December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Conservative groups call for new Net "code of conduct"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm sitting in the National Press Club, in front of a dozen television cameras, where a conservative press conference on Kids and the Net is starting. Groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition are complaining that the Internet industry isn't doing enough to label, filter, and rate the Net and is instead looking to "make a few quick bucks." What prompted this event is a two-day summit about to start here in Washington, DC, where high tech firms are joining senior administration officials. The industry's goal: to head off the sequel to the Communications Decency Act. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana), the bill's chief sponsor, is here today. "It has only been the threat of government involvment that has prompted this industry to take any steps at all," he's saying. "There is a dark side to the Internet. That dark side brings unrestrained, unrestricted pornographic material into every home, every library, every school." Now Karen Jo Gounaud is blasting the American Library Association for the unlikely offense of condoning bestiality. "Parents cannot being to handle these problems alone. It's a village problem and it demands a village solution," she says. The solution, these groups say, is to pressure Internet providers to adopt their "Code of Ethical Conduct." It says: "Will adopt terms-of-service policies stating that it reserves the right to take action in good faith to restrict availability of material that it considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Among other things, the code calls for Usenet filtering and "parental controls as the default settings" for minors. In a few hours (in the same room, in fact), civil liberties and journalism groups are going to be arguing against "mandatory voluntary" rating systems and pointing out their flaws. This leaves the White House precisely where it wants to be: squarely in the middle. More on this later. -Declan

1 0

Re: FC: Revolution and the limits of free speech online
by Mike Godwin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The proper test is not the Yates test, but the test of Brandenburg v. U.S. (1969, I believe), which distinguishes between mere advocacy of violence and "incitement to imminent lawless action" that is "likely to result in such action." Brandenburg is the leading case. Under Brandenburg, Tim May or anyone else could call for violent revolution (or for the commission of other violent acts) and the speech is understood to be protected. Only an incitement to *imminent* (that is, immediate) violent action, where such incitement is likely to cause an unreflective response, is punishable. The facts of Brandenburg concern a speech given at a KKK rally in which the speaker called for a race war and "revengeance" against non-whites. The speech was deemed to be protected by the First Amendment. The decision was authored by Justice Hugo Black. Mike >---- > >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:45:48 -0500 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >So I've been reading "Freedom and the Court" by Henry Abraham, and a >passage in it made me think of Tim May and the cypherpunks list: > > "//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government > of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the > language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of > expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative > proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such > overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized > protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354 > U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for > the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM) > >Some civil liberties lawyers, incidentally, have told me that Internet >messages almost by definition are probably not "direct and imminent >incitement." > >Some excerpts from Yates v. United States: > >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&p… >2 >9 > The essential distinction [354 U.S. 298, 325] is that those to whom > the advocacy is addressed must be urged to do something, now or > in the future, rather than merely to believe in something. [...] > > Instances of speech that could be considered to amount to "advocacy > of action" are so few and far between as to be almost completely > overshadowed by the hundreds of instances in the record in which > overthrow, if mentioned at all, occurs in the course of doctrinal > disputation so remote from action as to be almost wholly lacking > in probative value. Vague references to "revolutionary" or > "militant" action of an unspecified character, which are found > in the evidence, might in addition be given too great weight by > the jury in the absence of more precise instructions. > Particularly in light of this record, we must regard the trial > court's charge in this respect as furnishing wholly inadequate > guidance to the jury on this central point in the case. We cannot > allow a conviction to stand on such "an equivocal direction to > the jury on a basic issue." > >-Declan > > >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:25:01 -0500 >To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> >Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >At 12:45 AM 11/28/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>So I've been reading "Freedom and the Court" by Henry Abraham, and a >>passage in it made me think of Tim May and the cypherpunks list: > >There is no crime called "advocating revolution" or even >"revolution." The crime that is being discussed in such cases is >"sedition." > >Any US Attorney will tell you that sedition convictions are hard to >win because of the difficulty proving that the defendant actually >tried to do so in a realistic way. Tough. > >The trial of a group of isolationists during WWII and some white >supremacists a few years ago resulted in acquittals. > >DCF > > > >Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:33:10 -0800 >To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >At 12:45 AM 11/28/1997 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> "//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government >> of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the >> language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of >> expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative >> proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such >> overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized >> protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354 >> U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for >> the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM) >> >>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&p… >>=2 >Actually, the linewrap munged the "page=298" at the end, leaving a >reference is Reid vs. Covert, another fascinating case, >dealing with the limits on US jurisdiction on citizens outside the 48 states, >in particarticular military jurisdiction and territorial jurisdictions >(including pointers to the cases about confiscation of Mormon Church property >during the Defense Of Marriage\\\\\\\\\\\anti-polygamy legislation.) > >Yates, a case about the legalization of Communism, is at >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&p… >2 >98 . >While the primary opinion of the court was as above, the court >unfortunately stopped short of the blazingly absolutist defense of free speech >by Justice Hugo Black (joined by Douglas), in an opinion that partially >concurs and partially dissents, and is therefore only dicta. > "I believe that the First Amendment forbids Congress to punish people > for talking about public affairs, whether or not such discussion > incites to action, legal or illegal." ...... > >It was either this case or cases like it that spurred the >John Birch Society to their calls for impeaching Earl Warren, >even before that pinko compounded his anti-Americanism by >insisting that cops read people their rights and get search warrants. > >As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never >heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government. >He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it >(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed), >and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of >black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself >first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges >or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying. > >Not guilty. > > > Thanks! > Bill > > > >Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:04:58 -0700 >To: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com>, Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, > cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >At 11:33 PM -0700 11/29/97, Bill Stewart wrote: > >>As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never >>heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government. >>He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it >>(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed), >>and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of >>black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself >>first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges >>or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying. >> >>Not guilty. > >An almost complete summary of my stance. > >But Bill left out the third leg of my tripod, that I expect to wake up some >morning and learn that some major city, perhaps Washington, D.C. has been >nuked or bugged. > >And, as I am fond of saying, I doubt I'll shed any tears. > >(Which got first twisted into "Tim wants to see D.C. nuked) (possibly >true), and then further mutated into "Tim is involved in a conspiracy to >help terrorists destroy major cities" (possibly true)). > >Fortunately for me, none of these legs of the tripod are (yet) illegal, >though I gather from what I saw of several of Hettinga's recent foamings >that he thinks they should be. > >--Tim May > > >The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send >"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. >More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- We shot a law in _Reno_, just to watch it die. Mike Godwin, EFF Staff Counsel, is currently on leave from EFF, participating as a Research Fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center in New York City. He can be contacted at 212-317-6552. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

