December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Who would sign Lucky Green's key?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The latest discussion about key signing parties and related questions asked in private email got me thinking about signing keys for nyms. What would one have to know to sign a key for a nym? Would you sign my key? Why? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: Zimermann Legal Defense Fund
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:07 PM 2/9/96 -0700, Philip L. Dubois wrote: >I agreed up front not to bill for all my time, and judging from >the rate of current contributions, it now appears that the Defense >Fund will cover the fees and costs that I billed. I would like to >see these other lawyers receive some compensation for their efforts. >Accordingly, all donations to the Zimmermann Legal Defense Fund >mailed, authorized, or generally "made" (as opposed to "received") >after midnight local time on 14 February 1996 will be distributed >among these other lawyers to defray their costs and, if possible, >to compensate them for a little of their time. > >I make this announcement because people contributing to the Fund >have a right to know that Mr. Zimmermann's actual defense costs >are now covered and that additional donations will go to lawyers >who agreed to work for free and who were absolutely essential to >the defense. Remember that nothing says "Thanks" like Cash! Don't forget the people who donated their time and efforts in keeping Phil out of jail and cryptography that much more free. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

Re: Perry's whining, Ed's Sniveling
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:21 PM 02/8/96 -0600, ecarp(a)netcom.com wrote: >Why doesn't Perry just shut the hell up? I've got more important things >to worry about than Perry's ignorant, fetid whining. Such as that CDA >thing in the Telecommunications Bill. > >Anyone for suing Bill? I am, if it will get you and Perry to stop sounding like a couple of 3-year-olds: "He hit me first!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" ad nauseum Hell (that's my crypto-relevance: a clear violation of the CDA :-), I've got two cats that get along better.... Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRoC2sVrTvyYOzAZAQFUbAP/a3g+Ykd1nSQuWP1SYP7RayFEYnIBHBRX yvcktG2iStZZ/bw7I59EBJPHVZDtMnx11ujl41wiK1V/49hoWyrHV5xUxcoId+c2 dSqM9yOKkVx8vdMuXxNEcHyVJRINryf+1xDVnCSDgtamKcWbbxWVnPGU4CvA/lq0 16TAZwXsxR4= =vEeX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> My web page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1148

1 0

FWD: ACLU Lawsuit
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excuse cross-post for those of you who are own both lists. This from the ACLU's New York office. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 17:36:18 -0500 Subject: To All Plaintiffs in Online Decency Lawsuit To all Plaintiffs in the Online Decency Lawsuit: This morning we filed the lawsuit in Philadelphia. Judge Buckwalter, to whom the lawsuit was assigned, held a hearing this afternoon on our motion for a temporary restraining order to prohibit enforcement of the Act. The Government agreed at argument not to enforce the "indecent" and "patently offensive" provisions of the Act for 7 days. We count this as a victory. However, the Government did not agree not to eventually prosecute for material available during the next 7 days. Thus, we believe there is still a risk. With regard to the abortion provisions, the Government conceded that they are unconstitutional and will not be enforced. We will not be satisfied on this matter until they so stipulate in writing. The Judge gave the Government until Wednesday to respond in writing to our motion. He will then rule on our motion. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at: ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ******************************************************* Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; E-mail: | - Survive; lharrison(a)mhv.net | - Go to bed." *******************************************************

1 0

just repeating
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to the several mail messages I got asking why I'd posted my "robot" message here, I just want to say yet again that Ed Carp was the one who forward it to cypherpunks. The mail headers in the message, which I reproduce below, make this obvious. The mail went from me to Carp, with appropriate "for" portions of the Received: headers indicating that the mail was destined for him, and somehow mysteriously moved from Carp's machine to toad.com -- the only possible source being Ed forwarding the thing since his name was all over the previous hops. Don't blame me, folks. Now, can we get back to cryptography? Pretty-please? Perry Received: from toad.com by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12GNU) with SMTP id UAA13412; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 20:41:19 -0500 Received: by toad.com id AA13518; Thu, 8 Feb 96 17:33:50 PST Received: from dal1820.computek.net by toad.com id AA13512; Thu, 8 Feb 96 17:33:36 PST Received: (from erc@localhost) by dal1820.computek.net (8.7/8.6.10) id UAA24985 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 20:33:49 -0500 Received: by dal1820.computek.net (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #52) id m0tkcB9-0009AzC; Thu, 8 Feb 96 14:38 EST Received: from mail6.netcom.com (ecarp(a)mail6.netcom.com [192.100.81.142]) by dal1820.computek.net (8.7/8.6.10) with SMTP id OAA29375 for <erc(a)dal1820.computek.net>; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:38:49 -0500 Received: by mail6.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id LAA28210; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:37:54 -0800 Received: from jekyll.piermont.com by mail6 (8.6.12/Netcom) id LAA28165; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:37:44 -0800 Received: from localhost (perry@localhost) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA08993 for <ecarp(a)netcom.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:35:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602081935.OAA08993(a)jekyll.piermont.com> X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host perry@localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: ecarp(a)netcom.com From: "Perry's Mail Filter" <perry(a)piermont.com> Subject: In Re: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Feb 1996 13:29:41 CST." <199602081929.OAA28586(a)dal1820.computek.net> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 14:35:10 -0500 Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: 823831065.014 I am sorry, but your message with the Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd) was rejected by Perry Metzger's mail filter and will not be read by him. This is likely because Perry decided to place you on his reject list. Perry tends to clean out his filter lists every six months, so you may be able to send him electronic mail again sometime in the future. If you absolutely need to contact Perry, please use means other than electronic mail, or ask a third party to contact him on your behalf. You will not receive further copies of this notice. Perry's Mail Filter

