December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Wed Nov 12 18:39:46 1997 Message-Id: <9711121841.AA10833(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu> Errors-To: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Sender: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:53:13 -0500 To: info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu From: Union of Councils <ucsj(a)ucsj.com> Subject: INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is INFO-RUSS broadcast (1200+ subscribers). Home page, information, and archives: http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/inforuss.html To post, or to subscribe/unsubscribe, mail to info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu INFO-RUSS assumes no responsibility for the information/views of its users. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sen. Bingaman and Rep. Skaggs Appeal to Colleagues to Urge Review of Nikitin Case UCSJ encourages human rights supporters to call their Senators and Representatives and act on Nikitin's behalf Below is a "Dear Colleague" letter from Congressman David Skaggs (D-CO) on the case of Alexander Nikitin. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is circulating a similar letter in the Senate. Please call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to sign these crucial letters. Maximum pressure and publicity is needed to help convince the Russian authorities to drop this case. It is essential that Nikitin's rights are protected and that the Russian security apparatus not be permitted to win this power struggle. (For more on the Nikitin case, please email Jason Silberberg at jsilb(a)ucsj.com.) Union of Councils ucsj(a)ucsj.com November 4, 1997 RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTALIST CHARGED WITH TREASON FOR WARNING OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISASTER Dear Colleague, I am writing to bring to your attention new developments in the case of Alexander Nikitin, a case that has broad repercussions for the future of democracy, free speech, and due process in Russia. I ask you to join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Alexander Nikitin, a Russian environmentalist who co-authored a report that revealed a nuclear waste disaster in the making, has been charged with treason by the Russian Federal Security Service (the former KGB), which completed its investigation on September 19. The Russian Procurator, Yuri Skuratov, who was appointed by President Boris Yeltsin, will now have to decide whether to move to trial in this case. Nikitin co-authored a report published by the Norwegian environmental group, Bellona, that revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after Nikitin was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding the choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. This case is critical, not only for Russian environmental policy, but for the future of Russian democracy. It is disturbing if Russia is unable to face up to these enormous environmental problems without prosecuting the citizen that exposed them. It raises questions about whether free speech and the publication of reports critical of the government will be permitted. The grave issues of due process in the Nikitin case cause doubt about whether Russia has truly put Soviet-style justice behind it. Please join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, asking him to seek a thorough review before any decision is made to take this case to trial. If you would like to cosign the letter, or if you have further questions, please call Sue Hardesty of my staff at 52161. Sincerely yours, David E. Skaggs -------------------------------------------------------------------- His Excellency Boris Yeltsin President of Russia Moscow, Russian Federation Dear Mr. President: We are writing to bring to your attention the case of Alexander Nikitin. We understand that the Federal Security Service has completed its investigation, and the Procurator General must now decide whether to take the case to trial. We applaud the enormous strides Russia has taken since the end of the Soviet era to establish a rule of law, and end the old Soviet-style approach to criminal prosecution. That is why we are very concerned that this case, if pursued, would mark a serious setback for the rule of law in Russia. Alexander Nikitin co-authored a report published by Bellona, a Norwegian environmental organization. The report revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with espionage for violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after he was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding their choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. It appears that the rule of law as embodied in the Russian constitution has not been followed in this case. We urge you to ask your government's Procurator General to order a thorough review. We believe that such an unbiased review of the case would lead to a dismissal of the charges against Alexander Nikitin, and ask that you take steps to see that such a review is conducted. We see this case as extremely significant. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

