December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Black Net
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I was assuming it was a wet dream of a few 15 year olds. (ROTFL). He. Hehe. Hehehehahahahahahaha... pgf

1 0

ID list
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WOw. I have recieved 4 replies in 2 hours. I propose the following for the list of ID types: Please incude the date and month of the card issuance, so it can be included in the list. Many people have states that let licenses go for 5 years so outdated information is a problem. The greatest concerns are the digitized photo, the magnetic strip and the bar code. Please include a yes/no for each of these at least. The type of card (laminated... not laminated... etc) is also helpful. I'm amazed at the response. The identity of contributers will not be put on the list, and anonymous submissions are encouraged. -uni- (Dark)

1 0

Re: Remailer Musings
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that >>one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent >>this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens. I >>suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting >>up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the >>requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for >>content. > >I wonder how this would jive with the factoid someone on this list (don't >have the original handy) found a while back about the court ruling in favor >of the right to operate under an alias in (constitutionally?) protected, at >least in terms of publishing, etc.? I remember the case happening in L.A., >I think. Anyway, what are the odds a case could be made that my 'anonymous >identity' "fooperson" is a legal pseudonym? Stretching it some, but a >possibility, and one case where similarities with publishing can work in >favor of privacy. I believe it was stated (correctly, according to my understanding) that one may use any pseudonym, as long as the intention in using it is not to commit a crime. Copyright infringement _is_, like it or not, a crime. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any such thing as "a legal pseudonym". -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Black Net
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 6:02 PM 04/19/94 -0400, killbarny(a)aol.com wrote: >>Has anyone heard of BlackNet? BlackNet is in the business of buying, selling, >>trading, and otherwise dealing with information in all its many forms. > > >The most recent Phrack (45) had an ad from them. If this is not what you >saw (and you think the info you saw is not related to the phrack bit), let >me know- I was assuming it was a wet dream of a few 15 year olds. Do _not_ mess with those BlackNet folks. You'll wind up face-down in a landfill, and spend eternity playing pinochle with Jimmy Hoffa. Trust Me On This. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

3 2

Re: 15 out of 16 times (math, not laundry)
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Pretend the casino is run out of a church. "Parishioners" arrive and >enter a confessional to place their bets. The "priest" cannot see who >is placing each bet. Each "parishioner" plays until he or she is >broke. "Parishioners" arrive at a steady rate and will do so >indefinitely. Let me just make sure I understand what you mean. I believe you are saying: Conjecture A: A.1 As parishoners play and leave, the division of wealth approaches the `odds' of the game. Thus if the odds are .51 house (of God), .49 parishoner, then eventually the house will end up with 51 cents out of every dollar `played'. Just as it would if the church were playing against one very wealthy parishoner (i.e., the `world'). A.2 Since there are a large number of parishoners, enough games can always be played to make the distribution match the odds. If this is _not_ what you mean to say then I apologize for missing your point; read no further---just send me explanations to clear up my mis-understanding. If Conjecture A is accurate statement of your belief, then please step across this line. ---------- Let me walk through your model, one parishoner at a time. Please read this with an open mind; it could be true. >Each "parishioner" plays until he or she is broke. Lets say the odds of the game are .51 to .49. Each parishoner has $100. Each parishoner plays until broke. At some point in play, the distribution of wealth with respect to _that player_ may be arbitrarily close to c=$51, p=$49. What, though, is the distribution at the _end_ of that game? Since each game only ends when the p=$0, the distribution is c=$100, p=$0. On to the next parishoner. After the 9th, but before the 10th parishoner, the distribution must be c=$900, p[10]=$100. It can't be worse than that for the church, or we wouldn't have moved on to the 10th parishoner. It can't be better for the player because each has only $100 to wager. After the n'th, c=$100n, p[n+1]=$100. Conjecture A predicts that as n, the number of players, goes to infinity, c, the fraction of money won by the church, approaches C, the probability the church will win a single trial. But in fact, the model shows that as n approaches infinity, c goes to 1. Where could one disagree with this interpretation of the model? a. Maybe the church has 10 confessionals, or 1000, or 10,000. Serializing the players might be a `paper' advantage to the church that doesn't occur in reality. b. Players can have any amount of money, not just $100 dollars. c. What if the church goes broke? (a) Imagine that the church has at most k confessionals, and thus can play no more than k simultaneous games. Fill all k. All other players are waiting in line for an open spot. The next parishoner can't play until an existing player goes broke. The distribution of wealth during play by the (k-1+10)th player is exactly as before, except now it is +/-$100(k-1). (b) has no impact. As above, at the end of each game the fraction of money won by the church with respect to that player is 1 (assuming it's the player and not the church that `went out'). (c) If the church goes broke, all bets are off, literally but not figuratively. The distribution of wealth is c=0, P=1 (P for all players as opposed to p for a single player). This also does not match the expectation of .51. >The chance of the "church" to win or lose is the same on every >bet, regardless of who places it. That is true. But the only way the player can realize his mathematical expectations is if he is allowed to continue playing even after he is out of money (i.e., so he can climb back out of the hole). Ok, the first player goes out, but the infinity of players after him can make up for that, right? Wrong, because on his way to winning back the first players money, if the second player goes broke, _his_ game is over. Now its up the third guy, ad infinitum (literally)..... just because the series is infinite doesn't mean the sum is. No set of players, all of whom go broke, break the church. Therefore, for the series to end it must be instigated by a set of players that includes at least one who doesn't go broke (i.e., the church goes broke instead). In fact, a single player who doesn't go broke ends the series without any help from other players. Thus, to stem the tide of pious donations (i.e., the church's winnings), a single player with enough money to `outlast' the church is required. Hope you found this interesting but not insulting, Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

