you could turn a profit? This list will be sold to ONLY the first 25 people who respond. PLUS, I'll include FREE... a special report that will show you how to mass e-mail without losing your dial-up account. Also, this report will show you where to get a bullet proof space and e-mail account for mass mailing. This report alone is worth the purchase price. Let's face it, if you can't mail successfully then what good are the addresses? If you ever wanted to see a ton of orders come pouring in this is the ONLY WAY it can happen for so little money. This incredible offer will expire after 25 sales. Don't delay act now! Have questions? Call 714-288-6227 FAX your order to: 714-288-6233 ********************* ORDER FORM ******************* Yes, RUSH me the entire 5 million e-mail addresses right away for just $159! (Print this out and Fax it to 714-288-6233) Name:______________________________________ Address:____________________________________ City:_______________________________________ State:_______________________________________ Country:____________________________________ E-mail Address:_______________________________ Phone Number:_______________________________ I wish to pay by: ( Check One ) Master Card:_____ VISA:_____ American Express:_____ Check:_____ Money Order:_____ Card Number:__________________________________ Exp. Date:_______________ Signature:_____________________________________ Once we have recieved your order you will be notified by e-mail immediately where to download this offer. ======================================== ***I also do bulk mailing if you want to have me send your ad out. The price is $199.95 per 100,000 e-mail addresses and I'll place your Home page on a server for 1 month. This way you never have to worry about losing your space account. If you want to be removed from our mailing list just hit "reply" and put "remove". You will be remove pronto!

1 0

Zero-knowledge commit
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[retin] May the self-admitted child molester possesses a rudimentary dick less than one inch long, half the size of his mother's clitoris, that barely makes a fistful. Thereby hangs the root of this Jew-hating sissy's sick fixation on little boys and Usenet forgeries. . |___ (}o o{) -ooO-(_)-Ooo- Timmy C[retin] May

1 0

Re: Polymorph engine (was:RE: PWL's how ?)
by Neil Tunnicliffe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:50 7/01/97 -0400, you wrote: >Where did you get the following text on polymorph engines? Is it available >somewhere? Where can I get other information on similar topics (Please resist >the urge to mention web search engines; I'm looking for specific >recommendations :-) > >Thanks! > >- Patrick >_______________________________________________________________________________ Well try some sitez like Vrack: http://206.117.82.30/vrack/ Neil

1 0

Fed Study on Identity Theft
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:59:00 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam <e$pam(a)intertrader.com> From: e$pam(a)intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off(a)intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Fed Study on Identity Theft X-orig-from: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) X-e$pam-source: Various Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 12:00:09 -0800 From: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Fed Study on Identity Theft To: rah(a)shipwright.com I unsubscribed from e$pam over the holidays, so this item may already have been on, but if not it might be of interest: As required by legislation passed last year (partly in response to the P-TRAK fiasco), the Fed is required to study whether institutions that are not subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act are making sensitive personal identifying information available to the public, whether such information creates undue potential for fraud and for risk of loss to banks, and whether legislation is needed to address the risk of fraud and loss. The Fed has recently published a request for comments on these issues. Comments are due by January 31. The Fed release is at http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/boarddocs/press/BoardActs/1996/19961223 Have a happy, prosperous and reputation-enhancing 1997. -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - SMART '96 Winners for a Java e$ product Visit <http://www.intertrader.com/> for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See <http://www.atanda.com/rah.html> Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see <http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling <mailto:czrider@@webstuff.apple.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox, e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://offshore.com.ai/fc97/

1 0

Free Money!
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:44:07 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater The Supreme Court ruled on this sentencing case yesterday. Kennedy and Stevens -- hardly known as civil libertarians -- dissented. The Court reversed the 9th Circuit, ruling the lower court was wrong to say that such a practice "would make the jury's findings of fact pointless." The court declared: "Sentencing enhancements do not punish a defendant for crimes of which he was not convicted, but rather increase his sentence because of the manner in which he committed the crime of conviction." Double jeopardy? What's that? Of course it was a drug crime. The defendant, Vernon Watts, was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to distribute. To paraphrase another saying: "'Drug Trafficking Offense' is the root passphrase to the Constitution." -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:41:35 -0800 From: Jim Warren <jwarren(a)well.com> Sender: owner-fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Did you read about the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision? Seems they decided it was acceptable for a judge to use crimes for which a jury has found a defendent *NOT guilty*, to justify imposing greater penalties than the judge could otherwise, for a lesser crime for which the jury found the defendent guilty. (It's quite common to prosecute someone for multiple crimes, and have the jury find them innocent of some charges, but guilty of others.) Now, all a judge has to do is opine that, in his or her unilateral opinion, there is a "preponderance of evidence" of guilt of the more serious crime -- in spite of the unanimous finding by every member of the jury, that the defendent is NOT guilty of that crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme's *unsigned* 7-2 opinion says than a finding of NOT guilty, "does not prove that the defendent is innocent; it *merely* proves the esistence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt." [I.e., all U.S. citizens now risk being penalized as theough they are guilty, unless they can PROVE they're innocent!] Much worse, the basis for *criminal* guilt and associated penalties -- charged, prosecuted and imposed using the massive powers and resources of the State -- has now functionally changed from proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," to the much lesser standard of, "preponderance of evidence," which used to be limited only to civil litigation prosecuted between private attorneys for feuding plaintiffs. Who says the practices of the Third Reich didn't survive!? --jim, Amerikan citizen Jim Warren (jwarren(a)well.com) GovAccess list-owner/editor, advocate & columnist (Govt.Technology, MicroTimes) 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax-for-the-quaint/<ask> [Also blind-cc'ed to others.]

