December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the FCC's Reed Hundt, the Internet community is "governmentally challenged." But then, the commission's chairman honestly believes that FCC stands for "Friendly to Computer Communications." Yeah, right. That's what he said in a speech this week. The FCC faxed it to me today after I returned from a Cato Institute conference -- where, ironically enough, we spent a day talking about private ordering of the Net. The concept makes a kind of intrinsic sense to me: who needs government subsidies for Net connections when an account is just $10/month? The first half of the fax was mangled, thanks to the FCC's anything-but-high-tech communications technology, so I shoved it in my pocket and went for pizza with folks from the conference -- Eugene Volokh, Charles Platt, Duncan Frissel, Alan Lewine, Solveig Bernstein, and Brian LaMacchia. We chatted -- surprise! -- about the Feds' future Net-regulation attempts. When I got home and unfolded the fax, I found I could read the second half. It was horrific. While Hundt did say he'd keep the FCC's hands off of Net-telephony, he called for universal service for the Net. Universal service is bad, from an economic perspective, for the same reason that any subsidy scheme is bad: you're taking money out of one part of the economy and pushing it into another. It's also vulnerable to DC lobbyists in tasseled cordovan loafers descending on Capitol Hill calling for more cash. Hundt's scheme is more damming than it looks at first. In his speech, Hundt calls for reconsidering how the FCC will "vote next year on a new universal service funding mechanism." This slush fund isn't funded from general taxpayer revenues. The 1996 Telecom dereg act directs the FCC to rework the payment mechanism that feeds the universal service fund that all phone service providers must pay into. It does things like make urban customers pay more to subsidize rural telephone service. Companies that are eligible for subsidies suck cash from the fund -- and of course lobby for more along the way. Now Hundt seems to want to wire schools from this fund. (And what else? He doesn't quite say.) To replace the money from the account, the FCC has to grab more from phone companies, which means higher phone bills. Does this make sense or what? -Declan (PS: Note Hundt's email address is rhundt(a)fcc.gov.) ********* (Keystroked by declan(a)well.com) Reed Hundt speech excerpts: "My hope is that the power of the Internet will forcedrive our two-point FCC agenda -- competition in communications and public benefits from communications. That's why we've resisted all efforts to bring Internet communication within the out of date regulatory scheme we have inherited at the FCC. "The challenge now is for the govenmentally challenged Internet community to figure out how to talk to the FCC on this subject and what to say? After all, FCC stands for Friendly to Computer Communications. After all I'm the first FCC chairman ever to be on the Net -- so let me know -- rhundt(a)fcc.gov. What should our policies for bandwidth growth look like? "Now I'd like to move on to the second aspect of Hundt's Law, which is that everyone needs access to the Internet, either at home, at school, or in a library. Metcalfe's Law only applies when people can access the network, and if they know how to take advantage of the network access that is available to them... So even if we are successful in meeting the bandwidth challenge, we must still ensure that there is access. [...] "The investment to network our schools and libraries is so small and the payoff so large. Look at the math... Can it be that we have a 700 billion-dollar-a-year information technology industry and yet we can't afford to give every teacher the tools we give every shipping clerk at Wal Mart? Or that we could afford to network every classroom by the beginning of the next century, but somehow we just neglected to do it? At the FCC we will vote next year on a new universal service funding mechanism... The challenge I'm talking about is to provide bandwidth and access to all Americans, but especially in kids in classrooms... [Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the difference. --Declan] ###

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: (in quoting Reed Hundt) >"The investment to network our schools and libraries is so small and >the payoff so large. Look at the math... Can it be that we have a 700 >billion-dollar-a-year information technology industry and yet we can't >afford to give every teacher the tools we give every shipping clerk at >Wal Mart? Or that we could afford to network every classroom by the >beginning of the next century, but somehow we just neglected to do it? >At the FCC we will vote next year on a new universal service funding >mechanism... The challenge I'm talking about is to provide bandwidth >and access to all Americans, but especially in kids in classrooms... > >[Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a >private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the >government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the >difference. --Declan] Correct. And if "we" fund universal service, then "we" don't want to see anything on the Net about non-GAK crypto, the right to bear arms, freedom of association, chemistry, non-clothed persons, taxes, etc. etc. "We" feel that many if not "all American, but especially kids in classrooms" would be injured by these thoughts.