1 0

Re: CDA; Don't get mad, get even!
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I think that we should make an example of those responsible for the >CDA. Ignorance is really not an excuse here, because whoever voted for >for the bill should have known the CDA was attached to it, and should >have had some idea of what it did. > >Lets get a list of whos supporting this thing and bad press them back >before the dawn of time. Here's the votes from the Senate. I'll look for the House and get back. Forwarded message from Voter Tellecommunications Watch follows: \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ Senate Response on the CDA (Communications Decency Act) Where to find this information You can get this file by sending mail to vtw(a)vtw.org with "send response" in the subject line of the message. To receive VTW alerts via email, send a message to listproc(a)vtw.org with "subscribe vtw-announce firstname lastname" in the body of the message.. You can also get this file at URL:http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon/senate-response.html. Urgent news The Senate has passed the Communications Decency Act. The vote breakdown is below. The tally of the 6/14/95 vote on the Communications Decency Act Senators who voted to defeat the Communications Decency Act (A polite letter to congratulate them for defending your free speech rights would be appropriate.) D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax = == ================== ============== ============== D CT Lieberman, Joseph I. 1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750 D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R. 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139 D IL Simon, Paul 1-202-224-2152 1-202-224-0868 senator(a)simon.senate.gov D IL Moseley-Braun, Carol 1-202-224-2854 1-202-224-2626 D MA Kennedy, Edward M. 1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417 senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov D MI Levin, Carl 1-202-224-6221 na D MN Wellstone, Paul 1-202-224-5641 1-202-224-8438 D NM Bingaman, Jeff 1-202-224-5521 na Senator_Bingaman(a)bingaman.senate.gov D NY Moynihan, Daniel P. 1-202-224-4451 na D OH Glenn, John 1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983 R RI Chafee, John H. 1-202-224-2921 na D VA Robb, Charles S. 1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689 Senator_Robb(a)robb.senate.gov vascr(a)CapAccess.org D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595 senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov R VT Jeffords, James M. 1-202-224-5141 na D WA Murray, Patty 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238 D WI Feingold, Russell 1-202-224-5323 na russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov Senators who voted to support the (CDA) Communications Decency Act (They voted for the CDA and to curtail your free speech rights. Writing them an impolite and nasty letter would be a bad idea, and may soon be illegal under the CDA anyway. Take some time to cool down.) D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax = == ================== ============== ============== R AK Murkowski, Frank H. 1-202-224-6665 1-202-224-5301 R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044 D AL Heflin, Howell T. 1-202-224-4124 1-202-224-3149 R AL Shelby, Richard C. 1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416 D AR Bumpers, Dale 1-202-224-4843 1-202-224-6435 D AR Pryor, David 1-202-224-2353 1-202-224-8261 R AZ Kyl, Jon 1-202-224-4521 1-202-228-1239 R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702 D CA Boxer, Barbara 1-202-224-3553 na D CA Feinstein, Dianne 1-202-224-3841 1-202-228-3954 R CO Campbell, Ben N. 1-202-224-5852 1-202-225-0228 R CO Brown, Henry 1-202-224-5941 1-202-224-6471 D CT Dodd, Christopher J. 1-202-224-2823 na R DE Roth Jr. William V. 1-202-224-2441 1-202-224-2805 D FL Graham, Robert 1-202-224-3041 1-202-224-2237 R FL Mack, Connie 1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022 D GA Nunn, Samuel 1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072 R GA Coverdell, Paul 1-202-224-3643 1-202-228-3783 D HI Akaka, Daniel K. 1-202-224-6361 1-202-224-2126 D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 D IA Harkin, Thomas 1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431 R IA Grassley, Charles E. 1-202-224-3744 1-202-224-6020 R ID Craig, Larry E. 1-202-224-2752 1-202-224-2573 R ID Kempthorne, Dirk 1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893 R IN Coats, Daniel R. 1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964 R IN Lugar, Richard G. 1-202-224-4814 1-202-224-7877 R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952 R KS Kassebaum, Nancy L. 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514 D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 R KY McConnell, Mitch 1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499 D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 na D LA Johnston, J. Bennett 1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952 D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525 D MD Mikulski, Barbara A. 1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858 D MD Sarbanes, Paul S. 1-202-224-4524 1-202-224-1651 R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853 R ME Cohen, William S. 1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693 R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834 R MN Grams, Rod 1-202-224-3244 na R MO Bond, Christopher S. 1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149 R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 na R MS Cochran, Thad 1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576 R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 D MT Baucus, Max 1-202-224-2651 na R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 R NC Faircloth, D. M. 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406 R NC Helms, Jesse 1-202-224-6342 1-202-224-7588 D ND Conrad, Kent 1-202-224-2043 1-202-224-7776 D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193 D NE Kerrey, Bob 1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645 D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 R NH Gregg, Judd 1-202-224-3324 1-202-224-4952 R NH Smith, Robert 1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353 D NJ Bradley, William 1-202-224-3224 1-202-224-8567 D NJ Lautenberg, Frank R. 1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707 R NM Domenici, Pete V. 1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371 D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867 D NV Reid, Harry 1-202-224-3542 1-202-224-7327 R NY D'Amato, Alfonse M. 1-202-224-6542 1-202-224-5871 R OH Dewine, Michael 1-202-224-2315 1-202-224-6519 R OK Inhofe, James 1-202-224-4721 R OK Nickles, Donald 1-202-224-5754 1-202-224-6008 R OR Hatfield, Mark O. 1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276 R OR Packwood, Robert 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-3576 R PA Santorum, Rick 1-202-224-6324 na R PA Specter, Arlen 1-202-224-4254 1-717-782-4920 D RI Pell, Claiborne 1-202-224-4642 1-202-224-4680 D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 R SC Thurmond, Strom 1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300 D SD Daschle, Thomas A. 1-202-224-2321 1-202-224-2047 R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259* R TN Thompson, Fred 1-202-224-4944 1-202-228-3679 R TN Frist, Bill 1-202-224-3344 1-202-224-8062 R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776 R TX Gramm, Phil 1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856 R UT Bennett, Robert 1-202-224-5444 1-202-224-6717 R UT Hatch, Orrin G. 1-202-224-5251 1-202-224-6331 R VA Warner, John W. 1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295 R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 D WI Kohl, Herbert H. 1-202-224-5653 1-202-224-9787 D WV Byrd, Robert C. 1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025 D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 na R WY Simpson, Alan K. 1-202-224-3424 1-202-224-1315 R WY Thomas, Craig 1-202-224-6441 1-202-224-3230 Voters Telecommunications Watch / vtw(a)vtw.org . lunaslide On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C 2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0 0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk= =OIT9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Black DaveMail: I Promised My Grandfather
