December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: words have value, for good or ill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zooko Journeyman <zooko(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: >Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of >thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that >the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. >Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the >cash token. :-) ) It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic. In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the discussion. Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works. Strictly speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is meant over here. (1) The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has been writing. To keep things simple, let's consider the statement "McVeigh did the right thing." It is not a contract. It is not a threat. It is not copyrighted. It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list. I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this thought. So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it immoral to express it? It's hard for me to see how. If the belief is correct, then other people certainly will benefit from hearing it. If the belief is not correct, then other people may be able to enlighten you. In either case, it is preferable that the belief be expressed. >> What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should >> refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world >> because they are immoral. > >I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the >meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it >should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks >discourse. I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. My dictionary defines "eradicate" in two ways: 1. to destroy utterly 2. to erase or remove I don't believe the meme should be "destroyed" and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the means that would be required to do this. Nor do I see it as desirable to erase or remove posts which have already been made, if it were even possible. If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't read their messages. If you don't want to see a particular idea, perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail queue that contain it. If you don't like other people hearing certain ideas, I recommend you get used to it. (1) It is interesting to consider a world in which these exceptions are not made. If there were no coercive enforcement mechanisms for contracts, then this exception would not have to exist. The idea of doing business solely on the basis of reputation is not only fascinating, but not very unlike much of the world today. There are two ways in which threats can be no ops. One is if the person being threatened is just a public key whose identity is simply unknown. A threat in that case is irrelevant. The second is if the person being threatened can adequately protect him or herself in which case the threat is dangerous to the threatener. And "intellectual property" is somewhat peculiar and implies a centralized enforcement mechanism. If we are to have "intellectual property" in a worldwide networked environment, it implies a de facto world government. The alternative may be preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

2 1

- POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER -
by CallNow＠1-940-383-1233 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

**************************** THE MOST POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER IN THE WORLD! *$10,000 Plus Per Month Possible With Little Or No Effort! *The Only True Money Back Guarantee! *Complete Turnkey System Does All Of The Work For You! *Phenomenal Product! *Anyone Can Succeed Immediately! *Powerful Monthly Residual! *No Selling - No Recruiting *No talking To Anyone *No Presentation To Learn *No Meetings To Attend *No People To Manage *No Product Inventory *No Response HeadAches Never Worry About Money Again!!! Takes 2 Minutes To Find Out How!!! Call Now!!! TOLL FREE 1-888-248-1794 or (888) 693-5490 FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 Please have a pen handy when making this call FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 NEW: Customer Service Department (To Answer All of Your Questions!) (940) 383-1233 Hours - 9am to 9pm "CST" Monday thru Friday - Sat - 9am to 5pm -- Sun-- 12pm to 6pm "CST" P.S.hold on to this email. You'll need this control number. GI0927EM control number Dear Friend for the past 2 years, I've put countless hours into numerous business ventures and MLM. Yet I have never achieved true success. Then I found a program, where anyone can succeed immed- iately and put profit in their pocket almost overnight! This gets better and better every day! During my short tenure with this company, I received a profit check of $4579.83 after my second month. I didn't have to worry about the headaches of sponsoring of people. I signed the application and immediatedly, the company went to work for me. Prosperous regards, Leon S. Gillis CONTROL NUMBER: GI0927EM

1 0

Man-in-the-Middle Chicken Attacks
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sampler-request(a)lmboyd.com wrote: > ====================================================== > At night, if you want to see the chicken without the > chicken seeing you, use a red light. > ============================================== > LMBoyd Web Site / U. S. Newspapers / Start Email / Stop Email > http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm

1 0

Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friday Noon. MONEY LAUNDERING - The Cato Institute holds a policy forum, "Should Money Laundering Be a Crime," with Lawrence Lindsey, AEI and former governor, Federal Reserve; Stephen Kroll, Treasury Department, and Richard Rahn, president, Novecon Corp. Location: Cato Institute, F.A. Hayek Auditorium, 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW. Contact: RSVP, James Markels, 202-789-5256.