1 0

G48_bul
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CIAC has issued Bulletin G-48 on the denial-of-service attacks by TCP SYN flooding and IP spoofing. Two "underground magazines" for intruders have recently published code to conduct denial-of-service attacks by creating TCP "half open" connections. Any system connected to the Internet and providing TCP-based network services such as a Web server, FTP server, or mail server is potentially subject to this attack. Systems providing TCP-based services to the Internet community may be unable to provide those services while under attack and for some time after the attack ceases. See the bulletin below for information on how to protect your site from these attacks. ----- http://jya.com/g48bul.txt (15 kb) G48_bul

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:04 AM 9/21/96, David M. Rose wrote: >On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>[Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a >>private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the >>government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the >>difference. --Declan] > >Correct. And if "we" fund universal service, then "we" don't want to see >anything on the Net about non-GAK crypto, the right to bear arms, freedom of >association, chemistry, non-clothed persons, taxes, etc. etc. "We" feel >that many if not "all American, but especially kids in classrooms" would be >injured by these thoughts. This is a terribly important point. If the "universal access" scheme is approved and deployed, it gets the government back into the regulation of the Net business. (I'm speaking of the "regulation of the Net" of the sort that existed some years back, when "appropriate use" (scientific, technical, educational, etc.) was the watchword, and casual chatter, GIFs, etc. were called "inappropriate" by some. The Constitutional issues of free speech would remain mostly unchanged even if "universal access" happens, but the government would definitely get more of a foot in the door than it has now. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Private Idaho 2.8b beta release
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The beta release of Private Idaho 2.8b is now available at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi.html. (Previous beta testers can get an updated version of just the executable at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi_list.html) Private Idaho is a freeware PGP, anonymous remailer, and nym server front-end for Windows (all versions). Some of the new features in the latest release include: ------------------ Automatic encrypt/decrypt of PIDAHO.INI, NYMS.TXT, PUBKEYS.OUT Automatic encrypt/decrypt of SECRING.PGP and PUBRING.PGP nym.alias.net support Generate key pair command Load passphrase at startup Submit key to MIT server command Get key from MIT server command (must have Net connection) Update remailer info command (must have Net connection) Get remailer keys command (must be have Net connection) Remailer newsgroup header command Delete nym command Attachment support Bug reports, comments, and questions, as always to: joelm(a)eskimo.com

1 0

Re: Free RSA chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:04 PM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >I secured a 30 page data sheet for the new NTT (actually NLC, a subsidiary >of NTT) RSA accelerator chips. The NLC0048 LSI chip can handle keys up to >1024 bits. The secret key can be stored on-chip. If you want a copy of the >data sheet, email me your fax number. > >Furthermore, I have *one* sample chip that I am willing to loan to >somebody in the SF Bay Area with sufficient hardware knowledge to put the >chip to good use. If you think you qualify, let me know who you are and >why you think that you should get the chip. I apologize in advance to the >qualified candidates that do not get the chip. There is only one (that I >can loan out). I don't want the chip, but I'd like to know a few things. 1. How much of a secure telephone does it contain? a. voice A/D/A? b. modem A/D/A DSP? c. Keyboard multiplex? d. control microprocessor? e. Encryption section? 2. Is there any indication that NT+T has worked with any other manufacturers to design some sort of inter-telephone negotiation standard, one that would allow the kind of inter-compatibility that modems have today? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: IBM_gak