None
by Off-Topic.Header.Remailer＠sasknet.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anon-To:

1 0

Re: Pasting in From:
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert A. Costner wrote: >I was thinking of remailers sending out anon messages with a distinct from >line that has zero connection (in the nym database) to any email address. >Is this possible? To establish a nym only through one way communication? I think so. The key here is to have all the nym's mail sent from the same remailer, pasting in a From: [nym] header. The remailer could verify the message by checking the digital signature on the message before remailing it to it's final recipient/s. When the recipient sees that the Sender: was the nym's usual remailer, he is fairly certain that the message originated from the nymholder, but not as certain as when he verifies the digital signature himself. Also, it would be nice if the nymholder could set the Reply-To: header, thus allowing him to change his inbox "on the fly" (hotmail, a nymserver, alt.anonymous.messages, etcetera). Since anonymous remailing is now considered a free service in the minds of most of its users, charging for it does not make sense. I'd be curious to know how much money has been collected by the ecash-accepting remailer that Ian Goldberg set up a couple months back. [nym] remailer like I mentioned above may become lucrative if it generates enough repeat customers (i.e., persistent nyms). So could charging a fee for each address put in the Bcc: header. Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIQq3Ba1d3zm4nqOEQJPOQCgvHJa9vQEdX4ejxcv14X85S0GlNMAn0Kj EgANE66o/Q0fRBFxIZSVZh9C =+0az -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Freemen and Serfs
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > Nope. I haven't claimed anything about an elite group trading amongst > themselves. > > Rather, those who use the technology will make more money, and save more of > it, and will then be able to hire out those who failed to, and to buy stuff > made by them. How, exactly? We're not talking about computers as "the technology". We mean anonymous remailers, digital cash, Chaumian credentials, steganography, and other cypherpunk technologies. Who is using these technologies to make more money today? Almost no one. The reason is that the market is far too small. You can't put together a business plan and attract the investment needed if there are only a few hundred cypherpunks as customers. > We've been seeing this for a long time. Not a new concept. For example, > those of us who used our skills and investment inclinations to make a lot > of money are not condemned to "trading only with ourselves." We routinely > trade with others. Totally different. The point is not to trade, it is to do so anonymously and confidentially. You yourself are always whining about how you can't buy and sell your stocks privately, all your financial status being known to the state. Cypherpunk technologies are useless unless all parties to a transaction are using them. If even one party is subject to government or criminal surveillance then other participants will be forced to report the transaction as well. The only hope for these technologies is to spread the base of people using them. It doesn't do any good to use anonymous ecash if no one will accept it for payment. You can't make a living as a nym until there are enough people using these technologies that a business can succeed via anonymous contracting. It all depends on getting a critical mass of users.

4 3

Re: Another Anti-Privacy Bigot Heard From (was: The Guilmette/Burnore deba
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joe "We are Borg" Foster <joe(a)bftsi0.UUCP> wrote: > > That was an impressive tantrum that you and Belinda just staged. I > > suppose you thought it would distract attention from the fact that > > you still refuse to reveal what your motive was for harassing Jeff > > Burchell this summer in a failed attempt to get him to turn over the > > logs containing the names and e-mail addresses of everyone who > > either sent or received an anonymous message through his remailer. > > Et tu, dumbass? Have you forgotten the existence of the "old" Deja News > database? That won't work for two reasons: First, Gary is now "cloaking" his posts with an "X-No-Archive" header to keep them from being archived by neutral parties such as DejaNews. In addition, if you do a search on his name as author in the old database, you get a bunch of matches that say "article not available", indicating that he's requested that such articles be removed from the archives. Second, how does one search for something that was never posted? The only thing I see in the Deja News archives is Jeff Burchell's explanation of Burnore's $cientology-esque attack on his remailer: -> Subject: Re: DataBasix vs. the Remailers -- Gary Burnore's -> Dirty Tricks Exposed (was: Jeff's Side of the Story.) -> From: toxic(a)hotwired.com (Jeff Burchell) -> Date: 1997/07/02 -> Message-ID: <5pc9mb$omg$1(a)re.hotwired.com> -> -> [...] -> -> : > Mr. Burnore requested a copy of my (non-existant) logs. -> : > I told him to get me something in writing, signed by his lawyer that -> : > stipulated that the logs were confidential, and not to be revealed to -> : > anyone outside of the lawyer's office. -> : -> : He requested the logs of the messages of *EVERYONE* using Huge -> : Cajones? What was his rationale for such a fishing expedition? -> : (Cases like this are a good reason for remailers to NOT keep logs.) -> -> I have no idea of his rationale. And I don't know of any remailer -> operator who keeps logs that would identify a user. I had my machine -> configured to log in a fairly standard way, but I used a different -> sendmail configuration for the remailer, that had all logging (except -> for certain error conditions) turned off. -> -> Part of me thinks he wanted the logs so he could tell if I was going -> to be able to identify him when he started his attacks. Thus far, that's the best explanation I've seen for Gary Burnore's threats and harassment. > > If posts from "anon assholes" really offend your sensitive feelings, > > then you might want to stay away from most of the NGs where you've > > been posting your blather. SUGGESTION: stick with "safe" groups > > like comp.org.cauce where anonymous posts are banned and content is > > censo^h^h^h^h^hmoderated to ensure an appropriate level of political > > correctness. > > Posts from assholes definitely offend me, whether they're anon or not! True, but the chance that somone might be offensive is not sufficient reason to censor it. (If that were true, Usenet references to Whitewater might be declared "pornographic" by the Clinton administration.) Gary Burnore keeps whining about posts from "ANON assholes" not just "assholes" in general. That definitely reveals something about him. If he were to gripe about posts from "black assholes", one might (rightly) conclude that he was a racist. If he were flaming posts from "gay assholes", you'd probably figure that he was a homophobe, right? The fact that he doesn't flame the CONTENT but some characteristic about the author marks him as a bigot. > Well, if you really think about it, just about any news post might be > "anonymous". After all, how do you know that whoever typed all this is > really named "Joe Foster"? You don't! Remember "Mahmud al-Hijazi"? You've got a point there. <g> I don't place much faith in what I see in the From: line, even if it appears to be a valid e-mail address.