3 2

Household toxins
by info＠planet-solutions.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TOP "10" KILLER HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS AIR FRESHENERS: Most air fresheners interfere with your ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil film, or by releasing a nerve deadening agent. Known toxic chemicals found in an air freshener: Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Phenol: When phenol touches your skin it can cause it to swell, burn, peel, and break out in hives. Can cause cold sweats, convulsions, circulatory collapse, coma and even death!! AMMONIA: It is a very volatile chemical, it is very damaging to your eyes, respiratory tract and skin. BLEACH: It is a strong corrosive. It will irritate or burn the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema or vomiting and coma if ingested. WARNING: never mix bleach with ammonia it may cause fumes which can be DEADLY. CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY SHAMPOO: Most formulas are designed to over power the stain itself, they accomplish the task but not without using highly toxic substances. Some include: Perchlorethylene: Known carcinogen damages liver, kidney and nervous system damage. Ammonium Hydroxide: Corrosive, extremely irritable to eyes, skin and respiratory passages. DISHWASHER DETERGENTS: Most products contain chlorine in a dry form that is highly concentrated. # 1 cause of child poisonings, according to poison control centers. DRAIN CLEANER: Most drain cleaners contain lye, hydrochloric acid or trichloroethane. Lye: Caustic, burns skin and eyes, if ingested will damage esophagus and stomach. Hydrochloric acid: Corrosive, eye and skin irritant, damages kidneys, liver and digestive tract. Trichloroethane: Eye and skin irritant, nervous system depressant; damages liver and kidneys. FURNITURE POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Highly flammable, can cause skin and lung cancer. Phenol: (see Air fresheners, Phenol.) Nitrobenzene: Easily absorbed through the skin, extremely toxic. MOLD AND MILDEW CLEANERS: Chemicals contained are: Sodium hypochlorite: Corrosive, irritates or burns skin and eyes, causes fluid in the lungs which can lead to coma or death. Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Irritant to eyes, nose, throat, and skin. May cause nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, memory loss and shortness of breath. OVEN CLEANER: Sodium Hydroxide (Lye): Caustic, strong irritant, burns to both skin and eyes. Inhibits reflexes, will cause severe tissue damage if swallowed. ANTIBACTERIAL CLEANERS: may contain: Triclosan: Absorption through the skin can be tied to liver damage. LAUNDRY ROOM PRODUCTS: Sodium or calcium hypocrite: Highly corrosive, irritates or burns skin, eyes or respiratory tract. Linear alkylate sulfonate: Absorbed through the skin. Known liver damaging agent. Sodium Tripolyphosphate: Irritates skin and mucous membranes, causes vomiting. Easily absorbed through the skin from clothes. TOILET BOWL CLEANERS: Hydrochloric acid: Highly corrosive, irritant to both skin and eyes. Damages kidneys and liver. Hypochlorite Bleach: Corrosive, irritates or burns eyes, skin and respiratory tract. May cause pulmonary edema, vomiting or coma if ingested. Contact with other chemicals may cause chlorine fumes which may be fatal. OTHER NASTY THINGS THAT ARE AROUND YOUR HOME PESTICIDES: Most pesticides have ingredients that affect the nervous system of insects. Imagine what these extremely poisonous chemicals do to your body. or your baby's. Dimpylate: Better known as Diazinon, extremely toxic. Impairs the central nervous system. Chlorinate Hydrocarbons: Suspected carcinogen and mutantagen. Accumulates in food and in fatty tissue. Will attack the nervous system. Organophosphates: Toxic and poisonous. If you can smell it, your lungs are absorbing it. FLEA POWDERS: Why put toxins on "man's (or woman's) best friend." Carbaryl: Very toxic, causes skin, respiratory and cardiovascular system damage. Chlordane: Accumulates in the food chain, may damage eyes, lungs, liver, kidney and skin. Dichlorophene: Skin irritation: May damage liver, kidney, spleen and central nervous system. LICE SHAMPOO: Especially vulnerable are children. Lindane: Inhalation, ingestion, or ABSORPTION through the SKIN causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions and circulatory collapse. May cause liver damage, stillbirths, birth defects and cancer. CAR WASH AND POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Associated with skin and lung cancer, irritant to skin, eyes, nose and lungs. Entry into the lungs may cause fatal pulmonary edema, most marked Danger, Harmful or Fatal. TAR AND BUG REMOVER: Contains XYLENE and PETROLEUM DISTILLATES. As you become more aware, you will realize that YOU have to make the first step. YOU have a responsibility to tell your friends, neighbors, and relatives to stop using these dangerous chemicals that are both hazardous to your health and the environment. So come join the revolution to rid toxic chemicals from the planet. That's our MISSION at PLANET SOLUTIONS! Clear Choice(non-toxic cleaner) Buy3 get 1 free. If you want to learn more about out "solution to the toxic dilemma please reply with the subject "More Info" in the subject box.If you would like a free sample of Clear Choice (non toxic cleaner) please send your name ,address and phone number. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings.

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of any banks that provide full internet banking services outside of the USA's banking regulations?

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of any banks that provide full internet banking services outside of the USA's banking regulations?