1 0

Re: Minor Language Note
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >>> While it was not Tim's intention to make Jim look like a criminal, >>> the use of a defendent's full name is often used to connote >>> criminality. >>> >>> Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacy, Richard >>> Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton... there are many >>> examples. > >George Washington Carver, James Fennimore Cooper, Richard Dean >Anderson, Clare Booth Luce, Robert Anton Wilson, Francis Scott Key,..... We don't usually think of these people as defendants. >(Sometimes people have three names, sometimes two names, popularly >used. Criminality has little to do with it. For example, Richard >Speck, Charles Manson, John Walker, Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, >Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols. Most of them presumably have middle >names.) I did not say that the use of middle names was required for defendants. >Oh, and as to divining what Tim's "intention" was, this mindreading >and psychoanalysis shtick is getting old. My opening sentence was intended to be friendly. It was supposed make clear that it was not suggested that you thought Jim Bell was a criminal. Certainly that was obvious, but a little redundancy never hurts. It looks like the meaning didn't convey properly, so I'm sorry if I seemed to be psychoanalyzing you. It's generally considered courteous to call people by the name they wish to be called. Jim Bell seems to go by the name "Jim Bell". (This would not hold if somebody makes an inappropriate request such as asking to be addressed as "James Dalton Bell, Defender of the Faith, God of Vengeance, and Lord of the Universe.") Back to the original point, I believe that it's hard to find instances in which two-named people are involuntarily converted to three-named people when they are not charged with a crime. Lee Oswald became "Lee Harvey Oswald" after the Kennedy Assassination, for example. I've also noticed that Wardens have a marked tendency to refer to inmates on death row by their first name, even when speaking publicly. As in, "Don's death was very upsetting as it was obviously very painful." (Paraphrased from a real example.) I believe the wardens are expressing a few things with this name choice. One is that they have complete power over the inmate. Teachers call children by their first names, and it seems to me that there is an element of that here. (Admittedly, this is a troubling image.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGpi1JaWtjSmRH/5AQEsLwf9H4ZmvsVVkQgh9WU/HOUZYdet7+9p9nBf frvYBTgRNoOPiM0pl7Yusl/GhAK6nhCpEb0dCUaWjFLW889I5CyvrbqkzWoA6tj0 k5ULieQs390JEzGAn1LEkvzUCjlEBn5WFgpzJCFYzWpAMaQPT6qcczRIXqoCPG7l R822+EBuL9eikWruy+8V6Bt45mQyB/aHemhmIa/V4YKCn7mc8FmfZ/qQHknaPdFP wJz3cXmw1im4Br/0UkLv9bD2CfZCqcq74VpbujMvUFnsAOmbrWJVqlSV+Gs1MDXf Zli7VCarhzAU9j4sPU9gbTBYsuApRYd8IrJtvOfQcDDMw0dEd9/tjA== =Az6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown >with the federal government. This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread about "What Will Revolution Look Like" >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the purpose at hand. (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous of EFGA wrote: >This illustrates what a liability the poster has become to the cypherpunks. >The group is becoming just another militia front, identified with racism >and white supremacy, applauding violent murder of government agents, >one step from applauding the Oklahoma killings. Its original purpose >all but forgotten, the list has died, poisoned by the hatred flowing from >its leader. Wait a minute, that list is way too short. This list is far more diversely mean-spirited, and venomously hilarious, than that. It offers a lot more hatred and humor than you give credit for, or maybe can enjoy. All praise to Tim, beloved mad as hell assassin, he's one of the sharpest killer humorists-satirists here, call's the jokes and the buffoons as he sees them, insults hot shot leaders and fawning beggars indiscriminately. Hate and love on both Glocks. Check the anarchives: Tim's no leader, says it often, proves it more so by destroying anyone who pretends to be, scares off anyone who tries to suck up to him for protection, and promises to kill (filter) the bloodsuckers if they send PGPed tips. Kill them with ridicule for not thinking for themselves, paying their own way, lapping others' blood and brains. If that doesn't work he tells a public joke about their overtures. Then the anon shits fly. Is he not these very days razzing the big iron folks, taunting the tank in Tienamen Square? We'll yet see some anon turds for this, too, maybe yours is one. Some have weird sense of playfulness, cut your throat to see you flop. Call you a leader, a bullseye target. Hettinga, helluva beloved Bob, another bleeding edge satirist, self-flagellator for philo-fun and E$, this is adose of clap also for your exemplary rant of a schtick of a buffoonery of a calling them as you deadeyedly see them miraging the desert of Maine.