1 0

Spammernomicon
by Spam Man 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Selected passages from Spam-Bot: A Technical Manual for Independent Spammers. It is my opinion that the professional spammer fills a need in society and is, at times, the only alternative for "personal" anonymity. Moreover, if my advice and the proven methods in this book are followed, certainly no one will ever discover your identity. Almost every man harbors a fantasy of living the life of Dimitri Vulis or some other fictional hero who spams for fun and profit. They dream of living by their knee-jerk reflexes, of doing whatever is necessary without regard to moral or legal restrictions. But few have the courage or knowledge to make that dream a reality. You might be like my friends -- interested but unsure, standing on the sidelines afraid to play the game because you don't know the rules. [But] within the pages of this book you will learn one of the most successful methods of remailer operation used by an independent spam-bot operator. You will follow the procedures of a man who works alone, without backing of organized crime or on a personal vendetta. Step by step you will be taken from research to equipment selection to job preparation to successful job completion. You will learn where to find employment, how much to charge, and what you can, and cannot, do with the money you earn. But deny your urge to skip about, looking for the "good" parts. Start where any amateur who is serious about turning professional will start -- at the beginning. [And when] [y]ou've read all the suggested material, you [will have] honed your mind, body and reflexes into a precision piece of spamming machinery. You [will have] assembled the necessary tools and learned to use them efficiently. Your knowledge of dealing spam [will have] increased to the point where you have a choice of methods. [After you spammed your first victim,] you felt absolutely nothing. And you are shocked by the nothingness. You had expected this moment to be a spectacular point in your life. You had wondered if you would feel compassion for the victim, immediate guilt, or even experience direct intervention by the hand of God. But you weren't even feeling sickened by the sight of the victims pathetic reply. After you have arrived home the events that took place take on a dreamlike quality. You don't dwell on them. You don't worry. You don't have nightmares. You don't fear ghosts. When thoughts of the hit go through your mind, it's almost as though you are recalling some show you saw on television. [E]verything seems to have changed. The people around you have suddenly become so aggravatingly ordinary. You start to view them as an irritating herd of pathetic sheep, doing as they are told, doing what is expected, following someone, anyone, blindly. You can't believe how dumb your friends have become, and your respect diminishes for people you once held in awe. You too have become different. You recognize that you made some mistakes, but you know what they were, and they will never plague you again. Next time (and you know there will be a next time), there will be no hesitation, no fear. Your experience in facing anti-spammers head-on has taught you about life. You have the power and ability to stand alone. You no longer need a reason to spam.

1 0

Stanford student "blacklisted" from jobs because of his Internet writings
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's a good argument for anonymity: New York Observer: November 24, 1997 Salomon Brothers Tattler Gets Famous on the Web by Tinker Spitz Tim Shields, a student at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, spent the summer working as an investment banking summer associate for Salomon Brothers. He didn't like it much. When he got back to Stanford, he wrote two articles about his experiences and published them in The Reporter, a business school publication. No harm done, right? Wrong. Now, through the magic of the Internet, all of Wall Street is aware of Mr. Shields' complaints. Overworked bankers, chained to their desks, often turn to their computers for entertainment to break up the tedium of creating shareholder profiles and whatever other dreary analyses their clients might demand of them. Lately, Mr. Shields' bitter article, making the rounds by e-mail, has been that entertainment. Mr. Shields was merciless in his depiction of Salomon Brothers and the people he encountered from other business schools. Here is a line that nicely sums up his impression of his summer: "The 38 members of my Investment Banking Summer Associate class represented a wide range of personality types, from the merely obnoxious to the moderately narcissistic to the overwhelmingly repugnant." He also makes Salomon Brothers chief executive Deryck Maughan look like either a hypocrite or a fool. In a meeting on Aug. 18 with the investment banking unit, Mr. Shields reports, Mr. Maughan said, "We have absolutely no reason to believe that we are a buyout target, nor that we will be in the near future." Only weeks later, Salomon Brothers was acquired by the Travelers Group Inc. Mr. Shields also remarked on the general climate at Salomon: He writes that a managing director at the firm told him, "Salomon Brothers is just not a culture where anyone says 'please' or 'thank you' or 'good job.'" And, according to the much e-mailed articles, one Salomon vice president told Mr. Shields, "You don't want this job. You really don't want this job. You get sucked in by the money and then find yourself trapped and miserable like I am. Don't be me." Salomon Brothers had no comment on the matter. The writer was at his most cutting in his assessment of his fellow summer associates, classifying them by school. Those from University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School were, in Mr. Shields' estimation, "boorish and dull, and interacting with them was like being locked in a room with a Bloomberg machine, except that the Bloomberg screen has two dimensions." Mr. Shields writes that he amused himself by needling the Columbia Business School students with his own feeling of Stanford superiority: "If I was in a truly nasty mood, I would follow up with a discussion hypothesizing on the quality-of-life differences between Palo Alto and Harlem. As you might guess, I wasn't too popular among the Columbia crowd." His take on those from Northwestern University's J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management? "Not the sharpest Ginsu knives in the set, they were as out of place on Wall Street as you might expect from people who'd spent the prior year intensely debating the merits of Dave Thomas appearing in person in the Wendy's commercials." About those from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, Mr. Shields writes, "I think I found Waldo. Every stereotype you ever heard about M.I.T. is true. These guys were such incredible weenies, brilliantly managing to combine both the brainpower and social grace of an HP 19B-II." And the Harvard Business School types? "Floating through the summer like Cinderella at the ball, they expected you to accept their jargon-laced drivel with the same attitude that Moses and his stone tablets received on Sinai." Mr. Shields' articles first drew the attention of Wall Street when they appeared in the on-line version of The Reporter. Someone an incensed first-year Salomon Brothers associate, according to a source downloaded them and attached the following message: "A Stanford student who did not receive an offer from Salomon Brothers was bold enough to put his name in print with these two articles. Maybe he doesn't want a job at all ..." Then the associate started e-mailing like crazy, sending the piece to job recruiters, among others, the source said. Mr. Shields' fame on the Web could not have come at a worse time. Now in the middle of on-campus job interviews, trying to parlay his $80,000 M.B.A. degree into a full-time job, Mr. Shields' only hope is that someone who may well have attended one of the schools he slagged is willing to hire a guy who went gleefully public with a nasty description of life with a previous employer. According to a friend of Mr. Shields, the e-mail has indeed come up in his first four interviews. "They seemed as though they were giving him a chance to explain himself," said the friend, "but when I talked to him, he hadn't heard yet whether he had gotten a call back which would be the ultimate test of whether they were willing to overlook it." Stanford is most certainly not standing behind its student. "That was a real silly thing for him to do, and not in any way appropriate," said George Parker, director of Stanford's M.B.A. program. "It's just arrogant." Other business students are aghast. "No one could believe that he would write this and not realize what the ramifications or consequences might be," said one. Mr. Shields would not comment for this article. People who know him said he's a nice guy despite his sharp edges. One friend, Giles Kavanagh, a Web site producer in New York, described Mr. Shields as "very ambitious" and "extraordinarily hard-working," adding, "He disguises his ambition." The son of a New York City police detective, Mr. Shields, now in his mid-20's, attended Regis High School (a Jesuit school on the Upper West Side) and received his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Before going for his M.B.A. at Stanford in 1996, he spent three years in the financial division at J.P. Morgan & Company. "He's always had an interest in making money," Mr. Kavanagh said. But that may be more difficult now, since the e-mail has apparently fallen into the hands of recruiters. One anonymous friend said that, while Mr. Shields has decided that "investment banking wasn't really for him ... he still didn't mean to get himself blacklisted across Wall Street." The friend added that Mr. Shields is trying to get a job in either private client services, a field related to investment banking, or consulting. Given his bitterness, his ambition, his ability to turn a phrase, his lack of respect for authority and his willingness to squawk about people he has met, perhaps Mr. Shields should consider a career in the glorious field of journalism. ============================================================================= --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: > At 11:33 PM -0700 11/29/97, Bill Stewart wrote: > > >As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never > >heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government. > >He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it > >(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed), > >and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of > >black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself > >first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges > >or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying. > > > >Not guilty. > > An almost complete summary of my stance. > > But Bill left out the third leg of my tripod, that I expect to wake up some > morning and learn that some major city, perhaps Washington, D.C. has been > nuked or bugged. You've both forgotton the fourth leg of the tripod, the one where Tim May calls for the governor of Florida to be shot (along with other officials). Governor Chiles' capital crime? He refused to allow California wine to be sold in Florida. On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote: > Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against the > Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other traitors. Everyone likes to overlook this, pretending that May didn't mean it. Well, he never withdrew it, did he? He never apologized for it. He's on the record as explicitly calling for the murder of high officials. And of course May further revealed his true colors with this horror, from the same message: > Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right thing. > Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that. May's apologists have tried to pretend that he didn't say this, that he said that he was beginning to understand McVeigh, or something. That's not what he says here. He says he is becoming convinced that McVeigh did the right thing in murdering all those people. He callously compares the shattered bodies of the children and other innocent victims to broken eggshells. Monty Cantsin has provided us a moving description of the painful deaths of the children in Waco. Will dying of asphyxiation under pressure too great even to draw a breath be any easier? Again, you will search the archives in vain to find any apology for this, any withdrawal. May hides behind the words of others, as he does above, hoping that their softened interpretations will make people forget the plain facts about what he wrote. If Tim May does not agree with the quotes above, let him say so now.