1 0

Christmas Ornaments
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: >BTW, I'm going to check on the Secret Service Christmas tree >ornaments and how much they cost. I'll post later on today if our >office manager tells me they're still available. (The U.S.S.S. is on >the top floor of my building and they give us a deal.) -----BEGIN CHEAP SHOT----- Hey, Declan, do they have any yellow stars? I understand we'll all be wearing them soon and I want to beat the rush. -----END CHEAP SHOT----- Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Christmas Ornaments To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

3 2

Re: A Question for Reporters
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty Cantsin wrote very sloppily: >Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Automation, computers, the Internet have now made boundaries, in many >>instances, meaningless. As I have said on a number of occasions at... That should have read: >Declan McCullagh quoted Janet Reno as saying: >>Automation, computers, the Internet have now made boundaries, in many >>instances, meaningless. As I have said on a number of occasions at... Sorry about that, Chief! Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: A Question for Reporters To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

A Question for Reporters
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: >Automation, computers, the Internet have now made boundaries, in many >instances, meaningless. As I have said on a number of occasions at >this table, a man can sit at a computer in Europe and steal from a >bank in the United States. Someone in Germany can get a list of >credit card numbers here and try to extort people for money on the >threat of using these credit cards. > >I think it is imperative that we develop practices, procedures, and >laws that will enable these countries - and indeed other countries >throughout the world - to work together to focus on criminals who are >exploiting the new technologies that so many of us are relying >on. The solution is working together as nations. At the same time Janet Reno makes these proposals, the U.S. government, and this administration particularly, has done everything in its power to undermine the development and deployment of security enhancing technologies. Not only has the use of cryptography been greatly hampered, but TEMPEST equipment and knowledge is controlled, and there have even been proposals to control secure operating systems. Reno's statements and the administration's policies blatantly contradict each other. The very technologies which would solve the problem Reno raises are being discouraged at every opportunity by the administration she represents. My question is directed at Declan because he is handy, but any other reporters are invited to contribute. Why is this not reported accurately? Do you plan to write a story which explains to the American people how the administration is not telling the truth? If not, why not? Surely it is important for the American people to understand what their leaders say and do. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: A Question for Reporters To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Security of Encrypted Magic Folders
by Alex Woolfson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, all! Back reading the list after a long hiatus. Glad it's still as good as ever. Anyway, thought I'd appeal to the collective brain trust as this question is over my head. Please "cc" me directly since I'm on the filtered cypherpunk list. I just downloaded Encrypted Magic Folders--a program that hides Windows 95 folders and then encrypts them to prevent a disk utility from revealing their content. In their help file, they try to answer the question "How Secure is it?"--and, of course, they say *very*, but I can't tell if this is so or if they're just blowing smoke. Particularly, their claim that key size doesn't matter. (My mom taught me size always matters... ) If someone with a stronger cryptography background than me could take a look at this and let me know, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Alex * How Secure is it? EMF's encryption offers good protection and excellent speed. It hasn't been broken yet. It is, as far as we know, exportable. THERE IS NO BACKDOOR. Should you forget your password there is nothing we can do to decrypt your encrypted files. Quite a few people ask us how big EMF's key size is. They've learned from other encryption programs that the bigger the key the stronger the encryption. This really doesn't apply to EMF. We developed our own encryption instead of using a standard because we wanted EMF to be able to decrypt at the byte level. In this way we only need to decrypt/encrypt the data your programs require and not the entire file. In theory, because we decrypt at the byte level, the biggest key we could use would be 8 bits - which is a joke. So instead of decrypting every hunk of data using the same key, as most other encryption programs do, we developed an algorithm to vary the key based on the data's location within the file. In this way we get both high security and high speed. We are trying to patent EMF's encryption method. Having said all that, truth is, most encryption isn't "cracked" by breaking the algorithm, it's done by guessing the password. Brute guessing of passwords tends to level the playing field tremendously. We actually have an advantage because we aren't an established standard. Because we're small and relatively obscure chances are no one will take the effort to write a password guessing program (which incidentally would violate copyright and intellectual property laws.) Even if someone were to go thru all this effort we could easily change the encryption method for the next update. If we used an established encryption method like DES or Blowfish then your files would probably have to be fully decrypted when opened, would exist on disk as unencrypted while you're using them, and then would need to be encrypted when closed. This has multiple disadvantages. First, if your computer shuts down while you have "encrypted" files open, then those files would be unencrypted. This doesn't happen with EMF as your encrypted files are always encrypted as stored on disk. The second disadvantage is that it slows things down tremendously. As an example, let's say you retrieve your email and your email program needs to add today's message to the end of your 3MB email file. If we used a standard encryption method requiring the decryption of the file before use then the entire 3 MB file would have to be decrypted, your 300 byte message added to the end and then the entire file encrypted again. With EMF, no decryption would need to take place, and the only data needing encryption would be the 300 byte message. MUCH faster. Around 20,000 times faster in this example! If you still think you'd like to see us use a standard encryption method like DES or Blowfish, or have any other suggestions, let us know and we will consider your input in future updates