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 08:53:06 -0800 To: haeberli(a)apple.com (Martin Haeberli -- Apple), rmiller(a)telematica.com (Richard Miller), davenetworld(a)wired.com, mquinn(a)netcom.com, idig(a)nbn.com (David Biedny), rick_lepage(a)macweek.ziff.com, jlg(a)be.com (Jean-Louis Gassee), alecs(a)microsoft.com (Alec Saunders), combee(a)techwood.org (Benjamin L. Combee), pmcq(a)utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Pam McQuesten), ivan.myrvold(a)grimstad.nett.telenor.no From: dwiner(a)well.com (DaveNet email) Subject: I Promised My Grandfather Sender: owner-davenetworld(a)wired.com Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------- Amusing Rants from Dave Winer's Desktop Released on 2/9/96; 8:46:03 AM PST --------------------------------------- I said: "I'm voting against Clinton in November." Kyle D. Skrinak, kylesk(a)nando.net, said: "Perhaps I missed it, but may I suggest you declare who you intend to support. Outside of a libertarian candidate, I am unfamiliar with which presidential candidate would be against this censorship. Fair enough. A lot of people asked that question. And Mr. Skrinak asked it with respect. My answer: I don't know! I can say I'm going to vote against Clinton without saying who I'm going to vote for. That's my right as a US citizen. It's only February. The US presidential election is in November. There's lots of time. Between now and November the web will grow by an order of magnitude. Try to remember what it looked like in June 1995. It was a sleepy backwater then, even though it looked like a boom. We still have spring, summer and fall before we have to make a choice. Perhaps even Clinton can get my vote. But he's got a bunch of digging (and explaining!) to do. People have also questioned my use of the term "crime against humanity" to describe the attempted censorship of the Internet. People say I'm off here, not in direction, but in scale. They ask how can you compare this act with the other acts that have been called crimes against humanity? I have two answers. First, it's a felony to leave the scene of an accident, and it's a felony to blow up a Federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. Scale has nothing to do with it. If this isn't a crime against humanity, who is it a crime against? Do we hold our politicians accountable for their actions, especially if they're on a global scale? Are just US citizens offended by their attempt to shut down free speech on the Internet? No. The mail has been coming in from all over the planet. And rightly so. This act has global implications. Second, I made a promise to my grandfather to oppose this kind of shit. I'm a first-generation US citizen. Both sides of my family left Europe, fleeing Hitler, for their lives! I listened to my parents and grandparents. I've read about this stuff. How did Hitler start? How many people said "It can't happen here!" And how sorry were they later, when they couldn't do anything about it but run for their lives. Well, it's still early, we *can* do something about it. These ideas must meet our resistance. I think it's our obligation, if not to humanity, to evolution and peace. ***It Can Happen Saying it's unconstitutional is like saying it can't happen here. You're trusting something that might not be trustworthy. A year ago, when the Exon amendment was first discussed, did you think that Congress could pass such a bill? It can happen. Did you think that Clinton would sign it? It happened. Could the courts go along with it? Hmmm. Could people go to jail? What do *you* think? The opposition is incredibly well financed and organized. According to the EFF they're distributing kits to federal prosecutors all over the country, teaching them how to prosecute under the new censorship law. They're going to make hay while the sun shines. Maybe the law is unconstitutional. Maybe the courts will say so. But for now, it's on the books, it's the law of the land. Can you go to jail for your opinions in the USA? According to the law -- yes. Some of us will go to jail. I think we know that now. Hey -- I'm pissed when I get a jury duty notice. Imagine how it would feel to get arrested for speaking my mind, for writing DaveNet? How would it feel to get convicted and sent to jail? I don't want to find out! I like my life. I want to be free. I don't want to be a prisoner! I made a promise to my grandfather, but I also made a promise to myself. I thought we had cleansed this kind of crap from our society after Vietnam. We lost a whole generation on that one. Let's not lose another one. Yes, it can happen here. It can happen anywhere, anytime. All it takes is your silence. Wake up! ***What a day! Yesterday was a day of great growth for me. It started at 4AM, writing my ode to Rick Smolan, entitled "Holding Hands in Cyberspace". Then it turns out I was wildly and unrealistically optimistic. I look at Rick's website, there's Al Gore, talking about the fucking environment! I want to believe Rick is a good guy, but the evidence indicates otherwise. I leave him a voicemail, explaining that our thirteen year friendship is in jeopardy. No answer. I feel I've misled my readers. So I retract my support for his project. A few hours later a blue ribbon shows up on his site. Click on it. Nothing happens. Is this good enough? No. I think Rick truly has a good heart. He wants to do the right thing, deep inside. But he didn't do the right thing. I can't support him. Can you have a friend who you can't support? No. I said in an email that this is the first time in my life that I didn't sell out for friendship. That's where the growth came from. In the early evening, I spoke with Howard Rheingold, hlr(a)well.com. He encouraged me to work something out with Rick. His magic words were -- "eventually Rick will thank you for doing this." That gets inside of me, it resonates. Howard is a great writer! I asked him to write something for DaveNet. I asked him to write about his day, yesterday -- his 24 Hours -- something for Rick and others to think about. Here's what Howard said. ***Howard Rheingold speaks I got up this morning and headed for Planet Hollywood, a place I never would have stepped foot in otherwise, to do a panel with Paul Saffo and Esther Dyson. Illustra got this big to-do together weeks ago, as self-promotion leveraged on Rick Smolan's self-promotion. I thought Rick was doing a pretty cool thing, bringing people's attention to some of the pleasant and beneficial things happening in cyberspace. God knows we need as much of that as possible to counter the hysteria whipped up by Ralph Reed and buddies. Illustra seems like a cool product. Empowers people to publish. And they paid me. This morning turned out, through one of those weird accidents that history hands you, the day of the Web blackout. I blacked out my main page before I headed out this morning. The Illustra thing, frankly, was one of the biggest wasted opportunities I've ever seen. They did a great job getting a couple hundred interesting people together