3 2

Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: -- MacKinnonite antiporn laws (she's a self-identified Marxist, I recall) -- "Hate speech" bans -- Sexual harassment "hostile environment" regulations (Give me a break. This is the justification for at least one library censorware installation.) -- Various FCC regulations aside from indecent stuff -- Advertising censorship (check out the Center for Media Education, a leftist group if I ever heard of one. In fact, as I pointed out in my Thanksgiving piece last week, CME's scaremongering Kids and the Net paper was cited by Enough is Enough as justification for the CDA) -- Labeling/compelled speech requirements (Jamie, are you out there?) >bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >speech when it appears to be a threat. Well, at least the libertarians in the audience are consistently opposed to government censorship. -Declan At 06:36 -0500 12/3/97, Jay Holovacs wrote: >Interesting article in Columbia Journalism Review, pointing out that the >political left is becoming more and more a cause censorship. I think the >bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >speech when it appears to be a threat. > >http://www.cjr.org/html/97-11-12-firstamend.html

18 43

Re: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<sigh> My apologies to Jonathan, the boyos in the Hills, and those watching for the Choppers. I wrote: |> Could you please identify this "bank card company" by name, card, nation, |>etc. ? The vendor, Sensar, Inc. <http://www.sensar.com> is planning to unveil the system at the Banking Administration Institute's conference in New Orleans the day after tomorrow. The company's version of the product and its expected use is a little less conspiratorial than Jonathan's post to C'punks -- but it more than suffices to force me to eat crow for my scepticism and unwarranted sarcasm. >> IrisIdent is a biometric identification system that uses the unique >> patterns of the human iris to verify an individual's identity. Using a >> standard video camera, the system takes a picture of an individual's iris >> and compares it with a previously stored iris image. The result is a >>rapid >> validation of the individual's identity. With an empirically determined >> crossover error rate of less than 1 error in 131,578 transactions, iris >> identification is more reliable and less intrusive than fingerprinting or >> retinal scanning. Its security cannot be bypassed or compromised. >> Pilot systems are available on a limited basis, with full production >> scheduled for later in 1997. In addition, Sensar is planning to launch >> follow-on applications for a wide range of financial applications, >>such as >> new account openings, bank wire transfers and government services. >> Smart Camera is a future offering from Sensar. It will combine the same >> technology with a stand-alone (non-PC-based) camera to verify >> customer identification at point-of-sale locations, business >>workstations, >> and home computers. |> Without some explicit cite of a commercial entity -- or a reference to some |>"strip-'em-naked-with-electrons" Police R&D group like the guys at Rome AFB -- this |>report sounds like another of those ID-Implant fantasies circulated by the guys who |>are bolting steel plate to their screen doors and programming their backyard AA to |>auto-target (a) Black Helicopters (b) which are on low-level rapid approach (c) full |>Oriental, Arab, and Hispanic troopers (c) wearing Blue Helmets. The CNN news report (only a little less worrisome than Jonathan's post) is at: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9711/30/eyeball.id.ap/index.html |> Or, with further checking, could you confirm that is this just another spicy |> rumor crafted to keep the boyos in the hills rubbing garlic into their hollow-points |> with proper militia enthusiasm? (Not that I don't enjoy a good tale to wake up |> sleepy Computer Science undergrads, mind you...) |> Up the Revolution, |> _Vin Jonathan Wienke <JonWienk(a)ix.netcom.com> warned us all: >I just heard that a bank card company has just released a program for using >photos of the iris in people's eyes as a biometric ID to replace people's >PIN codes for ATM / credit cards. What I found really interesting is how >they plan to implement it. As people use the ATM, they are photographed. >(Every ATM has a security camera.) Over time, as people use the ATM, the >security camera images are composited to produce a high-quality image of >their irises, which is coded and placed in their account information. Once >this is accomplished, when a card is inserted into the ATM and the security >camera gets an iris image that matches the account sufficiently closely, >the user can conduct transactions without entering the PIN code. People >affected by this will merely receive a letter that under certain >circumstances, entering the PIN is no longer necessary, but this is not a >security problem. > >This scenario may not be a security problem, but it certainly poses a >privacy problem. Given the frequency that the average Joe Sixpack uses the >ATM, it is only a matter of time before the government mandates a >nationwide eyeprint ID database to catch ATM and credit card theives, money >launderers, tax cheats, and other undesirables. Perhaps the eyeprint could >even replace or supplement the SSN as the unique taxpayer ID key for tax >and other purposes. Of course, given the fact that ATMs have had cameras >from the start, this theoretical eyeprint database could already be under >construction. How's that for paranoia? >:-( > >Of course, there are a few ways to beat this, such as mirror sunglasses, >(which would only be useful while alternative credentials to eyeprint ID >are still available) and contact lenses, (which would have to be carefully >oriented so that the same side of the lens was always up, or the fact that >you are wearing contacts and are therefore a Suspicious Person would >become obvious to the system) and of course intraocular implants of various >types. Of course if the implant's power-on LED gives your eyes a constant >Satanic red glow, you may be flagged as a Suspicious Person anyway. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 > Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> --