5 5

Germany Passes Sweeping Cyberspace Legislation 01/06/97 (fwd)
by wb8foz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BONN, GERMANY, 1997 JAN 6 (NB) -- By Sylvia Dennis. The German government passed a major round of legislation in the runup to Christmas that aims at regulating the Internet and protecting user privacy. No surprise there.... {} The law also prohibits the use of "cookies," software applets that trace a user's path across the Internet and recording the data they view. This is, to me! -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

RE: The FAGGOT list
by Brett Carswell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aga Wrote: > >That is another FAGGOT coming out of the woodwork! >> > Just how many KNOWN faggots are on this list? [snippo] > >Most of the above men are apparently FAGGOTS, since they >conspire to censor Freedom Of Speech on the InterNet, under >the guise of "spam elimination." Actually, is all a front >for censorship by homosexuals on the InterNet. >[more snippo] >> > All of these who are faggots must be labeled >> > and watched, as we know that faggots are the worst censors. Could someone please forward me the URL of the FAGGOT (are the caps manditory?) detecting software for mailing lists. I feel pretty left out as almost everyone else know who the FAGGOTS are. Is this the same software that detects Cocksuckers or does Dr Dimitri have something of his own. Maybe we could all band together and come up with something that detects Nazi moderators as well. Brett

2 1

Re: Moderation
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C. May's sexual life is not the business of the cypherpunks mailing list. o)__ (_ _`\ Tim C. May z/z\__)

1 0

re: Free Money!
by anonymous＠miron.vip.best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks for the dough! I just love cyber technology. Will spend it wisely.

1 0

[STATS] Cypherpunks subscriptions on and off
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following table shows cypherpunks subscription activity for the period 12 Oct 1996 thru 07 January 1996. Date ~Days #Subs Gain Loss Gain / day Loss / day ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---------- ---------- 10/12 n/a 1361 n/a n/a n/a n/a 11/04 23 1353 211 219 9.2 9.5 11/30 26 1299 173 227 6.7 8.7 12/18 18 1262 120 157 6.7 8.7 01/07 20 1291 151 122 7.6 6.1 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---------- ---------- Totals: 87 655 725 7.5 8.3 Interpretation: Unless the reversal of gain/loss in the 5th data row is permanent, c-punks are losing 0.8 bodies per day, or 294 subscribers per year. Actually, the constant high turnover suggests something else: Many people join the list and get back off again due to the high volume and their own personal time constraints. Unless Sandy can cut *way* back on the number of posts to the list, i.e. excise a *lot* more postings than just the blatant Spam and "Timmy is a....." posts, it won't make any difference to those people who come and go. In effect, Sandy is going to have to cut the number of daily posts (to the moderated list) from, say, 100 per day down to, say, 20 or 25 per day. This would certainly be a goal of his, since most of the subscriber comments I've heard indicate that even 50 posts per day of "relevant political/social commentary" is way too high for them. As to the net loss in subscribers, the moderation of the list could have a substantial effect on the number of subscribers short-term, but whatever trend we have here will continue regardless, since the real value and character of the list is not determined by the posts which are removed (unless it were that some of the character and value is going to be removed), but by long-term factors which are to be expected when the principals get older, less involved, and less contentious (like Sandy, wanting to avoid conflict).

4 6

Copyright loophole?
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While doing research at a law library, I came across what appears to be a legal loop-hole in the copyright law. It seems a famous author's publisher had a substantial number of unbound and unsold copies of his works sitting around. Another publisher purchased them from his publisher, without the author's knowledge, and printed an anthology which included an index which was not part of the purchased (copyrighted) items. In Kipling vs. G.P. Putnam & Sons (1903, CA2 NY) 120 F 631, the 2nd circuit found that (from 17 USCS § 501) "Publication of an index to accompany copyrighted volume of author's work although containing words and phrases found in text, does not constitute infringement." From the original opinion: "They were also at liberty to make and publish an index contained in their volumes even though the index, as necessary must, contain words and phrases found in the text." Q1: Could this decision (which has stood since 1903) support the creation, storage and distribution of "standalone" on-line indicies to copyrighted works without infringement? (I could not find a direct reference to "fair-use" in the portion of the opinion referencing the index nor a related ruling, using the 1976 Copyright Act, which overturned the "index' provision.) Q2: How much content can an index contain and still not infringe? Q3: What would be the legal standing of these indicies, or several unrelated "indexes", if they can jointly (but not separately) be used to reconstitute the original copyright work by a private citizen? (Anonymous index posting, especially via a Ross Anderson style Eternity Service, might "practically" circumvent government enforcement.) -- Steve

1 0

What about postscript?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What if somebody wanted to publish the source code of an encryption program in book form, but make the book dowloadable freely from an ftp site using postscript or PDF format. Surely, the government will be hard pressed to argue the difference between paper media and electronic media here, since the files downloaded cannot be used to encrypt or decrypt data, without somebody first typing in the source. Maybe MIT or PGP should convert at least part of the PGP book into postscript and then request Commerce Department clearance to make it publically available. That should make for a nice court battle. If somebody argues that sophisticated programs can extract the text out of postscript files, what about providing JPEG images of pages of the book?

1 0