2 1

Hello
by Neal M. Goldsmith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My friend has been forwarding some of your material to me. I'd like to learn more about what you do. Is there some overview piece describing your varied interests. Are you a you or a group? Thanks, Neal

1 0

Re: ID list
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: Please incude the date and month of the card issuance, so it can be : included in the list. Many people have states that let licenses : go for 5 years so outdated information is a problem. : The greatest concerns are the digitized photo, the magnetic strip : and the bar code. Please include a yes/no for each of these at least. : The type of card (laminated... not laminated... etc) is also helpful. I missed the original request. Are you asking about driving licenses? My current one was issued in 1979 and expires in 2029. American bartenders find it rather confusing :-) Green paper, no photo at all, digitized or otherwise. G

1 0

Re: IRS vs. privacy
by mkj＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> * [This blew my socks off] The IRS has subscription data > for many national magazines. Thus, if they know you're > getting Time & Newsweek & Barron's and USNews but they > see no tax return, they nab you. That's a valuable data point. Here's another, in a quote I saved almost a decade ago from an article in COMPUTERWORLD, Sept. 1985: "In an effort to identify people who fail to file tax returns, the Internal Revenue Service is matching its files against available lists of names and addresses of U.S. citizens who have purchased computers for home use. The IRS continues to seek out sources for such information. This information is matched against the IRS master file of taxpayers to see if those who have not filed can be identified." In another issue of COMPUTERWORLD around the same time (which unfortunately I did not save), I recall an article about an IRS computerized system which tracked all positive and negative stories about the IRS in the media. The article implied that the huge and expensive system represented a cost-no-object assault on freedom of the press. Officials at the IRS, however, were quoted as saying that the intent of the system was merely to evaluate and guide IRS public relations efforts; an IRS spokesperson admitted that the system could be used for intimidation, but said "...that's not our intention." Also, the 4-11-94 issue of Forbes magazine features a good article about the growing IRS practices of computer data-matching and profiling of citizens. It's the issue with the cover that says (in big block print): "You Know Who You Are, and So Do We".

1 0

Re: Privacy and the lack thereof.
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ <jims(a)central.keywest.mpgn.com> : name/id. Safe at last, or are you? What if "they" analyzed all the : ATM machines in that general area and got a report of everyone who : withdrew Gun_Price + 0-to-100 dollars. (Spending money). They could : narrow it down and eventually, since they suspect you anyway, get your : pix from the ATM video camera. Take this to the gun man and you're id'd. It's worse than that if they're on the ball. All they have to do is match up the serial numbers on the bills you spent in the shop with the ones fed into the ATM at whatever banks you got money from. I don't know for sure about the US, but in the UK bills are tracked with OCR at various points in the banking chain. Worse, many ATMs in the early days insisted on brand new notes thatr didn't jam, so the serial numbers were often sequential and *definitely* on file somewhere. Anyway, if they just want your picture for ID, it doesn't have to be from the most recent bank transaction. People's pictures are floating around all over nowadays unfortunately. You can be sure your passport picture is on file and almost certainly digitised nowadays, but there are lots of other places you'll show up - buss pass, bank card, graduation photo, annual class photo, last time you entered the country through customs - it's very hard to avoid getting your picture on file. Anyway, in real life it would be the other way round - the gun shop would have your pic on tape from the security camera, and the feds would be the one to ID you from that video, not the shop owner. G