1 0

Re: More Government Sanctioned Theft
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This message has also been posted.] In ok.general, Jerry Morgan <jmorgan(a)galstar.com> wrote: * easttom(a)redriverok.com (Chuck Easttom) wrote: * > 2. What the hell legit reason is there for a man to be driving around with * >132 K in a truck?? * > * * The simple possession of any amount of money is not subject to "police * approval", unless of course we are living in a police state. * * As I understand the "story" the police stopped the guy, searched the * car, found the money, seized it and then let the guy go without * charging him with anything. A nice cool 132K profit for a few minutes * work, just like an armed robbery. It would appear that this "cops and * robbers scenario" has the cops playing both roles.S ... ... ... * tactics will have 132K for new police equipment. Too bad they won't * use it to buy copies of the U.S. Constitution for their officers to * read, but after all they wouldn't want them getting any *wrong ideas* That would be a "hate crime". According to a message in the cypherpunks mailing list (which I unfortunately deleted, with references to more details on some websites), there was a conference on "hate crimes" recently. There, they discussed "profiles" and signs of "hate crimes", and among signs there were discussions of the constitution and founding fathers. If someone has any more information on that, please let us know. -- - Igor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}

1 0

"Berman expressed frustration with the ACLU's criticisms"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[More examples of the split within the "cyber-rights" community. --Declan] ===================== Chicago Tribue, November 30, 1997 HEADLINE: MANY VIEWS COULD SNARL 3-DAY WEB CONFERENCE; HOW TO SHIELD CHILDREN THE BIGGEST ISSUE BYLINE: By Frank James and Shirley Brice, Washington Bureau. DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: [...] One of the conference's main themes will be educating parents about how filtering software can help them "keep their children out of the red-light district," Berman said. The emphasis on the use of filtering software and expected talk about Internet ratings systems has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to dub the event the "censorware summit." The ACLU, which played a major role in opposing the decency act, doesn't oppose filtering software in principle, but it asserts that parents who buy it should be able to learn exactly what sites the software blocks and what criteria were used in deciding to block those sites. [...] Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the ACLU, fears that eventually there would be "one or two centralized ratings systems that will reflect particular moral values and have the effect of limiting the breadth and variety of speech on the Internet." "The way these rating systems are going to work," he said "is that parties other than (consumers) are going to decide whether to employ the ratings systems. Sites that are rated unfavorably are going to be blocked out, rendered invisible to the average user." Berman expressed frustration with the ACLU's criticisms. "The court said there were less restrictive ways than government censorship, and they pointed at these filtering tools. It was endorsed by the Supreme Court 9-0. If you take those tools away, what do parents do?" The conference's organizers, Berman said, also want to let parents know about the efforts of companies with major Internet presences to make the Web more family-friendly. [...]

1 0

Solveig Singleton on "Brave New Partners in Net censorship"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 16:26:03 -0500 From: Solveig Singleton <solveig(a)cato.org> To: declan(a)well.com Op-ed: Brave New Partners In Internet Censorship by Solveig Singleton (solveig(a)cato.org) Solveig Singleton is the director of information studies at the Cato Institute. A few short months ago, the Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment protects the Internet just as it protects booksellers, newspapers and books when it found the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional. That critical ruling signaled censorious governments in countries like Argentina, China, Germany and Zambia that the United States would not provide a precedent for blocking undesirable Internet content. Yet now the computer industry flirts with technologies of "self-censorship" at a December Internet summit under the guiding hand of the Clinton administration. The summit, called Focus on Children, poses subtle new dangers to free speech on the Internet. The First Amendment keeps the government out of the business of controlling media content. Private citizens are free to follow their consciences in choosing their own reading material and guiding their children to seek out or avoid certain information. There's no First Amendment objection when a newspaper editor refuses to print an article or when parents take books away from their children, or use a "censorware" program like SurfWatch in their own homes. The private sector is allowed to edit, to exclude and to silence speech). The public sector is not. But the summit's organizers call for "partnership" between industry and government in keeping "inappropriate" material from children. President Clinton is expected to attend. The summit emerged from a July meeting of President Clinton, Vice President Gore and some of the groups involved in the lawsuit against the Communications Decency Act. As it blurs the line between public and private, the Focus on Children summit becomes government action disguised as parental action. Filtering software like SurfWatch and the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) -- a computer language standard that allows labels to be attached to Internet content -- are fine as long as they stay in the private sector, driven by customer demand and free choice. There's no need for a summit to make that happen. With nothing better to do, politicians and sensationalists are likely to use the occasion to shine a media spotlight on the dangers of the Internet. Government pressure will make it all the more likely that the computer industry will be unable to resist calls for mandatory PICS or universal filters built into the fabric of the Internet itself. Disturbingly, the summit's program suggests that free speech rights do not necessarily rank high in the sponsors' priorities. Its sponsors include, for example, the conservative group Enough is Enough; the summit's Web site links to their pro-CDA arguments but not to anti-CDA sites. While some opponents of the CDA are involved, defenders of free speech such as the American Civil Liberties Union are conspicuously absent. Documents promoting the summit describe the CDA as "well intentioned" and note that "supporters and opponents of the CDA agree that children should not have access to inappropriate material on the Internet or in any other medium. The real question is, how best to do it." The right question is whether government has any proper place at the table discussing any of these issues -- and especially in determining what is "inappropriate." The answer is a resounding no. Furthermore, government involvement is not necessary. The vendors of filtering programs have reason enough to ensure that parents are aware of their products. Government involvement promotes political, centralized solutions to what should be private problems. The V-chip is a prime example. Before lawmakers chose to mandate V-chips, entrepreneurs and private groups competed to help parents monitor their children's viewing habits, offering dozens of different blocking technologies as well as ratings and reviews of programs from diverse perspectives. Now the monopoly V-chip threatens to shoulder those offerings out of the picture. Freedom of speech on the Internet offers hope to millions of people around the world who live under political regimes that stifle their access to information. But the Internet's freedom depends on its technology. Politicians should be ashamed to set a precedent in this country by pressuring the industry to engineer this freedom out. We do not need a V-chip for the Internet any more than we need a rating system for libraries or bookstores. ### Solveig Singleton (202) 789-5274 (202) 842-3490 (fax) Director of Information Studies Cato Institute 1000 Mass. Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