and then put on a boring blah-blah for hours. Then came the panel. I always take the opportunity to seize the subject and wrench it over to how the fuck are we going to look our children in the eyes ten years from now when they ask us what we were doing while a bunch of tiny-minded puritan fascists shat on liberties that Americans have died for. I think some people woke up. At least they said so. I hope I gave them something to talk about. I feel fine about the bux I took from Illustra to do the gig. And I felt fine about helping Illustra promote 24 Hours promote Illustra. Until I read my Davemail tonight. Rick. Be a journalist. You are the last hope on an ugly day. American journalists, with a few exceptions should hang their heads in shame. I'm one of the guys who gets the calls for the quotes and soundbites. For years. Ever since this Internet stuff started heating up. I've done ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, NHK. I've done German, French, Austrian, Italian, Australian TV. I've given the quotes to the reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and a hundred podunk papers. And every goddamn sound bite about democracy hits the cutting room floor and is replaced by the same idiotic shtick about cyberporn or sexual predators in chat rooms. Over and over again. For years. I have asked reporters whether they care about the kind of country their children grow up in. I literally got down on my knees and begged the last CBS crew that came out here. The reporters and field producers are sincere. There is some asshole sitting in LA or New York whose job it is to kill the stuff that isn't as shallow as a tin pan full of cold dogpiss, and substitute some off-the-rack sleaze. There is a code of ethics for journalists, and right up there at the top is a reminder that the press in a free society has an obligation to inform citizens about events that affect our freedom. Well, journalism is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of entertainment, and these journalists have loaded the shotgun, handed it to their enemies, dropped their trousers, bent over, and put the muzzles in their own asses. I believe most of the editors and producers who failed us so miserably have done it out of cluelessness more than malice or conspiracy or craven sucking-up-to-the-owners. The most important piece of legislation in the past fifty years took a year to work its way through Congress and is now law. A multi-trillion dollar industry has been divvied up. Do any of us know who really won and who really lost? Does anybody know about any of it except the cyberporn stuff? It was a sideshow, a juicy piece of meat to distract the watchdogs of our minds, while the real action took place elsewhere. I've been writing columns about this since 1994. So has Brock. Wired has been on the case. And very few others. It isn't just the politicians who deserve our wrath, the craven cowards. It's the journalists and their bosses. But history handed us this delicious opportunity. After a year of failure to get the attention of the New York Times and CNNs of the world, Rick Smolan, media lubricator extraordinaire, managed to get a lot of attention focused on something happening on the Net that *isn't* sinister. And now Dave Winer tells us that Rick isn't going to acknowledge the Web blackout. Rick, it's this simple. You are a journalist. You chose February 8 as your day to cover. To ignore the anti-CDA protest that is one of the biggest stories on the day you chose to cover months ago is to abrogate the right to ever call yourself a journalist again. It isn't too late. I know this is a headache you didn't ask for. Sometimes history asks people to make a judgement call at a bad time. Sometimes people regret the decisions they failed to make. We have an opportunity here to use all the attention you have masterfully focused on this event to shed some light. You gotta do it. Acknowledge the protest. ***One more screed The following story has been floating around the net, attributed to Charles Phillip Whitedog. I don't have an email address for Mr. Whitedog. His signature reads "Charles Phillip Whitedog, Ojibway and Network Man; Multimission Ground Systems Office (Mission Control); Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA "About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City where the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the lunar surface. With all the trucks and large vehicles were two large figures that were dressed in full Lunar spacesuits. "Nearby, a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked for him what the strange creatures were and the NASA people told them that they are just men that are getting ready to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts. "The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message they asked his son to translate. His son would not. "Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. "Finally, with cash in hand, someone translated the message: 'Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land.'" ***I felt sorry for him! I did eventually talk with Rick, and at 10:30PM I drove to San Francisco to get my picture taken by him, and to chat with some of the people doing the "24 Hours in Cyberspace" project. Rick had been up for 36 hours. You could tell. Look in his eyes. He's barely standing up. I felt sorry for him! We don't understand each other. Yes, there is a blue ribbon on the 24 Hours website, <http://www.cyber24.com/>. Cooool -- kind of. But it doesn't go anywhere, it's not a link. It's just a picture. And in that I think we have the perfect metaphor for Rick's project. Smolan could be an online journalist if he wants to be one. By an accident of history, he could have been a *great* online journalist. In a real sense, the first one. Welcome Rick! I said in "Holding Hands in Cyberspace". ***But... Imagine running CNN on the day of a big plane crash. And not covering it. (That sounds like an Alanis Morissette song!) You have the co-pilot of the plane on camera. And he talks drivel about the global environment. Ouch! Rick was asleep during his 24 Hours. But, as Howard says, there's still time. For me, I've had to take a stand against a man I admire. And I hate that! So what? Dave Winer PS: The most eloquent rant I've seen on this stuff so far. Read it all the way thru. Be patient. Now you understand what's really going on. <http://www.hotwired.com/userland/steverussell_495.html>. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Webmasters: <http://www.hotwired.com/userland/theblueribbon_489.html> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Re: Tell me whats wrong with this
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:37 PM 2/8/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >First, most televisions and VCRs are currently equipped with the >"O-Switch," which parents have long been using to turn content on and off. I agree strongly with Tim on this one. The one time the OFF switch didn't work for me with my sons, (the disagreement was about quantity, not content), I used wire cutters on the cable. Very effective. Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: violating politicians privacy
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> well, I take it as assumed correct that illegally violating the > credit and personal information of member os Congress (might as well > include the Clintons and the Gores) would get a response on privacy. _Is_ it violating their privacy to get their credit information? After all, they're applying for some mighty big loans from everybody, and putting everybody who pays US taxes down as a credit reference.... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