2 1

Re: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From:
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) wrote: > At 02:20 PM 12/03/1997 -0000, Charlie Comsec wrote: > >You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the > >content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, > >then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. > >That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control > >over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for > >material posted. > > If some victim of forged hatemail to Usenet requests that your remailer > block all email containing her name and address, is that legitimate? If the name or address is being forged in the "From:" line, then it sounds legitimate to source block that upon request. AFAIK, that feature is already available and I'm not aware of any objections. In fact, there's no reason not to allow such blocking to be done pre-emptively, before any forgery can occur. > Or if somebody's forging death threats with her name at the bottom? > I think yes, assuming the forgee is not a sufficiently public figure like > Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno that would lead to obvious disbelief. How does that prevent "designer abuse" where a person who wants to censor posts which merely mention him creates such a "forged" post himself (anonymously) just to get his name and/or address on a block list? Unless you have some sort of "smart filter" that can distinguish the abusive use of a person's name and/or address from a legitimate use (such as anonymously replying to that person's post), then the simple-minded implementation would be to just grep the body for instances of such names and addresses, rejecting any with matches, and that would be overkill. Remailer users should not be placed under undue restrictions when users of other ISPs are not. > (If Gary Burnore makes the same request, you've got a tradeoff between doing > the safe thing, and blocking, or doing what he deserves and also reposting > copies run through some jive filter. :-) How is that the "safe" thing? Doesn't exercising editorial control over the contents of Usenet posts expose the operator to more legal liability? Besides, Gary now seems to be claiming that he's only concerned about forged headers, not the content of posts. (That's different than what he told Jeff Burchell.) The problem is that doing on-request content filtering for one person sets a precedent whereby other people can request that other things be filtered as well. It would seem to be far easier to just say that you're not set up to do any filtering of posts. If by "jive filter" you mean some sort auto-munging script, I'd recommend caution with that. It can wreak havoc with PGP-signed messages. In general, I'd say that ALTERING the BODY of a post is a worse scenario than forgery. Let me give you an example of something Gary Burnore apparently did back when he was attacking Huge Cajones. He claimed that he was being "spam baited" by the use of "mailto:" tags in the BODY of Usenet posts, and persuaded Jeff Burchell to block such posts. Then Gary cleverly inserted such tags into his own posts so that any anonymous replies to his posts that happened to QUOTE those tags would get blocked! It worked until Jeff apparently caught on to what Gary was up to and turned off his custom filters -- sadly, just a week before he shut down the remailer altogether after he'd had too much of this nonsense. > I agree that blocking postings based on content that isn't specifically > targeting someone who's requested in advance is probably not a good idea. I would argue that it's not a good idea at all. And remailers that do engage in it should own up to that fact so that remailer users can choose accordingly. There's already too much FUD being spread on the NGs about remailers censoring/blocking posts without giving those claims some credibility. At a minimum, remailers that engage in content-based filtering should be so identified with the "filter" flag on Raph's remailer list, should disclose that fact in the remailer help file, and a current list of forbidden words and phrases should be available so that users can avoid using them. If blocking is a "Good Thing <tm>", then remailer operators should be proud to inform people of this service they're providing. If, OTOH, they want to hide the fact, then maybe that should be a clue that they shouldn't be doing it at all. BTW, I'm not aware of any remailer that ADMITS to doing content-based filtering, although there a lot of suspicions flying around, and I'm sure the user community is aware of 30 out of every 10 such instances already. <g> - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIbKdwbp0h8ZvosNAQEAMQf+PcuNWbGpS0VZmw4pkK25a8ehKiNWfZi6 z79MRVaq0fYWHQRDyAPWwxGrLAXjMeLzOhRDjJH6QiZneyfZv6OxV0hDKqMF2vI9 qCvoPa//tcsMDkpQrz1Vqx0Drs5GBlPGkf93ehaXFad4CaxQyPuONBk40FYFqVYZ Ah4v1n31e4rlaqWyP0OXdBPt536uCfpubJA4h3uLMCAbDawJ5Mj+WjNILL3rqvv5 ahNTpiXBRb6iNcOWVKHXRKOAC5nI93oDvevS5XvSgsZOTYlaeBE8NA8+Pz0UYcwJ 6lGJNthQRVZ1Inn6vrZMCtpnEC+Y28MvNgrBKZHq/W9+SbFgoYEobA== =X2vb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

ISDN is back!....yippeeee
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, The ISDN just came back online...now if only the POTS will return... Anyway, SWBT Level 2 and their protocol analysis seems to have done the trick this time. As soon as I get my POTS back I'll lack the ISDN folks and find out what the problem was. Be advised that SWBT may still have their analyzer online which means they are doing a full capture of all the Internet related traffic. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