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:17 AM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Young wrote: >> 9-15-96. PcWe: >> "IBM Boosts Encryption Initiative " >> >> IBM security initiatives next month will include a >> new way to build encryption into software and >> technology that could enable U.S. companies to export >> products with strong encryption algorithms. IBM also >> will introduce several "key-recovery" technologies >> that could enable businesses to satisfy the >> requirement imposed by the U.S. government that it be >> able to access encrypted data on demand. > >Aparently, Al Gore's recent phone calls to everybody who is anybody in the >industry have paid off. After HP, TIS, and other unnamed parties, now IBM >is supporting GAK. Folks, this battle is lost. Domestic GAK is coming to >a PKI near you. So, the "Little Tramp" and the "Great Dictator" turn out to be one and the same... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:33 PM 9/16/96 -0400, hallam(a)ai.mit.edu wrote: > >>Yet another obligatory AP (Assassination Politics) reference: If a person >>is really interested in helping out "starving children" he may be able to do >>far more good by purchasing the death of the local tyrant(s), rather than >>(just) buying more food. > > >The problem is that assasination rarely leads to the installation of >a government that is any better. In most cases it gets worse. There is an enormous difference in significance between the following two scenarios: 1. Tyrant A, speaking outside, gets struck by a meteorite and is instantly killed. He is immediately replaced by his second-in-command. 2. Tyrant B is told that he has been threatened with a meteorite strike by an opponent in an hour if he goes on with his speech, he ignores the "unbelievable" warning, and dies on schedule, just as he was warned, struck by a meteorite. What should his vice-thug do in THIS case?!? Physically, the same thing happened: Big boom. But the implications are vastly different. Incident 1 looks like a freak of nature that's unlikely to be repeated. It leads to very few policy changes or changes in precautions. It was a fluke. Incident 2 looks like somebody has developed a new weapon of practically supernatural capabilities. This difference is why I scoff at your attempts to equate political assassination in the past with what will be accomplished in the future. (other people have made this mistake as well; it's a common misunderstanding.) In the past, assassinations have often led to worse replacements, but that is because there is no likely prospect that the assassination will be repeated, as many times as needed, until the job is done. Partly that's because assassinations were often seen to be the work of "lone nuts" (who don't come around all that often), or because they were done by the very people who take over. In either case, the prospects of a repeat are rather low. As anyone who really understands my AP theory recognizes, getting rid of an unwanted leader will become so easy and cheap (on a per-citizen basis) that nobody would dare take the job who angered more than a tiny fraction of the population. A "worse" government would simply never be formed, unless they were suicidal. >In the past the US excuse for supporting bloodthirsty murderers like >Pinochet, Saddam, Marcos and Noriega was that the alternative was >worse. The _truth_, however, is that the alternative was worse...for the US government. It's really very simple: Let me draw an analogy. Modern organophosphate pesticides were initially developed by German chemists in the 1930's. These materials are closely related to Sarin, the well-known nerve agent that killed people in the Tokyo subway attack over a year ago. It turns out that Sarin is a rather simple molecule. Why not use it to kill bugs? Well, it kills bugs just fine. The problem, of course, is that it kills farmers just as well. Since you presumably don't want to do that, you have to go to all the trouble to find compounds that kill bugs, but are as non-toxic as possible to farmers. And if you look at the description of the contents of modern organophosphate pesticides on the bottles, you see names that only a chemist could possibly pronounce, names so long (because their molecules were so complex) that you often have to take a breath in the middle to recite. These compounds were found by individually synthesizing thousands, or even tens of thousands of compounds, and testing each one. Individually. Eventually, they found compounds which were as toxic to bugs as Sarin is to humans, but were far less toxic to humans. They found the needle in the haystack. Likewise, as I've discovered through AP, it will be easy to get rid of tyrants. The exquisitely difficult task is to get rid of ONLY SOME of the tyrants, for example Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi, etc, and leaving most of the rest behind. _THAT'S_ the tricky part. I have the easy task: describing a system to get rid of them all, with no exceptions. But that's the system that nobody in the leadership of any current country wants to see. That is why you won't see Clinton announcing that he's going to use my idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and instead will waste hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in a failed bid to eject the thug. Doesn't that make you feel a lot safer? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