1 0

PGP Inc Sold for $35M - News Flash
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<News Alert, from C/Net's News.Com> "PGP acquired by merged security software firm. "Pretty Good Privacy, an encryption company foundered by crypto pioneer Phil Zimmermann, has been acquired by Network Associates, the result of the merger of McAfee Associates and Network General, which closed today. "Network Associates will pay $35 million in cash for PGP. " -- No confirmation or further information available on the PGP, McAfee, or Network General web pages. _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> --

3 3

Re: Pasting in From:
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:50 PM 12/01/1997 +0100, Amad3us <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net> wrote: >Then it has to allow you to put headers back in otherwise you can't >interoperate with software. Eg pasting in References:, Subject: Pasting those in isn't controversial, and is generally supported; you could be using Subject: pasting today with most remailers, using the ## syntax. >(I would like to see Cc: and Bcc: being allowed to be pasted in also). At minimum, addresses in Cc: and Bcc: need to be checked against blocking lists, and it's probably worth checking the number of names in the list against some threshold - especialy Bcc:s, which tend to be popularly used by spamware. >I would also like to see From: pasted in. In fact I can see no >purpose to restrict what can be pasted in, other than to reduce >complaints to the remailer operator possibly. Too easy to be abused by forgers, as are Reply-To: and Sender:. >My software shows be all headers. I am not sure what other software >would do, probably, only display the first From field (the remailers). MSMail and other closed systems are generally quite arrogant about only showing you the mail headers they "know" you want to see, and discarding the rest, whether that's what you want or not. Lots of mail clients only show you one From:, either discarding others or making them available in a "Show all headers" mode. >However you'll notice that my address is: > Amad3us <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net> >which means that I would like it to be pasted in as it is replyable >(for encrypted mail) even though not being a nymserver account. Which is a bit annoying, by the way, for cypherpunks who don't want to read your mail :-) On the other hand, alt.anonymous.messages is a fine place for people to send replies, and you can do things like alt.anonymous.messages(a)mail2news.some-relay-server.com At one time, there was a message-pool service on the extropia remailer which forwarded anything retrieved to all its subscribers; if the list is small it's not much protection, but it's one way to obscure mail sent to middleman remailers. There are other remailer-like systems that provide mailboxes for anonymous retrieval; I think Jenaer does something like that. And then of course there are hotmail and juno :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

2 1

PGP Inc Sold for $35M - News Flash
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Network Associates Acquires Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) 04:46 p.m Dec 01, 1997 Eastern Standard Time SANTA CLARA, Calif., Dec. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA, commencing Dec. 2), formerly McAfee Associates (Nasdaq: MCAF), announced today that it has a signed a definitive agreement to acquire privately-held Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP). The PGP acquisition extends Network Associates' network security and management software products with the leading applied cryptographic security solutions for protecting corporate assets and enabling secure electronic communication. According to an Ernst and Young study, top threats to network security include virus attack, sabotage from inside the firewall and sabotage from outside the firewall. The combination of PGP and Network Associates unites leaders in addressing these corporate security threats. Network Associates' McAfee anti-virus security software is used by over 25 million users and more than 80% of the Fortune 500. With more than four million users in 50 countries, PGP is the worldwide de facto standard for Internet email and file encryption. "The synergy across our product lines is phenomenal," said Bill Larson, chairman and CEO of Network Associates. "We will now be able to provide an integrated software solution for securing both corporate networks and enterprise data." "There is a pressing need for comprehensive, integrated security solutions," said Phil Dunkelberger, general manager of Network Associates' Total Network Security Division, (formerly president and CEO of PGP.) "The combination of resources and talent of the respective companies will provide customers with a premier enterprise-scale security solution." Network Associates leads the way in providing large corporate customers with integrated network security and management suites. Network Associates' Total Virus Defense Suite incorporates client, server and gateway protection against computer viruses, and is a leading offering in its class. The PGP encryption and management products, including the PGP Business Security Suite, will be the cornerstone for a complementary suite offered by Network Associates called the Total Network Security Suite. By combining Network Associates' intrusion and virus detection products with Business Security Suite's desktop encryption software, and key server and policy management tools, the Total Network Security Suite will address, in a single solution, the needs of network administrators and corporate security officers. PGP has long been a pioneer in the security industry, contributing significantly to many of the principles that have driven the industry. Network Associates will continue to support the guiding principles that have made PGP a successful technology. These principles include a commitment to strong encryption and open standards. Network Associates will build on the progress made with the Internet Engineering Task Force, including RFC2015 and the Open PGP working group, to develop standards for security designed to unify industry practice. The acquisition, which is expected to close on or about December 15, 1997, is subject to PGP stockholder approval and other customary closing conditions. Members of PGP's board of directors and management, and certain other major PGP stockholders have agreed separately with Network Associates to vote their PGP shares in favor of the acquisition. The aggregate consideration payable in the acquisition is approximately $36 million (payable at closing in cash and the assumption of certain liabilities) and warrants to acquire a specified number of shares of Network Associates common stock. The acquisition will be accounted for under the purchase method of accounting. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principle, Network Associates expects to incur a significant charge to earnings for the Dec. 31, 1997 quarter related to the purchase of in-process research and development. With headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., Network Associates, Inc., formerly McAfee Associates, is a leading supplier of enterprise network security and management solutions. Network Associates' product offering includes four individual software suites, Total Virus Defense, Total Network Security, Total Network Visibility and Total ServiceDesk, which can be centrally managed from within the Network Associates' NetTools unified management environment. For more information, Network Associates can be reached at 408-988-3832 or on the Web at http://www.networkassociates.com. This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Because such statements apply to future events, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially, including without limitation, integration risks related to the proposed transaction and the risk that the proposed transaction will not be consummated. Important factors which could cause actual results to differ materially are described in Network Associates' reports on Form 10-K and 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. SOURCE Network Associates, Inc. Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> --