1 0

Re: Black Net
by joshua geller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lefty writes: >some random person writes: >>killbarny(a)aol.com wrote: >>>Has anyone heard of BlackNet? BlackNet is in the business of buying, selling, >>>trading, and otherwise dealing with information in all its many forms. >>The most recent Phrack (45) had an ad from them. If this is not what you >>saw (and you think the info you saw is not related to the phrack bit), let >>me know- I was assuming it was a wet dream of a few 15 year olds. >Do _not_ mess with those BlackNet folks. You'll wind up face-down in a >landfill, and spend eternity playing pinochle with Jimmy Hoffa. >Trust Me On This. a friend of mine told me he was going to sell some information to BlackNet. I don't know if he did or not, but he ... changed ... in a strange way. his speech patterns became different. he started dressing differently, and his shirt bulged in the back, I have never seen anything quite like it before. his house burned down mysteriously sometime after that. I saw him riding in tha back of a black lincoln, talking with this guy who looked ... wrong. josh

1 0

Re: Black Net
by fhalper＠pilot.njin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone actually believe Blacknet exists this is about the umpteenth time I have heard about some kind of Blackmarket internet traders that are very had to find. It sounds like something out of that Gibson book "Virtual Light" Reuben Halper -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQCPAi16KosAAAEEAMUwRni4a9+GbuAhHDLcBWK60hCJUYxhr2hYokpELAhx0ejp 2fq61Tu9Hjn051CN8Xy5nu6sv2ODfG/t59l4DJSb5pirQaII3zaX0rMX0ydwGDoW YakL4ow1lNY+d/k14KpIuUW404+fNuNhIGSkdVLQIfbOgh0preK7/P44AKvdABEB AAG0JlJldWJlbiBIYWxwZXIgPGZoYWxwZXJAcGlsb3Qubmppbi5uZXQ+iQCVAgUQ Lam+x9xF3PzIgw7tAQHPogP/VmoF5AHJNBFlpxl1tvHAzrMLE8nkpengs94Y8zmF 1r5+hk0TaYeEEUzYf1QNfflya5md3WKeXnI3WhO2SRpdH953AD/tNmxw2LLEegat 5sI1XNPuNqxeompiHFRnCz4dI14qjDvRwnPay187/Q5q2F3m0nP8qA6wgl59mDq3 FuCJAJUCBRAteitx4rv8/jgAq90BARTHBACh99OJtGXATm01BUa+u6WHU5CBc2FN F5z29RpTA/JTrgUhn4qeZ19iCIlhe1wi0D3QQH0wN7FrMp6onMw49KFU05/KLDLb JSWdCzjbl/wPEG8z//O6+Pqzj+ZcNM9Rm0b08/QdVoQZMljXkl19Gq2P/D4ceewe WAKePQ2ciFdNbw== =K4ez -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

5 4

Re: Banyan vine use by US Marine Corps...
by Jim Franklin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know how I got onto this list, or many others to which I seem to suddenly belong, but I'd be eternally grateful if you removed me from this one. thanks, jim

1 0

Re: Black Net
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: Does anyone actually believe Blacknet exists this is about the umpteenth time : I have heard about some kind of Blackmarket internet traders that are very had : to find. It sounds like something out of that Gibson book "Virtual Light" : Reuben Halper I guess there's a lot of new people on this list :-) Why don't you post something here with this key then... [wasabi.io.com] -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3a mQCPAixusCEAAAEEAJ4/hpAPevOuFDXWJ0joh/y6zAwklEPige7N9WQMYSaWrmbi XJ0/MQXCABNXOj9sR3GOlSF8JLOPInKWbo4iHunNnUczU7pQUKnmuVpkY014M5Cl DPnzkKPk2mlSDOqRanJZCkyBe2jjHXQMhasUngReGxNDMjW1IBzuUFqioZRpABEB AAG0IEJsYWNrTmV0PG5vd2hlcmVAY3liZXJzcGFjZS5uaWw+ =Vmmy -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/A19469 1993/08/15 BlackNet<nowhere(a)cyberspace.nil> 1 key(s) examined. See what sort of reply you get. Heh heh heh. G (Tim, don't go to bed early tonight, you might be getting some mail...)