RE: Compelled speech was: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
by jay holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================== >From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >To: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net>; Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Cc: "Michael Sims" <jellicle(a)inch.com>; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu;cypherpunks@toad.com >Subject: Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention >Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 2:56 PM >And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free >speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course >different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing, >publishing, and broadcasting.) > >(Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless >contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let >him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the >key to bad speech.) This sounds superficially equivalent, but FDA labelling requirements are quite different from web labelling. Firstly, unlike religion and politics, which are by nature subjective, effectiveness and safety of a drug can be reasonably determined by objective double blind testing. The room for error can come mainly from invalid protocols or fraud, both of which can be investigated by outside parties. Secondly, looking at a mislabelled web site cannot harm you. Taking a worthless drug can cost your health or your life. Unlike many consumer products, where the market can be allowed to rise or fall on reputation, it is not possible to determine the effectiveness or side effects of drugs from reputation. Only rigorous cohort selection and peer reviewed statistical analysis will suffice. Additionally requiring verifiably truthful statements on drugs really does qualify as a "narrowly tailored" action. OTOH I don't see any reason to prohibit people from taking "unapproved" drugs if they do so with full knowledge. Jay

1 0

Fidelity Fires Nine Employees For Violating Company Policy
by ichudov＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fidelity Fires Nine Employees For Violating Company Policy By JAMES S. HIRSCH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Fidelity Investments has fired nine employees and disciplined 16 others for violating various company policies, including participating in on-site betting pools for football and basketball games. Fidelity, the nation's largest mutual-fund firm, said the employees also misused company e-mail and spent "excessive" amounts of time using the Internet for nonwork activities. The discoveries by Fidelity sent alarms through the Boston company, which has about $600 billion in assets under management and has relied on a reputation for integrity to attract and retain customers. On Tuesday, David Weinstein, Fidelity's senior vice president of administration, sent electronic memos to all employees that said the company wouldn't condone the use of company e-mail for sports pools, and reiterated many company policies, including prohibition of employees from gambling on company time. "I trust a word to the wise is sufficient," Mr. Weinstein wrote. Fidelity spokeswoman Anne Crowley said the company took action three weeks ago, and the employees who were either fired or disciplined didn't include any mutual-fund managers. She declined to identify the employee positions or their business units, but said the affected employees worked in more than one city. She said that no customer accounts or funds were involved. Fidelity has 24,300 employees. Like many companies, Fidelity regularly monitors employees' use of e-mail and Internet and Intranet services, and Fidelity notifies employees that they will be monitored. Ms. Crowley declined to describe how Fidelity learned about the sports betting pools or to specify how much money was involved. Employees also bet on baseball and golf games, she said, and the betting pools occurred over a number of months. "Small bets were typically found," Ms. Crowley said. She also declined to comment on what nonwork activities the employees were engaged in. But several insiders said the infractions had to have been very serious to merit dismissals instead of warnings. Ms. Crowley said the 16 employees who were disciplined didn't have to pay any fines, but said "corrective actions" could involve verbal or written warnings, suspensions or probations. --Karen Hube contributed to this article.

1 0

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>And her partner, Andrea Dworkin, belies the oft-quoted notion that someone >so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin >is so far left she's just plain _left_. So being right wing means being libertarian? I don't think so, the most right wing person I know is one M. Thatcher D Litt (failed). She is also one of the most authoritarian. I've always wondered whether she thought 'the road to serfdom' was a guide to managment of serfs. All the young libertarian types running round Smith square in sharp suits looking like Declan got purged one night. Dworkin and MacKinnon were dredged up by the right to front an authoritarian agenda being pushed by Bush in the guise of the Meese commission. MacKinnon would never debate feminists like Nadine Strossen because this gave the lie to her claim that she represented the whole of the feminist movement which in turn supported her. If we turn to an analysis of agenda denial we can see that MacKinnon was persuing such an agenda within the feminist community, refusing to engage in debate. The right was meanwhile using her as a tool to promote their own agenda of social control allowing them to present it in the context of 'protecting women' which was a recognized agenda rather than 'reactionary bigottry' which wasn't. Phill

1 0

Scientology war update
by Mark Hedges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An excellent, amazing movie called Schizopolis pokes fun at Scientology in ways L-RON never dreamed. It's perfect. Try to find it and watch. Mark Hedges JonWienk(a)ix.netcom.com wrote on Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:12:14 -0800: >At 12:50 AM 11/22/97 -0600, Eric Cordian wrote: >>There was a hilarious parody of Scientology on tonight's episode >>of "Millenium." A Cult named "Selfosophy," created by a really bad >>writer named Onan Goopta, with a propensity to sue everyone, was >>featured. It had a large celebrity membership, and helped people >>overcome negative thoughts with a device called an "Onan-o-Graph." > >Onan is commonly (albeit incorrectly) credited with the invention of >masturbation. (See Genesis 38:6-10 in the Bible) I wonder what sort of >thoughts the Onan-o-graph induces? [snicker, snicker]