6 5

Lexis-Nexis scare = opportunity
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been reading articles about the recent flap over Lexis-Nexis' P-TRAK database with interest. A recent Associated Press article said that the lines at Lexis-Nexis have been jammed with individuals requesting they be removed from the database. Lexis-Nexis is certainly not the only database of its kind, but it has certainly generated quit a bit of attention and panic In terms of cypherpunk goals, I think this is a positive development. It demonstrates ever-so-clearly that the average "Joe Schmoe" does not follow the government line that privacy and security are mutually exclusive concepts. Rather, there is an instinctive recognition that privacy and security are inextricably linked. Only when the government pulls on emotional (as opposed to logical) strings by pulling out the "if you only knew what we knew" & "if it saves just one life" arguments does the easily swayed public get pulled in the other direction. The flap over P-TRAK repudiates arguments by Freeh and others that American citizens want to give up their freedoms in the interest of security. If you are in a position to influence government policy (ie. Jim Ray with Judge Kozinski, EFF personages involved in the Bernstein case, PRO-CODE advocates, et al.), then keep these clippings handy. Here is a concrete example that our government and law-enforcement leaders are woefully out of touch with average citizens (not to mention reality!). The leap from P-TRAK to GAK is not that large in the so-called court of public opinion. Sometimes monkey-wrenching is as simple as pointing out the obvious. me _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto: omega(a)bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: ANYONES CREDIT CARD # per your request.
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Sep 21 12:32:13 1996 > > > Note: Lexis-Nexis is only accepting written or fax requests. You > have the > > > option to fax your removal request to (513) 865-1930 state your full > name > > > and complete address. Or mail the request to: > > > Lexis-Nexis > > > Attn: P-Track > > > P.O. Box 933 > > > Dayton, Ohio > > > 45401-0933 According to the 800 number, you may also be removed from their database by sending a letter to p-trak(a)prod.lexis-nexis.com. You need to send your name and address, and probably your Citizen- Unit Social Insecurity Number. dave - ----- David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail with subject of "send pgp-key" for my PGP public key "The world's at stake. Don't confuse me with details." -- Captain America, "Onslaught" ... famous last words -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMkQmnzVTwUKWHSsJAQEClgf/XsSOwYPANaQBXVg+vq/Oh5qgqEMZtyxZ CVy45RYlulXWKMixmWMn7OkebSug53xVfQoBR5SlZ3oCXN+KlQm0bLI1MKiiO0nv SlRz35x6O2lkXXQcyBF1brrk++1uXRQRsKIACh/ceTdMkkTyUk+u0imRschGslqp L84BVvhi/VVASrCgmY5HbwkeeqNlzDUpa5uD9ST10G9UvCMrf6IexEOzvGvfCzmt CFOELYK6e8iiVkP8sPQgj+yQaP08LyezlYuSRu+GcZhr3QljCuOjUghjCIe/aoJk 7RRSiGC/GXGtO/Ut5pOiTOkWmaTPiHUsxnb4cX2lijLyI+jXy5K5qA== =vyc3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:58 PM 9/20/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote: >> My comment: Once the big Corp.'s get used to the new game, they'll put >> the non-critical stuff out there for Mr. Freeh, and for the really >> secret data, if the cops confiscate anything they can't read, the Corp. >> security will put it off on a fall-guy, even as high as the CEO if >> necessary. I just wanna see one case where a federal judge will try to >> bleed a big company for contempt for "refusing" to decode and hand over >> some ostensibly encrypted data. Matter of fact, there are probably cases >> similar to this that have already been through the appeals courts. > >Several. Most involve foreign banks refusing to turn over records to U.S. >courts. Most result in powerfully large fines imposed on banks, often on >a per diem basis. But as usual, you ignore the obvious solution to the problem. Let's suppose the amount of the fine is set at $1000 per day. Actuarially, this works out to be the interest (at 5% per year) on $7.3 million dollars in principle. In other words, if you can eliminate the fine for less than $7.3 million, you're better off doing it. Naturally, you won't even consider the possibility of going outside the system to solve a problem. The rest of us notice that there are probably thousands of terminally-ill people who would gladly act as a human kamikaze and get rid of any judge inclined to impose such a fine, for a payment of 1% of this principle amount to a family member or loved one, leaving 99% available for the few other judges foolish enough to basically commit suicide by taking up a futile gesture. This kind of operation is best arranged by what might be described as an "insurance company," which will divide the risk among client companies until everyone learns what the score really is. It wouldn't take long before no such fines are ever imposed. But nah, this is much too complex for you. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA 1.3 Now Available
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Remo Pini (rp(a)rpini.com) wrote: : To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com : Date: Thu Sep 19 09:07:16 1996 : Has it already been exported by some sinister anonymous? If so, where? ftp.replay.com:/pub/replay/pub/remailer/wsa13.zip where else ...? -- Alex de Joode | Replay IP Service & Web DZign -- The Netherlands usura(a)replay.com | http://www.replay.com mailto:info@replay.com

1 0

Re: ANYONES CREDIT CARD # per your request.
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 PM 9/21/96 -0500, David E. Smith wrote: > >According to the 800 number, you may also be removed from >their database by sending a letter to p-trak(a)prod.lexis-nexis.com. >You need to send your name and address, and probably your Citizen- >Unit Social Insecurity Number. True. You *do* have to give your Social Insecurity Number ["SIN"(tm)]. While they have discontinued publishing SIN's, they have them in their databanks and require you to state it as their way of "verifying" that it is the "real" you making the request to be removed. ************************************************************ Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; lharrison(a)mhv.net | - Survive; http://www.dueprocess.com | - Go to bed." ************************************************************ DISCLAIMER: I am not your attorney; you are not my client. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

1 0

Where to write crypto?
by Dan McGuirk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I want to go to a country outside the United States to write cryptographic code that will be freely distributable, what's the best place to go?

2 2

Re: timmy waxes a widdle on AP
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:11 PM 9/17/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > but I'm still a bit confused about those prices. what determines > them, anyway? risk to the assassin? it seems that it ought to be > as easy to snuff out one person as it would another. e.g. everybody > walks alone out at night at different times, it seems. Although government services to the rich and poor cost about the same, the quality is radically different. Thus the risk involved in killing a poor person is vastly less than the risk involved in killing a middle class person. This is most noticeable in education, where black children are kept in holding pens with leaky roofs, masquerading as schools, for a cost that would suffice to build classrooms with a hot tub in each classroom and a pentium on every desk, even if we burnt the classroom down with the equipment inside every year and and replaced it every year. On the other hand, food, clothing, and transport, being provided for money by the free market, tend to be roughly equal for rich and poor. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 2