1 0

Re: Banyan vine use by US Marine Corps...
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: I don't know how I got onto this list, or many others to which I seem to : suddenly belong, but I'd be eternally grateful if you removed me from this one. What's probably happened is that someone has forged a subscription to a mailing list or two in your name. This is a fairly common net prank. Who have you annoyed recently? G PS The chances of catching the person from the mailer logs of the various lists you have been subscribed to is small but it's worth asking the people in charge if the original subscription request can still be found. Often there will be clues in the header as to where the forgery came from. (Eric, are you listening?)

1 0

BlackNet
by Tommy the Tourist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.3 hIwCHO5QWqKhlGkBA/9ntWBcGjKRDaylUbaOsVV++uf7N2GKC7kbx81+3lnBfi14 dZnHqWmYfYb5ybJnAOJbAclVvYTJIZxdicA9a9Ep55Whj7zrdCfpDclAOet3eJG/ 49OrGnTyL/ZOyxb8TBodwXR8f7xKwmepoMx87wF0LGSy4OuZXYQZfZmwm7tNd6YA AAjndumh/NtASPVx/yA0uitYULgAwbNjfLQNaXBM3Ti6n0w7bnRMJPkMU2+s6n++ +kI+tbLKt4PES3QXF2qQ0Ts1DMGFuwd3YBh5o9qwEom9RXRMTE+5oYwpn0ESYtfS Oi/mnXLqCA5X/cNvQkgngwOffIOqQ8c90C3F5bx+72G+dHcAi8tc+4SPaAzRW9ol nxWU78fh7ECNga3CjTkLgADhUzb1JGAtWMhvKnoDWDsp+1Fbf6cvluAlRAFtwZR4 6yqsGngJwEEkYpsxGLrIlakMS+xDQjgYeb7h5we8rYufZInJITF/BaaTyj2VeVYU M/ucUGm0o1GwaxdLsecV4wAhGKmQWZ1MyM1CWxSN5xE1ZApCreUAc1INOnRfWl3d LeKcfzEqnycyltneyVQ/J0pRiFFNQerRaenr7/QOJGexWqPG7t1e/mHthVgyxC0u Bcq+wdWFdNBQhPEXF0Y5TVlpJlPVvZxFVS7HQUTFXMMHnMh/b5B4dmWrsjZOghbN gPv6dbZoYgNUQsnfU5GuXtMKmh3DGJM13b958scjmW+zomovZqe/Z1QaPHnDJwY4 tdDJclLJAGw59jXHr7jouBjWhYYmsXTnOH0+fb9UMtE8Biai6Pq3/ncYCWUEtIxV jdBo6qQzT9wo+cWgLgXRnTOecLV/VlME4RIbujsQHhz1AFTSJvV2C9JRCL5JhwvL 9Ap8nFhfjPbo2xzGKJScNebWoVi9qsQjUO42OsVi6OL6BHXNvvtx6sODBwsZkRcq Hg6kdodt1CUzraIFVw34HACHjdj/4KIFP9kKd7br46eN+9ItSJ4TYrDCoJ1SIetH omJ5WaQ+zhgGY4KXpbyYmDxfqaXKxB8kt7+7e6xt/P6drQu+/A+ZweD2lPK6zKE8 32Gvrj1sdOOxl5+z4nlW4TyEoWYUGIdfKy/AJWKfOTGESTZM9og83Xqy87lj9HRw vw9NEYZ9XT94T95eQJM3iqgC5P3SaVT7ssB/5ycKabWS0dD5QIkhW+Q4xyDd+Yan HsJHvED3W/vDrKsk5kkYU5GevyDmEPg/acU4eZouNnTO4lRz4LXgsGIi35YO7DvL jAyVyAzbEJtmXcP3+C2IoDhdzBCJ+jUWZP8MtHrWrq7sQ9Jbe2TTe720mSeARHk2 VEcPTFFa1+NC6v0fiVmHvzOBc6E13l4QGCepufX0gxZHZb5WQGDKCc97bCz3rD6q