2 1

Re: Encryption and Backups
by mch＠squirrel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 4, 14:13, Alan Olsen wrote: } Subject: Encryption and Backups } Something that I have not seen addressed is the need for strong encryption } in backup software. } } Most backup software has an "encryption" option, but I have seen few that } have anything resembling strong encryption. Furthermore, I have seen no } real push for strong encryption for backups at all. GNU tar is not the commercial backup solution many folks will be looking for, but it works, and has nice built-in hooks which are intended to call a compression program. One can also use these options to call an encryption program, as long as the encryption program takes stdin as input, stdout as output, encrypts by default, and decrypts when given the -d option. e.g. if the encryption program happens to be called /usr/local/bin/mg, something like gtar --use-compress-program /usr/local/bin/mg --block-compress -b 96 -cvf /dev/rst0 directory will backup "directory" to tape in encrypted form under Sun OS 4.1.3 It also has support for incrementals, etc. -- Mark Henderson -- markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca, henderso(a)netcom.com, mch(a)squirrel.com PGP 1024/C58015E3 fingerprint=21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 cryptography archive maintainer -- ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto/sun-stuff/change-sun-hostid-1.6.2.tar.gz

1 0

Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:25 AM 2/5/96 -0500, you wrote: >Probably the easiest way of ensuring that personal information isn't >wantonly distributed by credit agencies or (anyone else) is to update >our Privacy Act - which is ridiculously out-of-date and badly in need of >being re-written. It is also hampered by its apparent lack of teeth. The parts of the Privacy Act that I remember are all restrictions on _government_ actions, not private actions. It's an important distinction; even though TRW may know way too much about you, it's all information that you voluntarily released to somebody, unlike data that the government requires you to give them. And, yes, it's out-of-date and toothless. ... >If the Privacy Act were rewritten to be as strict as the BDSG, businesses >would have a (mandatory) legal requirement to: ... >o Ensure that databases are *not* being maintained which describe the > characteristics of individuals (buying habits, income, property > ownership, etc) wantonly propagated by marketing (direct mail, > telemarketing, etc) companies. If you're going to propose laws, you should not only think about whether they'll do what you want, but also about what else they'll do, how they'll be enforced, what are the side effects of that enforcement, etc. How is the government going to ensure _non_existence of databases? If I'm a prosecutor, and claim that you _might_ have personal data about somebody on your machines beyond the Politically Correct Data Elements, can I get a search warrant for _all_ your databases? What about that encrypted file on your PC at work? Such things have been used to hold personal data before (even by police like the LAPD or Stasi.) No thanks. If you want to require that a database exists, then a business can demonstrate that they have it by producing it (though proving whether or not in really includes all transactions is still difficult.) On the other hand, if you don't make the law adequately enforceable, you're encouraging violation and selective enforcement. >o the promotion of the use & implementation of encryption - including > the possibility of ITAR being reduced or eliminated for the export > of encryption products Yes! GAKed encryption, to be sure - once there's a requirement that you be able to produce your data for the government, they'll discover that they need guaranteed access to data that would otherwise be guaranteed inaccessible by strong encryption. >o reduced propagation of personal information A much stronger way to increase privacy is to eliminate one of the most popular unique keys used by these databases - the Social Security Number which the government requires you to give almost anybody who gives you money. Give each taxpayer a pile of taxid numbers (either cryptographically related, or just randomly generated and stored in a big tax-department database) so you can use a different taxid for everyone who needs one, making it impossible for anybody but the government to correlate them. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