Re: Quantum Computers
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:09 AM 9/18/96 -0400, Rick Osborne wrote: > I'm sorry if I seem to be making light of a very serious topic, but, last > time I checked, computers don't have a reverse. Quantum computers *do* have a reverse. Indeed even when operated in classical mode they *still* have a reverse. A quantum computer is a reversible computer operated at very high speed and very low energy. Reversible computers were invented before quantum computers. Reversible computer were invented in order to demonstrate that there was no lower limit to the energy required to perform certain computational tasks. Later people speculated, and very recently demonstrated that a reversible computer operated in the quantum regime could do things that no classical computer could do. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: [Noise] anonymous bacon
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:28 AM 9/21/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >Jonathan Corbet wrote: [Government Access to Meat stuff from Risks deleted] > >Did you ever see one of those mattress tags which reads something like >"removal of this tag is a violation of ..... and is punishable by ..."? >They could tag the stuff, then make it a violation of law to cut the >meat before final consumption. The IRS is very concerned about barter, >and besides, how are you gonna go half way on legislating against >untraceable barter (other than to prohibit dividing the beef)? And meat tenderizers would be outlawed, because it would be viewed as an effort to obscure the markings. (You could be sent to jail for beating your meat!) Think of the legal liability for selling someone meat that is later involved with the drug trade! The way the laws are going, you could lose everything for selling a steak to a known drug user. Soon you would have meat market laws similar to the alcohol laws in Utah. You will have to eat the steak on the premises, in front of a government authorized and licensed vendor. (Until the cholesterol police make meat consumption a crime.) Soon we will have gangs fighting over the illegal meat trade. Meat will be murder! Instead of "drive-ins", we will have "drive-bys". Government will have an even bigger reason to put a steak through our civil rights. Our goose will be cooked! Then people will go to trading vegetables and grain. And all the "honest folks" will be left with nothing to eat but rocks. (Until, those too are banned because someone might throw one...) --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Going AP Shit on the Internet
by Black Art 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >[AP drivel deleted] > > [Examples of where AP would fail deleted] > >Both the assumption AP rests on are utterly false. It is neither possible >to assasinate people at will nor will it intimidate. > >In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I* >would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules >of AP. I would naturally consider it permissable to engage the support of >others in their suppression. Since we now live in the fantasy land of AP >I can now wipe out anyone anywhere so I eliminate all AP leaders. I'd buy that for a dollar! I would expect that only a small portion of the "targets" on an actual AP system would be political figures. People have a far broader range of people they would like to see eliminated. How many "hits" would John Tesh have gotten after the Olympics? How many "hits" would Urkel get after anyone actually watched him on TV? These powers could be used for good or evil! People do not just want to kill politicians. Many of them would like to kill people they find annoying in their general lives. TV stars. Advertising executives. Bosses. Bill Gates. Brings stalking to a new level! Say a company came out with an Internet browser that was considered the "market leader". A less scrupulous competitor (who has a large company and lots of cash) could afford to have key personnel off-ed as a part of "doing business". (And it would not have to be the figureheads. Less well-known people in charge of key areas, like security could be off-ed.) Is your job important to KILL FOR? They could even hide it in the sales and promotion budget. It could change the face of business forever! Who do you want to kill today? There is no mechanism to assure that AP is used for only the people that Mr. Bell would like to see killed. If it is implemented, then EVERYONE is a target. >I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of >people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone >is going to act on it. Probably not Jim Bell, more likely a psychopath who >lurks on the list but does not post. Actually, I would expect that the various government agencies would do their best to track down those trying to implement such a system. Governments do not take competition lightly. The odds of getting a real hit man are also small. The FBI has agents who frequently pose as hit men for the sole purpose of tracking down those who want to eliminate their friends and neighbors. Only organized crime and government have easy access to assassination. ("Government Access to assassination" Escrow anyone?) >If you call for people to be murdered - and let us not forget that this is >what AP is about you bear the responsibility when someone acts on it. I do not think that Mr. Bell is willing to examine the moral consequences of the things that he advocates. (He would get alot more respect from me if he would own up to it and admit he is wanting to see mass murder for hire.) There seems to be a big blind spot here. It would also be a great excuse for the bluenoses who want to regulate the net into extinction. (Advocating murder is not taken well in our society, even if the targets deserve it.) >I consider AP to be very close to calling for the assasination of the >President of the USA. That is a federal crime and there is a law that >requires the investigation of any such threats. I suggest that people >think *very* carefully before engaging in this dangerous nonsense any >further. Facilitating the murder of others through hiring of hit men is illegal no matter who the target is. I wonder how he would find a service provider that would dare host the site. I know of no "data haven" that would risk having a murder for hire server anywhere near their site. They would find their feed cut pretty quick or feel the sting of legal liability or both. (Part of being a "data haven" is not to attract attention to yourself. The first rule of not being seen is "Don't stand up".) >PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder. I disagree with this conclusion. It IS censorship. The only thing that seems to change it is the subject matter. If it was changed to "it is not censorship to stop people from advocating cryptography" or "unrestrained sex" or "destruction of the ruling party" would you still agree? Sometimes advocating murder is considered valid. (As the various people in the media talking about how "we should have offed Husain (sp?).) How do you make the distinction. Whoever is in power this week? I think not. Besides, if you want to weed the nut cases out of society, you let them advocate such things in public. Makes it easier to cart them away before they hurt someone. (Unless they are in Government office. By then, it is too late.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Black Art blackart(a)ctrl-alt-del.com "The Government will mind its own business the day that Malcolm McDowell becomes a spokesman for Crisco."