bJbRJ95zefey++nrq3XfyEZ+bfx+aRUkA/bDj6AOAPh6pSlMlj3elegWy25QRWim +fEi3Q1Mfb+w6wgohf3V3ZLlwsSOwRpinYa7C2wkUT4aHg6HMW3vH/NbumLWfv34 nqSNuaSzX/IuioHAd5Fwl8iZZi/ji2dtivvd4hZ0fgF50BXzHCABqLAW6T2TYMr/ OITvF0LEGiadjCgkfnFRSzEYxW1cFAlNiVmP+ueQpIe+mKP52I9z3lczdAl6mNxy MQoh0rUavaXphKFjOQ3u+pt3nggHFTglnNjbb6IK+rn4A9pF+4a5w/BpF+2GgWed TBu7pY57zX0XpkHxZZ75dhzT5vMvFmcdODZTdlxxJputG4S1+P3L2uIp8yPVQe9m +6+EC5X3Aid4lHGrOe0i+IczcNUQ+D5ZLHBrj7IAtzcbKJLi7gLwkDByCqbCcVVJ uTZSBHlZgdw7bp6zKXLDfIHn42URgwI52AC8GZ1FbjWeFCdzuL9adUTPvGsMhcxJ HAoh7Rq72eJ2TBe7oi69JwAlLxR8kK3xExGrTy4blzHqMti2sne2LfT9kWxEDRLe o+y0WvZVhjH8qSKdBrL2JJDgKuWCECGLff8zm2mZcSQhHI2ZUwvC41uatpdsaUdx kAVEMMiY0e5pF5ukUg7xT5I9Y0qSqt7pbGB8idkzusRos2Be5vw4ZJeyBxoKulUj zQZmJKSbe/Ojejcwb46+ip1o4wus8Mli1MAujEnKgLj+D/9Ihzgj2/7Is9IP7W33 D+622fhDwJ8edy0MQtYMHAWQ11PbcOeeu3dbTORC+R68MGREdgv3DekCjify1iiT YTmlu+MHaCdTzhrCeKS/zzJGLz+6QZAP6HmZOVoIRmR0j5Qt/WEpJb+2DE7kjeW7 3ENbYprr1OULHhOfSQJhyJtDwWs/RG3azXW3i0ONIu3gNLQxJs8QOlPwBQDUQA8S pV8O/qslpQDEZSfSx/VMg9RdtXUqST/P3GuwV6sYWRFIshWuV563ds4HdJFxMJPu 5lSxYp+9eH+eYq4ZBhtzaV8Do5GxI/BSQ2O4axhyY+b3RTbhmSnomI2mOnwQx8Lp 6SH8oF0hDkdZzwGEde9vVCOpRJYf6P2qRz1zzdO9Ey1R/CCH1K2TLv3UnxzijpaI j9zl9xGHBiY2HLDwCeKu7jYPyKTXZyQ5JYyfGalB72nJvGxazkYfUWoUsnewB7+j V3XFyZFqmzqyyTsQZ1eOsVRFAJeb1YOT6U38JC0Ic4IYdyfW1qOSUzgp3GE1aFm+ p5+R5JYLkOUXzhT0wyHuDIEKbrJPVUMS7k6mnVbb3U0cKlGvss+0q0l3UXtOZo00 QUph9WhFweJoHkjoH50pAE0DK+SbH7C5u89zmr2PsEYmxYEldBQxdeJKyaS++131 m4IcfTrfo3awhIg0fcB3vBAlyYWYelmjiPiGZLOxxylydm5ZRF4P1LMJ2isW6QHj 5vqtVXIJXpBgF9XYOvcCrU2JbJeHKmjS57f3r0sJwxFUnAogQe4eT6L4DfroW4rB 6HOdFv515MbAz/FiL5S5Ix/YT5XixwPG6uvof2HG+Y0y5g3d8whVQicplgE8+gt0 P7VdlP5JEiVc3Z3zkgUetklIQ5CQ6ItsCnTA8vMQMdaPrMb4SJJYzsN0Sqg+b+69 9oT+rVuDUVpxpbfm1lFps2AgkywXD720sxYjjHYA9XgzuFpQTts7jAdaySY9Degy ueKfTs70iLArlShlTqhwN+8lH17xUnJJIXQJlEtgOEirGdrvxeGiXn5BIC5XJmiF 1+NclT6dSmSZbharXdGvGG9T937W4uc2L28= =OQxE -----END PGP MESSAGE----- ------------ To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to remailer(a)soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with the following 7 lines: :: Response-Key: key1 ====Encrypted-Sender-Begin==== MI@UPK]5,.,7),)JND-3:V2TNU+?^3/1F!^=ZYA$<89[2;4KRE#:&@PV&AE3S 3I&0V]DN$FA*&<TC7?[TL24B*-P`` ====Encrypted-Sender-End====