What is really happening in Oregon
by Joe Zychik 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpted from today's Zychik Chronicle The Los Angeles Times writes: "rivers raged through Oregon" [should say "Oregon taxpayers sunk by Oregon government"]. "the regions worst flooding in three decades" [should say, "State of Oregon has been wasting tax payer money for 30 years"]. "At least 3 deaths were attributed to the flooding [should say, "State of Oregon kills 3 more innocent citizens"]. "13 counties were declared a disaster area [should say, "State of Oregon has been screwing these 13 counties especially"] "And the worst is yet to come" [the citizens will blame the weather]. "Rats by the hundreds started crawling out of Portland's sewers" [should say, "The parents of Oregon's politicians and bureaucrats came forward."] ------------ The Zychik Chronicle is a daily, liberty oriented e-zine. To subscribe send e-mail with sub-cy in the header. jz

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 AM 2/9/96 -0500, olbon(a)dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II) wrote: >There is one potential side-benefit to the V-chip -- The inverse-V-chip .. >I am looking forward to a time when I will never, even accidentally, have >my TV tuned to "Full House" ;-) Just as many people program their televisions using VCR-Plus codes to record the shows they want (using TV Guide as a rating service) it would be easy for any rating service to publish a list of the codes for Approved Shows, Banned Shows, Rated-by-interestingness shows, etc. without putting any government-mandated rating chip in the TVs or forcing the TV producers to rate them (which also has a chilling effect on the shows produced.) #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Sorry to post this question here, but I know of no other group with >folks who would know. Have any of the "spiders" such as Alta Vista >been sent to see just how many US sites have been blackened in the >protest? The approximate number and percentage of US sites blackened >might be interesting. In my limited surfing, I have been gratified >to see the _widespread_ response -- but I am not the typical user. I don't think it's updated enough things recently (or else it only indexes the contents of a page and not the header details in the <BODY> statement.) For instance, BGCOLOR="#000000" had 197 hits, but most of them were old, and on topics like "How to set the background colors on your web page", and NO documents matched both BGCOLOR="#000000" and vtw. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:28 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Duncan wrote, regarding the appallingly invasive British Privacy Act: >Computer bureaux which process personal data for others or allow data users >to process personal data on their computers must also register. Their >register entries will contain only their name and address. > >Data users and computer bureaux who should register but do not, are >committing a criminal offence, as are those operating outside the >descriptions contained in their register entries. In these cases the >Registrar regularly prosecutes. The penalty for non-registration can be a >fine of up to =A35,000 plus costs in the Magistrates Courts, or an= unlimited >fine in the Higher Courts." Ouch - does this mean that if you offer shell accounts, you either have to contractually limit the processing your users may do, or be fined as a criminal for not registering? #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com= +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:39 AM 2/9/96 -0800, jamesd wrote: >If you have one law for men who run businesses and one law [for] other folks, >then we have selective enforcement and application of the laws, >that enables governments to act selectively and capriciously. >For example here in California private citizens who attempt to organize >recall elections are often subject to extraordinary and confiscatory fines. On the other hand, of course, there are laws that are ostensibly for the purposes of regulating businesses whose primary effect is to limit the privacy or actions of individuals. For instance, California's law requiring that mailbox renters provide two forms of ID and make their mailbox companies agents for service of process is ostensibly to "protect" consumers by regulating businesses that operate out of mailboxes (which the law claims there are 7 million of here); it furthermore lets the Post Office specify what kind of ID to use (which some local postmasters are far more extreme about than others), and requires revealing True Addresses. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