2 1

Re: LACC: Re: Australia now has information police
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Hello: > > I have one short, short question regarding this item. I really > hope that you know the anwswer and have the time to answer it. > > 1- International document: any idea who else had signed it? [re COCOM trade agreements] All COCOM countries most likely. That said Australia does not seem to be actively enforcing this relic of the cold war. However around 8 years ago, I recall that the NSA found out about a telephone encrypting device developed here in Australia, and preassured the Australian government to forbid export of the device, under COCOM provisions until it was weakened. At the moment it is politically untenable to enforce COCOM export provisions over cryptographic software in this country. The COCOM treaty is seen, quite rightly, as a U.S barrow which COCOM countries had to sign in order to avoid U.S trade sanctions and tarrifs, but not something that needs to be enforced for smaller concerns (arms shipments are bigger concerns). COCOM is being replaced with new controls, according to the PARI DAILY. (anyone have better details?) PARI DAILY FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1996 BULGARIA IGNORED AT POST-COCOM TALKS Bulgaria did not take part in the first plenary session of the member-countries of the Wassenaar Arrangement, also known as the New Forum, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mr.Pantelei Karasimeonov told a briefing yesterday. Of all the 28 participants in the session, it was only USA that opposed Bulgaria's participation in the arrangement, a control regime which is to succeed the Cold War's COCOM export controls of technology and equipment usable for military purposes, too, it was revealed at the briefing. Bulgaria has stated many times, and at different levels, its willingness to join the new control regime, the Foreign Ministry spokesman emphasised. In a statement, disseminated by BTA, Bulgarian News Agency, Foreign Ministry pointed out that obviously some of the participants in the Wassenaar Arrangement talks are still under the rather depressing impressions of the suitable conditions created in the country for wide-ranging scot-free ruin and lack of ownership, which apply also to the military-industrial complex and foreign trade in spesial-purpose production. Mr. Karasimeonov said that these impressions have sprung from the period of radical economic and political reforms in the country; he voiced his hopes that the founder-states of the Wassenaar Arrangement would soon change these views of theirs and would put their trust in Bulgaria's export control abilities. Trade Ministry officials said that bilateral talks are due to be held between Bulgaria and each of the New Forum member-countries, which are expected to result in Bulgaria's joining the arrangement. An expert group is to visit USA from April 29 till May 3 aiming to acquaint American high officials with the measures Bulgaria has taken to control trade in spesial-purpose production, Mr.Vladimir Velichkov, head of Internationally Controlled Trade Department at Trade Ministry, said in a recent interview for the PARI Daily. By June an expert group of the Wassenaar Arrangement is due to visit Bulgaria to lead discussions about our participation in the New Forum. -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