1 0

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:01 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. On the legal side this narrowing has a modest merit in that the government has established (rightly or wrongly) the power to control publishers. It is difficult to find a reference to a website that does not make a reference to publishing. Thus it falls under a reasonable interpretation of existing law and precident (and distinguished from, the internet is a telephone as the frozen brains would have it.) The critical problem is obvious, harmful to minors. Tooth decay is harmful to minors, all product advertising that can be construed as increasing the incidence of tooth decay is harmful to children. It also brings up the German "I can trump your arguement and invent a new one" excuse for banning Zundelsite, that it was "ethically disorienting to children." If one presumes ethical disorientation is a harm then one has to hold all forms of education that promote independent thinking are harmful to children. It would therefore make huge numbers of academic sites criminal including the Gutenberg Project for carrying materials that resulted in the prosecution of Socrates for essentially the same crime. It is not a viable concept without a definition of harm to children. Given current events, any mention of air bags is not merely harmful to children but lethal to children. -=-=- I have contacted the owner with a problem. It still sends to me but does not receive. Until the mailing list problem is corrected I will try to continue participation this way. Let me know if you have a problem with this method.

1 0

Re: SWAT: A Growth Industry
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan Veeneman wrote: > US News & World Report 11/17/97 > Everyone gets into the terrorism game > BY DAVID E. KAPLAN > >Congress...allocated more than a billion dollars in support ... > Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are > needed. For example, they agree that the training of local emergency > workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue. Are these guys with the same government that ignores the fact that the development of antibiotic-resistant *natural* diseases due to the greed of the medical and pharmaceutical industries may well lead to more death and disaster than any terrorist threat?

1 0

(Fwd) Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!!
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: gregruggiero(a)earthlink.net (Greg Ruggiero) Subject: Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!! Friends, This should raise the hopes of all microbroadcasters. We, who oppose the barriers against free communications and the corporate takeover of our media institutions, need to do all we can to ensure that the airwaves really become free. Support your local alternative media. Howard Rosenfeld ---------------------------------------------- ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE RADIO BERKELEY & MICROPOWER BROADCASTING At 7 PM on Thursday, [ed: correction - Wednesday] November 12 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer & Free Radio Berkeley received a 14 page decision via fax from Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken announcing her ruling in favor of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Her ruling denies the FCC's motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction, states that she has jurisdiction in this case and that the FCC's regulatory structure is unconstitutional. Further, she orders the FCC to submit within 14 days a brief on the constitutional issues raised. Essentially Judge Claudia Wilken affirms all the merits and arguments raised by the defense attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Stay tuned for further details. The full text of the decision will be posted ASAP. A victory party will take place on Saturday evening, November 15 in Berkeley. Place to be announced as soon as one is secured. Everyone is invited. Stephen Dunifer Free Radio Berkeley ******************************************************************* NEW YORK Media for Change <<< FREE MEDIA >>> Changing the Media ALLIANCE listserve: nyfreemedia(a)tao.ca voicemail: (212) 969-TOFM website: http://artcon.rutgers.edu/papertiger/nyfma ******************************************************************* =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://ross.adnetsol.com Voice: (408) 259-2795

3 3

Think Locally...Act Globally / Re: FTC, Canada, Mexico officials launch "health claim surf day"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ****************************************** > > FTC Launches North American Health Claim Surf Day > > ****************************************** > > by Michael Evers ... > > The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its federal and state law > > enforcement partners, and public health and consumer protection > > agencies from Mexico and Canada are sending you (and hundreds of other > > Internet advertisers) this message based upon a review of the promotion > > you disseminated through the Internet. How about if you are selling something on your web site and giving pointers to information/advertisements located on a foreign website? Let me guess...hhmmm...disabled grandmothers who are selling their home-grown chamoemille tea will have their homes confiscated, and corporations with expensive lawyers will be approved for an exemption on some flimsy grounds. Anybody know of any Mexican laws I can break by putting something illegal there, but legal in Canada, on my web site? Any CypherSpics who would like to put up a "Canadian Hate" page that I could link to? CyhperCanuck