Re: A temporal remailing (was: CDA = death of crypto)
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 3:26 AM 2/7/96, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >>CDA means that virtually all underground or 'illegal' traffic will be >>distributed via encryption. >> >>As soon as the loony right and fundo Christians realise this, they *will* >>call for legislation against encryption, and if the CDA is any benchmark, >>they will easily win. > > >4-1-99. NYT: > > "Congress Passes "Children's Protection and Safe Information Highways" Bill" > > "In a vote of 479-12 in the House of Representatives and 93-5 in the >Senate, the "Children's Protection and Safe Information Highways Bill" was >sent to the President, who is expected to sign it on Thursday. > > "The Bill criminalizes the possession of unauthorized cryptographic >programs and extends the Telecom Act of 1996 and the Digital Telephony Act >of 1994 to regulate the new cyberspace frontier. > > "Attorney-General Louis Freeh pushed for the legislation, citing the >growing use of cryptography by dissidents and criminals. "We are hoping >Congress will next pass the "Secure and Decent Cyberspace Bill." This bill, >nick-named the "Crypto-Kingpins Bill," will subject traffickers in illegal >crypto to the same harsh penalties meted out to drug kingpins. "While it >may seem harsh to execute a person for possession of a key greater than 60 >bits, we must consider the terrible consequences for our children of people >writing down things the government cannot read," Freeh said. > > > BAD_nws So the're going to arrest us all? It's unconstitutional (of course!) and unenforcable. It will have the same effect as Prohibition. lunaslide On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C 2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0 0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk= =OIT9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: Why am I wrong?
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>(Was referring to the govs ability to control communications *with them*) >>Perhaps I do not understand your point. They can perhaps >>control the communication between them and me, but not between me and >>everyone else. > >Ok please view my three points fromn the standpoint that so much of the >total traffic would be affected by at least one, that "uncontrolled" >communications would be minimal. Do you mean readable by "controlled"? I thought I knew what you meant by that :-) If you do mean readable, I don't see how that would make a difference since so many people would still be encrypting their mail. If you mean controled as in being able to encrypt messages would be controlled, that the govt. would have final say over whether one could encrypt or not, then unless they pass legislation specifically outlawing encryption, or encryption not readable by them, they could have no such control. Even if they did legislate, they could not enforce reliably because to many would be breaking that law anyway. Plus, the law would (should, he says kneeling and praying) be struck down as unconstitutional by the fourth. > >>>2) communications using someone else's equipment/network (university, >>> employer, etc) > >>Employers nor universities have any jurisdiction over whether you use >>encryption in your transmissions while using their networks unless it >>specifically does not allow it when you first agree to have an account with >>them. > >I think you had better review the concept of "property rights". Unless you >have a contract that says you can, or can establish "expectation", the >property owner who allows you to use their equipment may control how it is >used. Perhaps I had better. I do know that if employers do have jurisdiction, then my point about employers encouraging encryption should still hold (barring legislative prohibition). If it does not, then I conceed that you are correct in saying that it would *affect* traffic, but it would not totally control it. As for universities, the traffic here would be affected as well, as you say. There would still have to be some justification for imposing such a restriction and it would be demanded by the students and the parents of the students, but it still could be sucessful (how frightening this is!) >>>3) communications with anyone (Internet merchant, etc) who says "this >>> is not what <MasterCard|Visa|AmEx> approves..." > >>I don't quite understand your meaning. I am a merchant and I encourage my >>customers to use PGP when they send information over the internet, whether >>to me or to anyone else. > >That is fine but what if MasterCard refuses to accept this method ? (Not >saying they will, just "what if" ? You are free to use digicash if you >want but is not "legal tender for all debts public and private". I think that the comming standards announced by credit companies will take care of secure transactions, and I still don't see where the govt. would have to do with controlling traffic here. Just as we have many credit cards, we will have many online accounts, each with their methods of secure, verifiable trasactions. Methods for payment and security will become increasingly easy to use and software will be written to accomidate these features. >>Comments? Bring 'em on! :-) > >I dood it. The debates roll on... lunaslide On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C 2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0 0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk= =OIT9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:21 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote: > Private individuals are not what I was refering to. I am more >concerned about corporations who hold information about me and release it >to the highest bidder. When it comes to individual versus corporate >rights, I am clearly on the side of the individual. Remember that there's a major difference between "corporations" and "business"; you seem to be mixing them up. A corporation is a legal fiction that treats a cooperative effort by one or more people as if it were a person in itself, and normally involves limiting the liability of the corporation's investors by putting it all on the fictional person. A business is what one or more people do to make money. Most corporations are businesses, though not all. Governments can legitimately tell corporations what to do because that's part of the price of the legal fiction; a government can't abuse a corporation because you can't beat up a legal fiction, though it can say "Poof! You're not a legal fiction any more", and conversely, if the people who own the legal fiction don't like what the government's telling it to do, they can dissolve it. (Governments also enjoy regulating non-corporate businesses, but they're no longer on solid moral ground.) > I have also not suggested some form of prior restraint that would >require government access to computers. I simply suggest that should a >violation occur, that I have the right of civil and criminal law as a >recourse to both compensate me for my loss of privacy as well as deter >future damage. A company knowing that civil and criminal penalties could >result from a violation would take extra care to ensure the security of >my data. How are you going to _know_ that a "violation" occurred, if company A tells company B your address or favorite liquor? Only by having access to the records of both companies. Getting that through the courts, for only the parts of their information relevant to you, is better than blanket permission for the government to rummage through their files, but after the first lawsuit lets investigators in, everything they've got is clam bait anyway. It's still major privacy violation - for the company whose machines are being violated, and for the non-suing individuals whose data is also on those machines. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