1 0

Cycling For Freedom!
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Bureau 42 Remailer (remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org) is proud to announce "Cycling for Freedom." Basically, this is a chance to help crack RC5/64 and support the remailer system, and all the good it stands for. Get the RC5/64 client from www.distributed.net, and follow the easy instructions to configure it for your favorite computer. Crack a few blocks, send 'em back to the server so that your personal address shows up in the stats. On the stats page, you can ask the rc5 server to send you a password that will allow you to join a team. Get that, and then ask to join the team "rc5(a)bureau42.ml.org" (it's listed as team number 1626). In the event this team finds the winning key, the money will be used for upgrades and maintenance on the computer housing the bureau42 remailer. (Specifically, a faster processor would be nice. After that, the rest of the money will be put away and used to buy/maintain a dedicated connection for that computer.) Thanks in advance for helping to support the remailer, and (more importantly) helping crack RC5/64. dave (bureau42 remailer administrator) - -- Today's pseudorandom quote: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" -- Thomas Paine David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 Keywords: SciFi bureau42 Wicca Pez Linux PGP single! ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIdE2a6m0j5YvamrEQLJHACg1LiCRZwFxPRDG0VPjOa08bVvOeoAoIla UVfwEiiTgsmPgNAco3KRGKp7 =2dpS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Radio-Free Europe
by Stewart_William_C＠bns.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fortunately, the net is harder to jam than radio. Esther Dyson's new book has a good line about how the Net is a breeding-ground for conspiracies, but television is better-suited for propaganda. ======================================================================= Copyright 1997 Times Mirror Company Los Angeles Times December 3, 1997, Wednesday, Home Edition Part A; Page 5; National Desk INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK; NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE; U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal JIM MANN WASHINGTON -- In foreign policy, sometimes the noblest of intentions leads to lousy ideas. That's certainly the case with the recent curious proposal for a special United Nations "jam squad"--a special U.N. team that could be hurriedly dispatched to crisis points around the world carrying equipment to jam, or block, harmful radio and TV broadcasts. Writing in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Jamie M. Metzl, a former United Nations human rights officer, proposes the creation of what would officially be called an "independent information intervention unit" at the U.N. Its goal, he writes, would be "countering dangerous messages that incite people to violence." A U.N. unit could monitor local news media to see where crises might erupt, air its own messages of peace and, where necessary, prevent other radio or TV broadcasts from being heard. The idea for the U.N. jam squad originated in the genocidal horrors of Rwanda. In 1994, the country's main radio station, the Radio-Television Libre des Milles Collines, then controlled by Hutu extremists, began broadcasting hate messages targeting members of the rival tribe, the Tutsis, and moderate Hutus. The Rwanda station even broadcast lists of enemies to be hunted down. "Take your spears, clubs, guns, swords, stones, everything, sharpen them, jack them, those enemies, those cockroaches," the station urged listeners. The result was one of the world's worst blood baths, in which more than 500,000 unarmed Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered. This was, certainly, as compelling a case for jamming as you can get. And Metzl has one cogent argument on behalf of his proposal: When there's an ethnic conflict in a place like Rwanda, sending in a United Nations jamming team would be considerably easier and less costly than sending in troops. "I think it's a worthy idea," says Rep. Edward R. Royce (R-Fullerton), chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. "I'm sure we would try to go out and jam in Rwanda if those circumstances came up again." Indeed, the United States and its allies are conducting a somewhat similar operation in Bosnia. Two months ago, NATO troops seized and effectively shut down a station run by hard-line Bosnian Serb forces after the station broadcast inflammatory attacks on NATO forces trying to keep the peace there. But it's a long step to go from these situations to the creation of a permanent, formal unit run by the United Nations and scouring the world in search of radio broadcasts to jam. Who would determine exactly what kinds of radio programs should be blocked and which programs could be aired? What would ensure that the jamming decisions were not motivated by politics? Wouldn't the creation of such a United Nations operation strengthen the hand of governments that want to jam radio transmissions for much less noble reasons? "This opens up a Pandora's box, really," says Richard Richter, the director of Radio Free Asia, the federally funded station that broadcasts into Asian countries with repressive governments. "You'd have China claiming that we American broadcasts should be jammed by the United Nations." Ultimately, a U.N. jamming squad would give official sanction to restrictions on the free flow of information. Metzl's article has a response to this problem, but it's a weak one. "During the Cold War, when the United States faced a Soviet adversary intent on jamming the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe . . . , it made sense for the United States to promote an absolute standard for the free flow of information," he wrote. "Now, a more nuanced view should be possible." But that's precisely backward: The free flow of information wasn't merely a temporary means to winning the Cold War, but one of the goals of the endeavor. Although the problem of hate-filled radio broadcasts is a serious one, there are ways of dealing with it that don't involve creating some huge, supranational censorship unit. One alternative is simply to provide other, competing radio broadcasts. In Rwanda, for example, the United Nations set up its own radio stations, both in the capital of Kigali and in radio camps. Royce's subcommittee has been exploring the possibility of creating a Radio Free Africa, similar to Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and Radio Marti, which broadcasts to Cuba. There are serious questions about whether such a new organization is necessary, when VOA, the official U.S. government station, already broadcasts intensively into Africa. But the underlying idea makes sense: to transmit better, more accurate information to Africa, rather than focusing on jamming or censorship. There are other ways of combating hate radio too. Those who directly incite violence over the airwaves can be brought to justice. At the moment, a war-crimes tribunal, set up under U.N. auspices, is prosecuting those responsible for the massacres in Rwanda. Among the suspects in custody are some of those responsible for the Milles Collines radio broadcasts. But a worldwide, U.N.-run jamming team? As a Hollywood script, maybe the idea has possibilities. As foreign policy, it's a loser. Jim Mann's column appears in this space every Wednesday. PHOTO: U.S. member of NATO peace force guards television transmitter in Udrigovo, Bosnia. PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press -- ======================================================================== = ************************************************** "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 ************************************************** Received: from speedy1.bns.att.com by casnfc01.bns.att.com with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/16.3) id AA273649564; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:52:44 -0800 Received: from attrh2.attrh.att.com (attrh2.attrh.att.com [135.38.12.15]) by speedy1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with SMTP id SAA01642 for <Stewart_William_C(a)bns.att.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2) id SAA21574 for Stewart_William_C(a)bns.att.com; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:29 -0500 Received: from kcig2.att.att.com by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2) id SAA21547 for <billstewart(a)att.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:26 -0500 Received: (from nuucp@localhost) by kcig2.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id RAA25810 for att.com!billstewart; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:43:55 -0600 (CST) >Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec 4 17:38 CST 1997 Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec 4 17:38 CST 1997 Received: (qmail 850 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 818 invoked by uid 516); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:49 -0000 Delivered-To: ip-sub-1-outgoing(a)majordomo.pobox.com Message-Id: <199712042347.SAA23465(a)home.seas.upenn.edu> X-Sender: farber(a)linc.cis.upenn.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Release Candidate 3 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:47:09 -0500 To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