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:02:38 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: Mad as Hell > Tim May wrote: > > >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, > >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern > >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown > >with the federal government. > > This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread > about "What Will Revolution Look Like" > > >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing > >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. > > However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and > needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from > the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies > playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights > minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the > purpose at hand. > > (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, > crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) A reasonable motto should be something like: 10th? I'm all for a political faction, they really don't have to be as organized as the Big Two & Little Third would like you to believe. Perhaps the concepts of multiple political parties with their own popularist views has become truly effective because of the impact of technology in particularly on concept expression, and communications. What needs to happen is a small group of suitably inspired whiz kids need to get together and form a complete plan for creating legal cases to decide the respective aspects of the 10th. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In some manner the question of whether the first sentence is an implicit limitation of *all* laws and regulations at the federal level needs to be tested. In other words, each and every law *must* trace its existance to a specific set of sentences in the Constitution. If it could be found to be so then each and every law and regulation at the federal would have to pass constitutional review at every stage of its existance within the federal government. Then a case needs to found of some situation say the founding of a church based on smoking marijuana was a illegal entity under the 1st where it is found that such organizations were illegal (rather trivial I suspect). At this point the wording of the 1st becomes *much* more specific. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Under this light it becomes glaringly clear that not only is Congress not allowed to even discuss legislation respecting claims of religion. Per the 10th that would fall to the individual states to resolve under their individual constitutions. This would force many of the major social issues onto a regional basis where they could be dealt with in a plurality of ways. Issues regarding infringement of private ownership of weapons becomes glaringly clear in that light. It simply isn't a federal issue. Per the 10th it must be dealt with at the state level. Other issues such as no searches except under warrant issued with probable causes automaticaly prohibits various sorts of searches including samples of body tissue. The issue of the use of federal military troops for any sorts of operations except those respecting the operations of the defence of the US would be clearly decided. Such silliness as the Supreme Court finding that teachers have the Constitutional right to search kids because of supposed criminal wrong doing is clearly shown for what it is, an violation of an individuals civil rights. Warrants can only be issues on probably cause. Under these sorts of conditions the various consensual crimes our government now routinely practices would end. This is vary scary to the status quo crowd. And here lies the rub, the initial 10th test cast must be irrefusable concerning the 10th. The question then becomes, "What is the issue?". What law or aspect thereof is found so compelling that the Supreme Court *must* accept the case for ruling *and* must find in favor of Constitutional review. For maximum impact somebodies life must hang in the balance in such a manner that some fundamental question of legal lineage is brought forth. This reduces the issue to its most fundamental, "Is the right of the state more important than the life of the individual?" Why some lawyer has not used this basic question in the numerous murder trials is truly amazing. If he wins a legal precidence is set. If he looses and gets to appeal. Then walk that appeals train right up to the fundamental question of the 10th. Forcing the Supreme Court to either reject, stating clearly their answer in favor of the majority, or else to review and find that laws must pass Constitutional muster. Either way the question gets answered. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. Oh joy. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. ^^^^^^^^^ What defines a "web site?" "The World Wide Web" originally meant "material accessible using the HyperText Transfer Protocol." The media and Klintonkov distorted the term into something else, but that's what the term still means. USENET newsgroups do not become "Internet chat groups" just because the clueless sheeple start calling them that. Of course this is how the government thinks. If I make a posting to USENET did I post the material on a "web site?" If I make the material accessible via ftp is it posted on a "web site?" What if it's available using FSP? How about IRC? What about a Bob's Proprietary Pornography Transfer Protocol? How are they going to track this? What happens when I post this material on an Eternity server outside of the U.S.? What if I just keep posting my porn through the remailer network? What if the porn site is in Amsterdam? What if I just get tired of the totalitarians and double-blind the entire process using the remailer network and while I'm at it I accept anonymous payment? What if I bring my porn into a public computer lab and upload it somewhere without any identification or with a psuedonym? Is the P.Q.R.T. (Pornography Quick Response Team) going to bust through the door before I've done this, which takes all of about 30 seconds? What happens when people start posting such porn to sci.chem? What about sci.crypt or alt.christnet? What about misc.legal? comp.org.eff.talk? news.groups? >Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. >Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original >CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's >unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I >have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my >colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the >parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the >Senate floor. > (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) Is this bill available on the "World Wide Web?" I would argue that reading this bill is "harmful to minors" because it completely ignores the Constitution of the United States. Further, it encourages people to lie, cheat, violate oaths of office, and generally abuse power. Senator Coats, what an example for America's youth! >Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not >as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that >Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and >Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. >Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material >that was "harmful to minors." > (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) >A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult >pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're >involved in the commercial distribution of material that's >harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put >it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David >Crane said. What happens when they say "this material must be put behind a firewall?" Do I comply with the letter of the law if I firewall some random port like 49554? What if I firewall everything except port 80? What if I use a dedicated box as a network router and firewall? These things are all "firewalls." Who determines what is a "valid firewall?" Microsoft? A Coats staffer? A credit card company? What happens when these credit card numbers are sent all over the network in the clear? As it stands now you usually send a credit card number when you want to buy something. What they want here is for everybody to go send credit card numbers all over the net just to view free previews and get to text-based information. And, of course, since we have to protect society from the Four Horsemen, these credit card numbers will likely be sent in the clear or using encryption which can be cracked by a college student running a distributed cracker at idle priority on each of the several hundred machines in a lab. And getting even *one* credit card number is worth a lot. What prevents me from setting up a bogus site which asks for credit card numbers to view some nudie pictures I pulled off USENET or other sites and just storing the credit card numbers? How many of these people access just one porn site so it would be that easy to track? How can anybody prove that's what I did? Once handing credit card numbers out is as second nature as SSNs, all bets are off. And what happens when Little Johnny goes and gets Daddy's credit card and uses the number as ID? If they aren't charging, this probably won't be showing up on an invoice. And Little Johnny has plausible deniability anyway. What about stolen credit card numbers? Who determines what is "material harmful to minors?" Coats? The Supreme Court? Psychologists? Scientologists? Klitonkov? The United Nations? My hamster? Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod? Who? Well, I guess this outlaws any meaningful political discussions, discussions of abortions, any meaningful social discussions, any meaningful discussions about sex or romance, any discussions about the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, any discussions of firearms, any discussions of hand-to-hand combat, any discussions of self defense, any discussions of guerilla warfare, any discussions of pyrotechnics, any discussions about chemistry, lists like BUGTRAQ where exploits are posted, et cetera ad nauseum. All of those things might be considered "harmful to minors." Damn the Constitution and freedom! If it saves the life of one innocent yet incredibly stupid child then just forget about that pesky freedom thing. After all, that's only the domain of "far right-wing nazi gun nuts and radicals," right? >But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. >Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes >any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without >redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or >bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. Yeah! Go Senate! Go ahead and ban any digital copies of books like 1984 (oh the irony!), digital versions of the Christian Bible, the Torah, et cetera ad nauseum. >Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is >engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of >material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to >Internet providers and online services as well. How are they going to enforce this one? Mandate that sites only serve "government certified safe" or "independantly certified safe" sites? Turn off all phone and network access, jam all radio and sattelite communications, and legislate that anybody caught with a laser capable of communications or floppy disks with files on them which might contain stegoed data will be summarily executed? >The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to >publish on their web sites "such information as is >necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term >`material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a >lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court >struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of >obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is >obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't >have any luck coming up with a definition of >obscenity-lite." >Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce >Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for >Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the >hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. "This bill will ensure that our freedoms are further eroded." >Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward >his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges >criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original >CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There >will be a concerted effort to build a substantial >legislative history," says David Crane. >This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in >cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come >forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other >concerns," Crane says. >-Declan My fellow Cypherpunks, what we have here is best explained by an analogy like this: The government decides that the youth of America is corrupting themselves and harming their health by drinking soft drinks. The Congress introduces legislation to outlaw softdrinks. Everyone except the National Law Center for Fruit and Vegetables and some other far flung totalitarians think that this legislation is rediculous and an unreasonable restriction of rights. It passes anyway. It goes to the Supreme Court and the Court shoots it down. Two years later Congress again tries to outlaw soft drinks. Since outlawing of soft drinks en masse was not allowed by the Supreme Court, they just outlaw Coke. This passes. People start drinking Mountain Dew and JOLT instead. The Justice Department brings charges against these drinkers, the people who manufactured it, the people who sold it to them, and the truck drivers who shipped it. It goes to court and the defendants claim that the law wasn't broken. The State says that the law was indeed broken because "everybody refers to soft drinks as Coke." This, of course, begs the question of why, if "Coke" is a synonym for "soft drinks" they passed a law after the Supreme Court clearly stated that they couldn't do such. If "Coke" is not a synonym for "soft drink" then they have no charge against these people. Welcome to the Land of the Freeh.