1 0

Blacknet and espionage.
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just some sage advice for newbies: Stay away from Blacknet unless your a serious customer. Ames was a major Blacknet user. I don't think the authorities will take a bright view of anyone posting about it publically. On the otherhand, if you have legitimate information to pass, and want money for it, and don't mind taking quick and speedy trips to other jurisdictions in disguise, go for it! -uni- (Dark)

3 2

The Herd Instinct & Response to Authority
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Tom Allard "This shows that, in real situations, people will follow herd instincts and obey orders." Herd instincts: of following together in large numbers, what the rest of the cows are doing or go where the rest of the herd is headed. The experiments on test subjects were done with individuals who were not aware of what others were doing in the same situation, so they could not have been imitating anyone's behavior. So it was a demonstration of something else, that being mostly their state of ignorance, or their deficient knowledge (of morality, of pain, of the meaning of what they see, hear, etc.). I would suspect that this was because they grew up without sufficient opportunity to exercise independent judgement or develop their own self-directing abilities. I think "herd instincts" are in the eyes of the beholder. >From Jeff Davis: (from an earlier post) "I am prone to action on instinct." [so he said...] "We better be DAMN careful who we put in authority in this country." Blanc

1 0

Safeway + Your Privacy
by an3747＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In <0097D140.1B631720.2317(a)Leif.ucs.mun.ca> Bill Garland <bill(a)kean.ucs.mun.ca> wrote: > Hey, we have already inadvertently given great power to a centralized > government. We - many of us - well, some of us, well, er, I'm sure > at least Tim May and myself, are just trying to get some of it back, > and not to give them any more. No, you must be thinking of someone else. Tim May acts to _strengthen_ government. Why, just the other day he boasted about _voting_ for them: In Message-Id: <199404140800.BAA23572(a)mail.netcom.com> he wrote "Understand that I actually _voted_ [in a government election]... " Voting in their elections is right up there with petitioning them or accepting money from them as their justification for being. When they're challenged, they need only point to these constituencies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

slow.penet.fi
by This Space For Rent 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've found anon.penet.fi to be VERY slow lately, remails taking on the order of 3-5 days, which makes it impossible to use. Of course, like the rest of them, it's free and a service to the Net and a needed utility, so I'm not going to complain. However, it has forced me to look elsewhere and find faster ones... I did write to help@ and ask if there was a problem...for the general benefit of cryptogensia everywhere, here's the reply I got: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 19:34:47 +0200 (EET DST) From: Mari (Black Panther) Sepp{ <zarr(a)gamma.hut.fi> To: This Space For Rent <afabbro(a)umich.edu> Subject: Re: Slow Remail > How long is mail from anon.penet.fi supposed to take? People were > telling me that it was taking a while, so I test e-mail myself something > on 10:00AM local time on the 8th. Just received it at 4:30AM here on the > 10th, which means it took nearly two days. Is this normal? Some users have flooded the server with hundreds and hundreds of messages. That slows the server down greatly (posting and e-mailing times up to 3 days). Some messages might have even disappeared because these hundreds of messages fill up the diskspace and there is no more room for new messages. Be patient. Sorry about the inconvenience, Zarr Andrew Fabbro If laws are outlawed, weltschmerz(a)umich.edu only outlaws will University of Michigan have laws. Fnord. _____________________________________________________________ Finger afabbro(a)churchst.ccs.itd.umich.edu for PGP public key. PGPprint: 87 41 65 E0 C2 51 9F E5 A9 44 ED A6 6B 16 76 9E NSA bait: assassinate uranium dreamland CIA p.o.e. zimmerman