1 0

Heidegger on Cypherpunks -- give me a break
by Mark Hedges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In previous thread "FCPUNX:Tim plans to kill a federal judge", Neva Remailer wrote: > >James Donald wrote: >>At 06:10 PM 11/14/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >>> By the way, the same can be said about the work of Heidegger, a thinker who >>> has had some influence on me. Whenever I cite anything Heidegger ever said, >>> I can count on some numbskull to parrot the "Heidegger was a Nazi" shtick. >> >>Probably because Heidegger *was* a Nazi, who pranced around in full drag >>Nazi uniform and sent certain of his colleagues to the concentration camps. >> >>To very crudely oversimplify the relationship between Heideggers >>philosophy and Nazism, it goes like this. >> >>No objective, only the intersubjective, therefore the community >>defines reality, therefore truth is merely relative to the community. Introduction to Metaphysics and Sein und Zeit do concern the relationship between what is real (what exists) and subjective, perceptual reality, but Heidegger makes clear that although what we know is only perception, perception is not the essent of what is real and exists. Actions must rely on perception of reality, but he lends not absolute validity to the perceptions. Heidegger was on the right track, though quantum and cosmological physics and cognitive sciences reach beyond his philosophical circles of contra- diction and paradox inside a flawed and entirely limited language into an expanding and increasingly accurate scientific and mathematical system of discourse. His basic mistake was to admit that verbal and written language contains contradictions and then to draw what he supposed were valid conclusions -- from false premesis and a false universe of discourse. >(Although, if one were interested in Heideggar, his biography would >probably be interesting, too.) Yup. Mark Hedges Anonymizer, Inc.