1 0

Fight CDA 2...?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems to me that the fundamental question that should be asked here is: Does the 10th require strict compliance with the wording of the Constitution per the first sentence of the 10th or explain specificaly what Constitutional sentences are being used to justify the 10th and by extension the entire Constitution itself being exempt of mandatory constitutional review at all stages of a laws life. This is perhaps the key question that needs to be asked in order to properly understand the language of the Constitution. Viewed in the light of strict compliance the wording of the Constitution becomes remarkably free of ambiguity. If the 10th is taken literaly it can only be interpreted as saying: - The federal government is required to justify all its rules, regulations, and offical actions within the explicit context of the text of the Constitution. - In situations where there is no clear ruling the issue is remanded to the states for resolution per their own individual constitutions. Or in cases where the state constitution would not apply to the people. - "to the people" needs to be interpreted as meaning to be left to individual discretion and therefore fundamentaly exempt from review at the state or federal level. - This is the level a behaviour or action becomes a Constitutionaly recognized right exempt from future regulation per the 9th. - The above interpretations are open to change per the methods described for Constitutional Amendments. - "Congress shall make no law..." & "shall not be infringed." become much clearer and less open to federal level inteference. Some of the results of this would be: - The entire 'Drug War' machine would grind to a halt - Many people in jail on solely drug possession and use charges with no other jailable charge would be released immediatly - NASA would require some sort of Constitutional amendment to continue to operate - The interaction and use between the US military and the state and local level regarding law enforcement would cease immediately - CDC would require Constitutional amendment funding - Issues of what is and what is not 'legal' speech would be resolved at the state level. - Confiscation of property without compensation would be completely abandoned. - The recognition that police have no fundamental rights under the Constitution because it in no way draws a distinction between polic & a non-police citizen. Laws can not draw distinction of this sort at the federal level. - Each and every search *must* be at the direct interaction of a magistrate *and* must explicity describe what is being searched for *and further* demonstrate probable cause within a much more precise environment. - The recognition that laws based on the distinction of 'victimless' and 'victim' crimes is a distinction that can't be drawn at the Constitutional level. - A action or behaviour is either protected or it isn't. This would create a set of states with quite a range of constitutional environments. I can just see the "Mormon State of Utah" where the official constitutional religion is Mormonism by amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