1 0

Re: What is really happening in Oregon
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:29 PM 2/9/96 -0800, Joe Zychik wrote: >Excerpted from today's Zychik Chronicle > >The Los Angeles Times writes: "rivers raged through Oregon" [should say >"Oregon taxpayers sunk by Oregon government"]. "the regions worst flooding >in three decades" [should say, "State of Oregon has been wasting tax payer >money for 30 years"]. "At least 3 deaths were attributed to the flooding >[should say, "State of Oregon kills 3 more innocent citizens"]. "13 counties >were declared a disaster area [should say, "State of Oregon has been >screwing these 13 counties especially"] "And the worst is yet to come" [the >citizens will blame the weather]. "Rats by the hundreds started crawling out >of Portland's sewers" [should say, "The parents of Oregon's politicians and >bureaucrats came forward."] You need to cut back on your medication (or increase it). The water damage in oregon has little to do with the action or inaction of government. It has much more to do with a strange set of weather patterns in Oregon. (Mainly a whole lot of snow and ice followed by heavy rains.) Right now the weather here is just creating lots of land slides and flooding. The worst seems over for now. Time to wait for the water to recede and then clean up the mess. How this can be blamed on the Oregon State government is beyond me... What it has do do with Cypherpunks, I have no idea... (Not even much of a conspiracy there.) Sounds like someone just wnats to rant. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan, > badly as you are upset. That is why some of us want less legislation > and less regulation to minimize just this sort of human suffering. > Maybe next time those of you who are into "proactive" government > will think before you crush other people's lives. > That's why I support Lamar Alexander! <BG>. Another "Logical Conclusion" by: Tim Cook <twcook(a)cts.com> Support THE US Constitution... Vote Alexander in '96 and '00!

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I put I time line I've been keeping for my own reference up at: http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/commerce/line.html > --> The following is an extension of a timeline detailing the protocol > battles for Internet side credit card encryption and "processing" that > was an appendix of a paper Brett Leida and myself wrote. (One day it > will be on-line, as you can see, our argument that Visa/MC should > cooperate was a good one!)] > > I'll add to it as time goes on, and hopefully updates should find > there way to the web server eventually. > > I tried to provide the best reference I could, you can try to email me > if you need more info... > > _______________________ Regards, Talent develops in tranquillity, character in the full current of human life. -Goethe Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu 0C 69 D4 E8 F2 70 24 33 B4 5E 5E EC 35 E6 FB 88

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>We ought to speak out against this Chineese net, and start asking >questions about Western companies that are collaborating in its >construction. *definitely*! >We ought to allow the free export of any crypto tools to any country for >any reason. No! You have no duty to promote an entity that actively acts against your fundamental principles >But if there are going to be any restrictions at all, it >ought to be on tools used for anti-democratic controls. The essence of the measure, or guideline stated in your previous paragraph is to protect freedom and the individual. Therefore, we must *personnally* put try to act in a way compatible with our basic view of how life should really be.

1 0

The V-Chip glass is half full
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As a incurable optimist, I would like to offer a view contrary to all the V-Chip doom and gloom. Consider the Movie rating system as a precedent. In the old days there was a rating system in Hollywood which made it impossible to show a married couple sleeping in the same bed. This situation is analogous to modern TV where George Carlin's 7 naughty words may not be spoken. Contrast that with today's movies. There is a much wider latitude about the movies you can make and distribute. All you have to do is label them NC-17, R. or X and you are clean. Of course, there are newspapers which will not allow you to advertise and theaters which will not show the X/NC-17 movies, but that's the way the market works. With some luck, we will be able to see on TV what we can now see in the movie theater, and the prudes will screen it out with the V-Chip the same way they now screen it out with the movie rating. Everyone is (more or less) happy. Panglossianly yours - Bill

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David K. Merriman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 08:27 AM 02/9/96 -0800, Simon Spero <ses(a)tipper.oit.unc.edu> wrote: > > The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of > >the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. > > So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more tolerable later. > ['Fornicate' isn't really a synonym for 'fuck' - only single people can 'fornicate', but married people can still 'fuck' (though apparently there isn't the same motivation)] Basic laws of politics... The reason the telecommunications bill got signed into law in spite of the Exon ammendment is that the bill it was attached to was politically unvetoable. Not only was telecommunications reform an important part of the Clinton/Gore Agenda from 92, but also the amount of lobbying and financial muscle being put behind the bill was such that a veto just because of the CDA would not have been sustained - further, such a veto would be perfect fodder for this Autumn's festival of negative delights. Since it is clear that the courts must reject this part of the bill, it's better to denounce the measure, but sign the bill anyway, knowing that the nasty bits will be cut out (or rather, the nasty bits won't be ... oh, you know what I mean). If the CDA wasn't so blatantly unconstitutional, then I believe that the President would have vetoed it- the anti-abortion elements make it completely unacceptable; however, since the courts really have no choice but to remove the indeceny provisions, Bill gets a pretty nice equivalent of a retroactive line-item veto. Simon p.s. Talking about Negative Ad's: there's a great new book out called "Going Negative" by Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar. This book is an extended write up of some extremely well designed experiments designed to measure the effect of poltical advertisments on the public. For perhaps the first time ever in the Social Sciences, the authors performed actual, real, honest to goodness experiements, and the data are quite convincing. The most worrying results are that 1) Political advertising is isomorphic to the prisoners dilemma, and once an opponent uses a negative ad, the only way to respond is with counter-attacks 2) One of the main effects of negative advertising is not to change peoples votes, but to reduce turnout.

1 0