3 2

Re: "Remailers can't afford to be choosy"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Without going back and reviewing my precise words in my first post on this topic, I don't think Lance is doing anything unreasonable. My comment was more to the point that a lot of the talk I see about filtering topics, looking at content, blah blah blah, is basically inconsistent with the basic concept of a "digital mix," a la Chaum. At 7:19 PM 9/21/96, Lance Cottrell wrote: >One important differentiation to make is filtering on form vs. filtering on >content. Most if not all remailers have clear usage guidelines. These >indicate several form restrictions on what messages the remailer is >offering to transmit. These restrictions may be on message size, >instruction formatting, number of destinations for one message, or number >of identical messages. These restrictions are no more censorship than >restricting messages to SMTP compliant ascii. > >Where people do not follow the stated rules, I take action to enforce them. >Either by source blocking the abuser if known, destination blocking the >destination, or trying to apply public pressure. I think all these actions >are completely reasonable, given that the proper use guidelines were >clearly defined up front. It is similar to putting up a fence around your >yard when people start hanging out there uninvited. Clearly stating policies is fair enough. In the future, with a rich ecology of remailers, I would expect many kinds of remailers with many kinds of policies, prices, etc. Still, it is always useful to remember that a remailer is first and foremost a _remailer_, not an inspector of content to determine appropriateness of topics, whether a receiver "wants" a remailed message, etc. (None of the main "physical remailers," e.g., the US Postal Service, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne, etc., offer "destination-blocking" or even "source-blocking" services. Of course, they charge some form of fee for remailing. And there is nominally a return address (albeit easily bypassed/spoofed).) >Are you suggesting that I not take perfectly legal and open actions to >enforce the public statement of allowed uses of my remailer? No. I think clearly stated policies are perfectly legit. What I was getting at with my "remailers can't afford to be choosy" point was a more general point that sometimes seems to get lost in the discussions, namely, that remailers will, perforce, be used for lots of unpopular, disgusting, flamish, etc. uses. Not all remailer uses are noble whisteblowings (*). (* In fact, some whistleblowings are amongst the most "most illegal" uses! The person within General Dynamics who uses a remailer to describe contract fraud in the Tomahawk Cruise Missile program is almost certainly putting the remailer operator under intense pressure, just as is a person using a remailer to post the Church of Scientology NOTS documents. To me, they are the same. Hence, "remailers can't afford to be choosy.") --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Death Threats
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I don't know what the hell this thread has to do with "[NOISE] Kiddie porn on the Internet," so I've changed the name.) At 9:22 PM 9/21/96, Mark M. wrote: >Do you really consider speech to be "dangerous." The law requiring >investigation of threats against the president is a stupid one. The maintainer >of the exploding head page was investigated by the USSS after putting up >computer-generated pictures of Bob Dole's head exploding (Presidential >candidates are also covered under this law). There's too much potential for >abuse. Hey, I'm a candidate for President, too (at least I know of someone who plans to vote for me). Does this mean I am protected against various threats, and veiled threats? Let me know, as I seem to be under attack by certain Russian-developed spambots. More seriously, the whole set of protections the President has is inconsistent with our nominally anti-royalist approach. Of course, America long ago created its own royalty. Even dynasties (how else do you explain Teddy Kennedy getting away with the Mary Jo Kopechne thing?). Actively (and plausibly) threatening _anyone_ is a kind of crime (*), but there is no reason to make special laws covering certain persons. (* Why do I say "actively (and plausibly) threatening _anyone_ is a kind of crime"? Don't I believe in free speech? Well, if I hear that Vladimir G. Nulis says I should be killed, and that he is coming to California to take care of this, I have no compunctions, liberrarian or otherwise, about shooting first at the first sign of his appearance on my property. Understandably, the government does not wish this to happen. Thus, I have no problem with illegalizing direct and concrete threats. General threats, such as "all lawyers should be taken out into the parking lot and garotted" are not specific, direct, and concrete, and hence fall under the free speech provisions.) --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