1 0

Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially among members whose positions are otherwise indefensible. It's surprising in a way because this fallacy is more common among statists. There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be illegal. We see this all the time. People think of the government as their way of expressing moral values. Drugs are wrong, so they must be made illegal. Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it also must be illegal. We have countless bad laws based on this false premise. On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, it must be moral. Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, hateful, immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was legal, because of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Their critic must be opposed to free speech if he objects to their words. Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game. It leads to the false reasoning of the statists. We must remember that there is a clear distinction between morality and legality. We all agree with freedom of speech. People should be able to say whatever they like without fear of legal consequences. Cypherpunk technologies can play a major part in assuring this freedom. But this does not mean that all speech is equally valid. If someone calls for murder and they are attacked for it, it does no good for them to hide behind the First Amendment. Their words are wrong - they will have harmful consequences if followed. They cheapen life, and work against the goals we share of a future based on cooperation rather than cooercion. Cypherpunks are intelligent enough not to be fooled by this attempt to use the principle of free speech to justify calls for violence and murder. It's no wonder, really, that people like May and Vulis attempt to confuse the issue by pretending that their critics are opposed to freedom of speech. They know that if they are judged by their own words, their character is revealed for all to see. Any smokescreen is welcome if it helps conceal their vicious, hateful nature.

2 1

Panel names released for Bernstein hrg on 12/8
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just spoke with someone in the clerk's office at the Ninth Circuit - the composition of the panel of judges for next Monday's hearing in the Bernstein case has been released. The judges are Bright, Fletcher, and (Thomas) Nelson. I haven't been able to find information about Judge Bright, but found pages of (meager) ratings/discussion about Fletcher and Nelson at: <http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/fletchb.htm> and <http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/nelsontg.htm> I think that Judge Bright may be Myron H. Bright, a senior justice on the 8th Circuit, who sometimes sits on 9th circuit cases by designation. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com

2 1

PGP bought by McAfee
by steve 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>"Network Associates, Inc. >(Nasdaq: NETA, commencing Dec. 2), formerly McAfee Associates >(Nasdaq: MCAF), announced today that it has a signed a definitive >agreement to acquire privately-held Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP)." Varous Questions, comments rants, etc.: Does anyone know how this will affect PGP's: security, commitment to no-GAK, Founder (P. Zimmerman), the continuation of the PGP product line? I heard that McAfee's PCCrypto product will still be sold by NETA as a retail product, (are they considering incorperating the 2 together and just using PGP's team for R&D?) steve -- A picture tells a thousand words. Stego

3 2

California
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:45:58 -0500 Reply-To: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Sender: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)VM.TEMPLE.EDU> From: Ben Wright <Ben_Wright(a)COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: California Comments: To: digsig-post <digsig(a)lists.state.tx.us> To: DIGSIG(a)VM.TEMPLE.EDU The California Secretary of State has published the final draft of his digital signature regulations at <http://ss.ca.gov/digsig/digsig.htm>. The final draft contemplates both dual-key signatures and signature dynamics like PenOp. --Ben Wright <http://infohaus.com/access/by-seller/Benjamin_Wright. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

===BULK E.MAIL 27 MILLION HOMES===
by 20145708＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JUST RELEASED... 27,000,000 Email Addresses! Plus 12 Bonuses... Including FREE bulk e.mail software. These addresses are less than 21 days old. EARN INSANE PROFITS WITH THE RIGHT FORMULA If you have a product, service, or message that you would like to get out to Thousands, Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of people, you have several options.Traditional methods include print advertising, direct mail, radio, and television advertising. They are all effective, but they all have two catches: They're EXPENSIVE and TIME CONSUMING. Not only that, you only get ONE SHOT at making your message heard, by the right people. The INTERNET, the "Global Communications Frontier" has changed this dramatically, including making countless individuals wealthy. "Electronic Marketing," as it's commonly referred to, has effectively leveled the playing fields of all types businesses. AmeriNet has been in the online marketing business for over 5 years. We can help make your goals come true. We have helped many individuals succeed in marketing their product effectively. It's very simple to do. In fact soon you will have the problem of what to do with all the cash you will make from sending out bulk email. Here is just one of many true success stories we have seen... We did a mailing of 1 1/2 million emails for one of our customers. He was selling a home workers manual for $29.95. His results are very typical and scary. He took in over 700 orders! 700 x $29.95 = $20,000. This gentleman was so amazed, that after being skeptical, it had really happened to him, he made it, he found a niche. That niche was email! He went on to buy our full list and will be set for life in less than six months time. All this from selling a simple manual via e.mail. That was just one of the many success stories we hear everyday. It may all sound to good to be true. Well, we can tell you this. It really does work. Why else are so many individuals doing it? They are not just wasting their time. They are all making mega bucks. Don't even hesitate on this one or you will miss out on the most effective way to market anywhere..PERIOD! HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE AND WHAT WE CAN DO FOR YOU Here is what you get when you order today! >> 27 Million Email Addresses... 1 per line in simple text format on a CD. Multiple files of 250,000 or greater (no codes needed to open files). You will receive email addresses of the following domains... AOL, PRODIGY, COMPUSERVE, DELPHI, GENIE, JUNO, PIPELINE, INTERAMP, MSN, MCI, and 5 MILLION OTHER MIXED EMAIL ADDRESSES (.com, .net). All names listed above are seperated in files by domain name for your convenience. PLUS THESE BONUS SPECIALS... >> 2 Free Bulk Email Programs...Pegasus and Eudora. You will be able to load our names into these 2 Distribution List Software's (which will create Distribution Lists Saving you hours of work) for immediate, around the clock launching! You can whip out as many distribution lists as you like, and depending on the speed of your modem and the length of your message, you will be able to send out around 10,000 to 30,000 messages per hour for free. >>"Stealth Mass Mailer" Bulk Email Demo. This is the most popular bulk emailer in the world. You can test drive it for free. This product sends over 250,000 per hour. >> Super Note Pad... This software will help manage your large text files for you. >> Winzip Self Extractor... This program will be needed when de-compressing a compressed file. It will come in handy when dealing with files of zip format. >> Over 5,000 Places To Advertise For Free! >> "Profits 2500 Series"... 7 manuals that will teach you how to market on the internet and what offers work and which ones to stay clear of. Also we will show you where to find web designers for free and much, much more. YOU GET EVERYTHING FOR ONLY $199.00 >>>SPECIAL BONUS... If you order within 48 hours you can deduct $50.00 from the listed price. Limited time only! We have previously sold the seven manuals alone for over $400. Now you can have the complete package for the low price of only $149.00 Don't even hesitate on this one.. Reserve yours today! All lists are completely free of any Duplicates. We also on a continual basis, add New Names and Remove Undeliverables and Remove Requests. The result is the Cleanest Email Addresses Available Anywhere to use over and over again, for a FRACTION of the cost that other companies charge. Typical rates for acquiring email lists are from 1 cent to as high as 3 cents per email address - that's "INFORMATION HIGHWAY" ROBBERY!. How do I protect my e.mail address? 1st of all, send your e.mail with the Stealth Mass Mailer. This program will protect your email address while sending your e.mail at speeds of up to 250,000 messages per hour (28.8 connection). 2nd, collect your inquiries and remove requests via AutoResponders . Using AutoResponders, you don't even have to read the flames. Just move them to your remove list and forget about them! Start earning mega money and get started now! If you have ANY further questions please feel free to contact us anytime at: amerinet(a)prodigy.com and please type "QUESTIONS" in the subject line. To order our email package, simply print out the EZ Order form below and fax or call us anytime. We accept Visa ,Mastercard,American Express, Personal Check or Money Order. ---------------------------------------- EZ Order Form Please fax your order form to: 561-833-3968 Or call our 24 Hour Order Line at: 1-330-438-0229 (orders only) We will deduct an additional $5.00 for all phone and faxed orders. _____Yes! I would like to order your 27,000,000 email addresses Plus all the bonuses for only $199.00 _____I am ordering within 48 Hours! Please deduct $50.00 from the price making the total only $149.00 *Please select one of the following for shipping. ____I would like to receive my package OVERNIGHT. I'm including $12 for shipping. ____I would like to receive my package PROIRITY delivery. I'm including $4 for shipping. ____Please add $10.00 for all orders from outside the U.S. DATE_____________________________________________________ NAME____________________________________________________ ADDRESS_________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP__________________________________________ PHONE NUMBER_________________________________________ EMAIL ADDRESS__________________________________________ TYPE OF CREDIT CARD: ______VISA _____MASTERCARD____AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CARD# __________________________________________ EXPIRATION DATE________________________________________ NAME ON CARD__________________________________________ AMOUNT $___________________ SIGNATURE:x________________________ DATE:x__________________ ---------------------------------------------------- Best of Luck!! We apologize if this e.mail was sent to you in error. To be permanently removed from all mailing lists simply send any e.mail to: remove(a)bulkcenter.com Thank You!