1 0

Re: Remailer Musings
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jamie Lawrence writes: > >From: juola(a)bruno.cs.colorado.edu > >On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that > >one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent > >this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens. I > >suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting > >up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the > >requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for > >content. > I wonder how this would jive with the factoid someone on this list (don't > have the original handy) found a while back about the court ruling in favor > of the right to operate under an alias in (constitutionally?) protected, at > least in terms of publishing, etc.? I remember the case happening in L.A., > I think. Anyway, what are the odds a case could be made that my 'anonymous > identity' "fooperson" is a legal pseudonym? Stretching it some, but a > possibility, and one case where similarities with publishing can work in > favor of privacy. This sounds like the quote/cite I posted recently. (Talley v. Calif., 362 US 60, 64-65). The LA City Attorney suggested that the ordinance (which prohibited distribution of handbills without a "true name and address") was intended to prevent fraud, false advertising, and libel - but the ordinance was not drafted to mention those evils, and there was no legislative history presented to support that reading. The majority opinion and Harlan's concurrence explicitly declined to rule on the constitutionality of a more narrowly drawn ordinance which would have addressed those concerns while protecting publishers/distributors from fear of reprisal against unpopular opinion. In any event, the opinion is 34 years old, and I don't know shit about the First amendment. I passed that on to the list not as a statement about what the law is today, but as something to keep in mind next time Detweiler or one of his cohorts mentions that "only criminals think anonymity is good." On the other hand, I'm curious about Brad Templeton's little excursion into the [limits of] liability for electronic publishers. I wonder if he'd consider himself liable if he unwittingly published copyrighted material without permission. Does anyone have a cite to support the notion that common carriers are obligated to assist in the identification of users of their services? I received annoying phone calls for a period of time, and the local phone company (US West) said they'd only get involved once I had an "incident number" (or some such) from the police department, and that information gathered would only be released to the police. I suppose if I actually filed a civil suit against the harassing party (even as a John Doe?) I could then use the discovery process to compel them to release their relevant records - but that's not really the scenario that Brad and 'kitten' seem to imagine. Also, seems like Mike Godwin mentioned last time we talked about the common carrier stuff that one doesn't just become a common carrier by virtue of wanting to be one, or even by acting like one - I think some sort of legislative/administrative action was necessary ..? It's been tossed around on the net that 'UUNET is a common carrier' - a semi-recent post from Tamara Bowman, UUNET staff member, said that UUNET has "enhanced service provider" status, which is not the same thing. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLbSXq33YhjZY3fMNAQFJ3wQAiIe8z1A91OPnogT0cibgR/7ZWZGRm36Y S9Lf261OFio5itX8XQEwu6OFToCUwE89mqAT0uG3BqZj4z9pqOACaR6rgXvVYvES ximoWVSvbnyg6/M0iOT8L2I6WFFPS7rlhC1MdCYPou/MX8R45PNcQgQLNDrEbwCi QzomVJslOYA= =dMjm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

re: Sgt Russell
by joshua geller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sgt Darren Harlow writes: > Wayne, > I am sorry that my being on this list is offensive to you. I joined > this list to learn about cryptography. If anything, I would think that you > would want to help a new person get up to speed. If you can't grow up and > treat other people like human beings, maybe you ought to take yourself off of > the list and go play with your private key by yourself. > My job is important to me. Learning about cryptography is going to > help me protect my systems and my messages. I have no desire to eavesdrop on > what you or anyone else is doing on this list. I merely want to learn, and > possibly contribute to the threads on the list. I have received several > responses from people on the list and really appreciate that. I hope this > helps to clarify my position on this list. I don't see any reason why sgt. harlow shouldn't be as welcome as anyone else on the list. there are a large number of people in the military, and any generalization drawn about them is likely to be false (of course all generalizations are false, but that is another matter). for those who enjoy paranoia, I would point out that sgt. harlow is not the only person on this list with past or present military associations. josh