CNET Digital Dispatch Vol. 2 No. 38
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The individual who posted the C-Net top ten missed the crypto-related parts of that issue. (I guess the humor section is all that people read on C-Net...) Here is what he missed... >Hook up your new system to the Net, and use it to remake >yourself. Get a virtual nose ring. Program your avatar with >all the attributes you wish you had. On the Internet, your >image is up to you. What will yours be? Read Editor-in-Chief >Christopher Barr's views on online identity: > >http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/091696/index.html > >Maybe you're not ready to share your identity. Maybe that's >the furthest thing from your mind. If you've got secrets to >keep, you need to know about Pretty Good Privacy, the de >facto encryption standard for email. Our tutorial will tell >you how to get PGP software and how to use it: > >http://www.cnet.com/Content/Features/Howto/Privacy/index.html > >Then be sure to read our update on mover and shaker Philip >Zimmerman, the guy who invented PGP: > >http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Movers/zimmermann.html --- 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 "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >[AP drivel deleted] > >Go talk to someone who is a member of an organisation like the PLO or >Hammas and pretty near the top. If you think that they would be intimidated >for a moment by AP you have another think comming. It depends entirely on what you mean by "intimidated." AP would make them pretty damn useless, because instead of the typical Palestiniation having to depend on a few corrupt self-chosen leaders, they could get their revenge on an individual basis. Who needs PLO or Hamas under such circumstances? Besides, the Israelis (as well as resentful Palestinians) could get rid of abusive PLO or Hamas leadership using AP. > >If it could the US would have assasinated Saddam by now. No, because the leadership in the US who would either choose such a system (or not) well understand that people who live in glass palaces shouldn't start throwing rocks against the enemy leadership. > It can't because it >is too difficult to find out where exactly a person will be. Assasination >attempts against Castro similarly failed. Assassination can easily fail if you don't give the proper people the motivation to accomplish the task. The key to having it work out is to ensure that the few people who have access to the target are sufficiently motivated to collect the reward. Who, exactly, was given a motivation to kill Castro? A few clowns in Miami? A few crooks in Jersey? Give _everybody_ who meets Castro during the day a $10 million motivation to kill him, and he'll be dead before sunset. >If you care to look at the history of Cambodia you will see that Lon Nol >assumed the presidency despite the knowledge that there was practically no ch >chance of defeating the Khumer Rouge and that he would almost certainly be dead >in less than a week as a result. > >Both the assumption AP rests on are utterly false. It is neither possible >to assasinate people at will nor will it intimidate. Since it's never been tried before, how do you know? >In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I* >would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules >of AP. I don't doubt that there will be many people who misunderstand AP. You're obviously one of them. I would naturally consider it permissable to engage the support of >others in their suppression. Since we now live in the fantasy land of AP >I can now wipe out anyone anywhere so I eliminate all AP leaders. > > >I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of >people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone >is going to act on it. Probably not Jim Bell, more likely a psychopath who >lurks on the list but does not post. Pardon me, but what's wrong with this? Follow the news more closely, and you'll hear of a group which is operating in southern Mexico, the "EPR," which is killing off government employees, politicians, and police. True, they're not implementing the mathematical, digital-cash basis behind AP, but they see to be making good progress against the corruption which is Mexico. Increase their productivity by a factor of 10, and the Mexican government would be terrified. Increase it by 100, and the Mexican government would fall within a few months. >If you call for people to be murdered - and let us not forget that this is >what AP is about you bear the responsibility when someone acts on it. Does that make YOU responsible if, by calling for people to NOT kill their oppressors, they continue to suffer oppression? >I consider AP to be very close to calling for the assasination of the >President of the USA. That is a federal crime and there is a law that >requires the investigation of any such threats. I suggest that people >think *very* carefully before engaging in this dangerous nonsense any >further. > > Phill >PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder. Then you obviously don't understand the meaning of the word, "censorship." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Assassination Politics, was Kiddie porn on the Internet
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:51 PM 9/17/96 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >>On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Steve Schear wrote: >> >>> Someone wrote: >>> We've all heard these arguments, but are they true? Who says so, and how >>> can they be certain? Jim's suggestion has never, to my knowledge, been >>> tried on a consistant, large, scale. When all conventional alternatives >>> have been tried and fail, what have we or the starving children got to >>> lose? >> >>I think "Lord of the Flies" answers this question quite well. > >Does it? LOTF was fiction. Can you identify a recent instance in which a >non-governmental organization attempted to influence political/military >events via a concerted AP? As you understand, I really have to question anybody who would take an extraordinarily contrived work of fiction like LOTF and exrtrapolate from it as some sort of "answer" to AP. However, Unicorn is sufficiently confused that it's not surprising that this would come from him. While it's been well over two decades since I read it, LOTF engages in the artifice of separating out a handful of near-pre-adolescent boys, who don't seem to get along particularly well while stuck on an island after being shot down during a war. (Presumably, WWII.) It's hard to understand what kind of lesson we could learn from this, particularly since one person's opinion of what might happen should such an extraordinary and unlikely event occur can't be all that more significant or valuable than another. Or, what if such an event actually happened, and the outcome was quite different? What would that say about Golding's opinions? Or, suppose a similar event occurred, but instead of a dozen boys it was a co-ed college's students, or a few geriatrics, or a family, or a few middle-aged women, or...what? What, exactly, are we learning from one specific speculation that Golding happened to want to commit to paper? Unfortunately (or, perhaps _fortunately_?) I don't think we're going to hear from Unicorn why he thinks one particular dime novel is any more revelational about human behavior than any other. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Tim May wrote: [...] >The Constitutional issues of free speech would remain mostly unchanged even ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >if "universal access" happens, but the government would definitely get more >of a foot in the door than it has now. I really hope that this is the case, and that some restraint would be exercised. But when the FCC has historically concerned itself with channels of communication, the 1st Am has typically been tossed out of the window. Recall the "seven dirty words" brouhaha. Perhaps they've lightened up. I can imagine Herr Hundt and his FCC fellows looking on fondly and indulgently as cute-as-a-button sitcom kids inform their network TV show parents more frequently than we've heard "fuckhead" on this list that they "suck." I seem to recall somewhere in the dim dark past that the expression "you suck" would have been subsumed under the "fighting words" statutes, implying, as it does, that the object of the utterer's scorn was either homosexual or a woman who casually performed fellation. If the FCC approves of "you suck" on network television, perhaps there is yet hope that the perverse topics daily discussed on c-punks would, at least temporarily, be allowed. Dave Rose drose(a)azstarnet.com ____________________________________ "Take this Uzi from a crack baby's hands, and put in a computer--that's our demands" -J. Jackson "Cover your mouth when you sneeze, that'll help the solution" -Mavis, Roebuck "Pops" Staples & the family

1 0