1 0

Fwd: Japs and the UN
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== >Return-Path: <Sporting.Shooters.Association(a)adelaide.on.net> >Received: from falcon.adelaide.on.net by cti02.citenet.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA11267; Sun, 30 Nov 97 17:19:02 EST >Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 08:45:53 +1030 >Resent-From: Sporting.Shooters.Association(a)adelaide.on.net >Resent-Message-Id: <9711302219.AA11267(a)cti02.citenet.net> >Received: from default (ppp253.adelaide.on.net.au) > by adelaide.on.net (PMDF V5.1-10 #25974) > with SMTP id <01IQNJH3VW8Q00CE9B(a)adelaide.on.net> > (original mail from ssa(a)adelaide.on.net) for jf_avon(a)citenet.net; Mon, > 1 Dec 1997 08:46:02 +0930 >Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 08:45:53 +1030 >From: ALERT <Sporting.Shooters.Association(a)adelaide.on.net> >Subject: Japs and the UN >To: ssaa-alerts(a)adelaide.on.net >Resent-Reply-To: Sporting.Shooters.Association(a)adelaide.on.net >Reply-To: Sporting.Shooters.Association(a)adelaide.on.net >Message-Id: <3481E599.D57(a)adelaide.on.net> >Organization: Sporting Shooters Association of Australia >Mime-Version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Comments: Sporting Shooters Association ALERTS mailing list >X-UIDL: 6ab40261c41b93db3a6bd1fed4a9e264 > "Japan paid salaries to officials on loan to U.N." .c Kyodo News Service TOKYO, Nov. 30 (Kyodo) - The Japanese government has paid salaries to its officials on loan to the United Nations for the past 27 years in violation of the U.N. Charter, a national daily reported Sunday. Officials from Japanese ministries and agencies on loan to the world body receive salaries from the U.N. as well as salaries from the Japanese government, the Mainichi Shimbun said in a report from Geneva. The government has paid billions of yen for more than 1,000 officials from Japan's ministries and agencies after a law, stipulating government officials dispatched to international institutions be paid 70 to 100% of the salaries paid in Japan, took effect in 1971, the Mainichi said. The U.N. Charter and U.N. staff regulations ban receiving payment from any government to maintain its independence. An official at the National Personnel Authority was quoted as saying half the Japanese officials on U.N. assignments are paid 100 % of their home salary amount. Tsukasa Kawada, director of the Foreign Ministry's U.N. Administration Division, was quoted as telling the Mainichi the payments are aimed at guaranteeing the status of officials on loan by continuing their pension and insurance fees' benefit and are not rewards for their duties in the U.N. AP-NY-11-29-97 2338EST ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants physicists and engineers, LabView programing. PGP encryption keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Re: PGP bought by McAfee (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Identities removed to protect the innocent] Forwarded message: > >Does anyone know how this will affect PGP's: > >security, commitment to no-GAK, Founder (P. Zimmerman), the continuation > >of the PGP product line? > > > >I heard that McAfee's PCCrypto product will still be sold by NETA as a > >retail product, (are they considering > >incorperating the 2 together and just using PGP's team for R&D?) > > > Even more basic questions: Will NETA release source code? Will they > continue to develop freeware versions of PGP? What conections does NETA > have to S/MIME? What happens to licensing of things like PGPsdk and the > freeware versions of PGP? Will PGP be seen as a "dead-end" product by > potential new users. What will happen to Open-PGP email encryption > standard? > > This is not good. What's the matter? Finding a free market economy monopolize right in front of your eyes just a tad uncomfortable? Cyber-anarchy in action... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, & Writing Code...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen source of crypto tools. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0