3 2

Re: Remailer Musings
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lefty writes: > I believe it was stated (correctly, according to my understanding) that one > may use any pseudonym, as long as the intention in using it is not to > commit a crime. I believe the standard is "intent to *defraud*". > Copyright infringement _is_, like it or not, a crime. Only in some cases; and that's not fraud. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLbSZqH3YhjZY3fMNAQFjZwP+NEGnXgS56yTJXPS64bOD1zmIPoeIx4q4 B8ffh2uEUPyDg3uq/cjLPCrVZX49squK9KP+ynA5afnydMRuHhRbge3s+4R5Fa7J /+F3Z/aE1m5g7AdxGsx6rK9OGYSVnkgXuDoYFGdTKskI8DTb8ixUjaewc2vwZHFx SXxt3HMZXLs= =MGS5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

My Key(s), FWIW
by David Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For What It's Worth (damn little, I suspect :-), here's my PGP public key; 'finger' me for verification/fingerprint/RIPEM. Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM Public Keys and Fingerprints -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQCNAi12VeYAAAEEAOqndSk+w1iAtW1nJDtdajTZEZEOuMjeKoFbXWuMK8H93Ckx Ba6c0Z8+STXtscP2WWKwRUVcrM0iZa2X4/7Z/Brl31aaA4DT6AVoxet3CLY0JUfi FciusBFCfPB6wfDdwABLZAzTd49YDyWI/Fq0MlNJ3JAeTFwhPeJ9eOnzcfP1AAUR tCVEYXZlIE1lcnJpbWFuIDxtZXJyaW1hbkBtZXRyb25ldC5jb20+iQCVAgUQLZxj 0Jmg14VGv4TFAQFNsQP+JdRjafESlDYmLvgmQqxZUE90lct/EIy5C8sIDT7vFt1f FI5PLtFg1xlxl8thrBjfff9GYKOt2WSw6Uw144OCNnIw5l93QR3ueSXWmHqowJ6c Hp8batrO/X3InNj6IDx6bolZzv6+lBz2XimE2SvYXCdU+7OA4CYxMQ6nfPwErdU= =h8jX -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Milgram & Authority (+Ethics)
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)snark.imsi.com> Jeff Davis says: >> March/April 1976- I'd just gotten divorced and the bullet hole in >> my abdomen was healing quite nicely. >Really? I was under the impression his stuff had been published >substantially before that date -- certainly that seems to be a quite >late year for him to have been presenting a paper on it. Stanley Milgram reorganized the very foundations of ethical human research with his experimental procedure. He was very active in structuring ethical human experimentation for years. That's why my question was phrased, "ethical questions aside..." Some o' y'all don't know much about folks, do ya. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLbSk/F/ScHuGXWgVAQFqyQP+Ke5zrKbag3M/j6rjJsJbDe9nxDt67L1U po3QKjJmb3xRIUiqOXtyWSsnkMS9pcDgkxBb8CivMcDAR4tTGRgqw4UZf3GCnhYR bmX+4X9bZ6iimA23ItoEhAIGdNP0NouauuHvcVtqNZuntg64Y0c5UvcF9hS4pihq 5wmVH0G3gGE= =DS0i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

1 0

Re: Milgram & Authority (+Ethics)
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Davis says: > >> March/April 1976- I'd just gotten divorced and the bullet hole in > >> my abdomen was healing quite nicely. > >Really? I was under the impression his stuff had been published > >substantially before that date -- certainly that seems to be a quite > >late year for him to have been presenting a paper on it. > > Stanley Milgram reorganized the very foundations of ethical human research > with his experimental procedure. He was very active in structuring ethical > human experimentation for years. That's why my question was phrased, "ethical > questions aside..." > > Some o' y'all don't know much about folks, do ya. Jeff, Perry isn't questioning your description of Milgram's experiments, he was questioning the dates - '76 seems awfully late for that work to have been new and exciting (as opposed to old and exciting.) (Yes, that may imply he's questioning your credibility, or delving into deeper philosophical questions like whether you're really just another incarnation of Detweiler :-) On the other hand, it may be that the time you heard Milgram speaking wasn't the *first* time he'd given his talk - he's probably spoken on the topic a few gazillion times, especially if he's talking to college audiences...

2 1