1 0

Please Beta test my communications cryptography product.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- I have produced a program that, like PGP, provides digital signatures and communications encryption. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/Kong.htm This is the first beta. Please beta test this product. The important difference between it and other products that provide digital signatures and encryption is that it is not certificate based. Instead it is signature based. This eliminates the steep initial learning and management curves of existing products. The user does not need use and manage specialized certificates except for specialized purposes The big complexity and user hostility in existing products is creating and managing certificates. Perhaps more importantly, it also eliminates the threat we saw in England, the threat of the government giving itself a monopoly in certificate distribution, potentially creating the Number-Of-The-Beast system, where you need a government certificate to log on to dirty picture sites, to buy, to sell, to put up web pages. The key feature of the proposed product is that any digitally signed document can be stored in the database, and itself performs the functions of a certificate, just as a normal handwritten signature does. The user usually does not need to check a document against a certificate to see if it was signed by the "real" John Doe. Instead he normally checks one document against another to see if they were both signed by the same John Doe. And similarly when he encrypts a document, he does not need to use a certificate to encrypt a message to the one real John Doe, he merely encrypts a message to the same John Doe who signed the letter he is replying to. At present people have to deal with certificate management problems regardless of whether they really need certificates. For example the most common usage of PGP is to check that two signatures that purport to be by the same person are in fact by the same person. Unfortunately you cannot check one signature against another directly using PGP or any of the other existing products. Instead you have to check both signatures against a public key certificate, even if the authentication information in that certificate is irrelevant to your purpose, which it usually is, which means that you have to download the certificate from somewhere, and the person signing it had to upload it somewhere. As PGP always checks a document against the certificate, rather than against any other document the user happens to feel is relevant to the question, the person signing the document needs to get his certificate properly signed by some widely trusted third party, which is too much trouble or too complicated for many people. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG z8/j/L3kF7oCmOp/iF2oh/pwgP/mATjOTUdv1uGy DlPh9Op11Z1CtFuByebVsk8yJo4WuUMuFk4S/TMp --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/

6 5

Re: Superdistribution development/release
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: hutchinson(a)click.ncri.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:41:30 -0500 To: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu From: hutchinson(a)ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) Subject: Re: Superdistribution development/release Cc: brian(a)smarter.than.nu Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: hutchinson(a)ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> >> Here an incentive: if anyone breaks this, I'll write an article about it >> and another profiling the person who does. >> >> When you have this kind of "encryption" scheme running on untrusted >> hardware to which the user has access, it's doomed to fail. Even if it's >> custom hardware, it'll probably be broken, but it'll just take longer. To which Brian Buchanan replied: >Should be relatively trivial to break the encryption, since it can't be >over 40-bit (or 56-bit if the company joined the kiss-ass alliance). Uh, its a Canadian company. That John Candy movie about the U.S. invasion didn't really happen. ;-) - Art Art Hutchinson hutchinson(a)ncri.com Northeast Consulting Resources, Inc. phone: (617) 654-0635 One Liberty Square fax: (617) 654-0654 Boston, MA 02160 www.ncri.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Working at the intersection of business and IT strategy to help organizations embrace electronic commerce opportunities" For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Steve Thompson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In local.lists.cypherpunks-moderated you write: >In <199712041316.IAA18769(a)Empire.Net>, on 12/04/97 > at 08:16 AM, tom <tom(a)Empire.Net> said: >>First define your terms. Then talk about murder. >Hmmmm well the safest answer to this is at the point of conception though >I would imagine that it is hard for most to consider a couple of cells >life. :=/ Abstinance is murder. Letting just _one_ egg miss fertilization denies that egg the chance to become a human being. I think that the felony charge should be manslaughter for this crime as it's not quite as bad as: Birth control Birth control is nothing more than premeditated murder, though I think that a plea-bargain in most cases should be offered: Drop the charge to manslaughter if the perp agrees to artificial insemination with the eggs of some woman who is unable to get pregnant due to some medical condition. However, I hope that medical research is improved to the point where the male can carry the child in such cases. Just think of all of the wonderful people who won't ever be born because some geek is wanking into a tissue, or some thirteen year old is kept from fucking by their prudish parents. Now _these_ people should be brought up on accessory charges... As for Gays and Lezbians, well, sorry but that's right out. Such unproductive behaviour cannot be tolerated. >William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Regards, -- Steve Thompson Misanthrope System Administrator Spam: bogus(a)myofb.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usenet II -- Because it's time for October. Who knows what the ostrich - Malcolm Ray in n.s.u. sees in the sand. Save the hermetic seals. - Samuel Beckett

3 2

White House humiliates Louis Freeh in public
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/12/04/mccurry/

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, and Writing Code...
by mj＠creative.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a >clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of >world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process >doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen >source of crypto tools. > Seems like a crypto module for Linux would be a good start, if there's not one already. As part of Linux, the source would stay public domain, so you could trust it. It also seems security built into the OS would be the hardest to circumvent. And finally, since Linux is free, there's no obstacle besides convenience for people on other platforms to acquire it (and it runs on several types of hardware). Thus, the crypto module could also help Linux, which is also good for keeping people in control of their computers. I'm getting to where I don't trust any program I can't see the source code of.

1 0