about RC4
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are RC4 sourcecode in ftp.replay.com. but, Is it same RC4 developed RSADSI ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Meaning of course, when Patrick Henry... --- Oops, Thomas Paine, sorry, >transposed my patriots there -- first stood up to be counted, he did it with >a pseudonym. Think how difficult it must have been to publish a pseudonymous writing back in their day. And compare how easy it is now. With a basic Internet connection and some software I can post this message under the name Nerthus, and anyone who took the time to save my public key in their keyring can verify with almost complete certainty that "Nerthus" wrote this. But as we progress on some fronts, we digress on others. The tools which can empower the individual are readily available, but the individual is quickly becoming an automaton, a shell of the man he used to be. "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death." -- Patrick Henry What is life without liberty? Abject slavery. Any sane man would rather die than be a slave. But what is this slavery? It is the state in which we live our lives. More often than not, our oppressors are our own selves: our fears, our imaginings, our hatred. Everyone does this: the "right-wing-gun-nut" who detests the actions of the BATF, the Christian zealot who detests the pro-abortion crusaders/ Zoroastrians/creationists/NWO types, the IRS agent who detests the "tax protestors", the treehugger who detests the corporate greed/profit machine that is destroying the planet... I could go on but I think you get my point. Injustice happens everyday. The next time you find yourself at Burger King stuffing yourself with greasy slop, think of the millions of people in Africa who are slowly starving to death. Injustice, yes, but what are you going to do about it? Anything? The fact is you can't do anything, even if you wanted to. And because of that we all become reactionary, angered, resentful, violent. We perpetuate the disintegration of mankind, of ourselves. No people in their right mind should bow down and lick the boots of their oppressors. But neither should they kill them either. The intelligent action is to show the oppressors the errors in their ways. Every human being, even our "enemies" have a mind that is not completely devoid of reason. The sooner we show them a better way of living, the sooner we can move toward it. Then the possibility for an end to the injustices that surround us becomes more available. I leave you with a quote to ponder: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Any idea who the pinko-liberal, NWO cocksucker was that said this? It was Thomas Paine in his book "Rights of Man". Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNGpu6eFWwZe05jcJAQGd5Qf/bvcqrugd+FFqBiM89nZeWmUhgAkT0Blq 3IXIkxDNp3+rPYX8dsqp0cD+nHEf7fDrgmxS6+/oHFMnN+p2fC0m1UdD1bl3AgiD lbyjTXtg688ezf4km/MXRNFKtRxbqaOewdf4TVgReLnVkB3ITPzKZb81N4PQHnR8 W0esKslh6AQSDVPlR0r+UIdMawXzNKR75KVaLRhTw7GXV0GvoZh5Ckz1xd2ZDvz+ q/MjTXDTZI5u5Ta2EKcfh0Vcs8Yy7tYv8yRY0zKS0NhorsBhIGrXA5aF5aaxrDTX rWRHaZPRSd5Fm9rKKTJM+D/KVa2wxszP+bWrqusRryY0MN8AW/qZ3w== =NPUD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Cyclic codes
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. o_, o <\__, v|> Timothy May | < \

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Blanc wrote: >By jove, I think I've "got" it - there *is* something deeper going on >here: > >Tim is really an undercover 'narc' - through his provocative remarks >he's actually encouraging all the violent terrorists on the list to >come out of their lurking holes and reveal themselves. Then he's >going to turn them all in for a cash reward, which he'll use to buy >more high-tech stock. > >Yeah, that's it! While Blanc is only joking, I want to take this opportunity to comment on the Find The Mole game. Moles look just like everyone else. Speculation on who is actually a provocateur or an informant or a saboteur or whatever only has the purpose of creating unhappiness and undermining anything worthwhile that is going on. It is likely that there are informants lurking amongst the cypherpunks. The secret police watch and infiltrate far less interesting groups, and this one has received more than its share of publicity. (In a couple of decades we'll probably learn who they were. Hopefully things will work out in such a way that this will be worth a good laugh.) The right thing to do is to assume there are a certain number of moles around and engineer your activities accordingly. If you really think you can Find The Mole, then I would think your first step is to keep quiet about what you are doing. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGoqdpaWtjSmRH/5AQHNhQf9Gc8d8gK/7tiYhMe9eo4BQt5QpW93xfR6 x1Ti+XIZcpQ4Y0YZvklghLHBHJcIywYrf0vM+fYtxfUrG+FWMzD8QPKE/w8x/SI9 eoHIr8GWAnuKEBKnv3aUpHnV9jqTKtcU5/0APQ/nGCAnxzl3Y9/ZAKDwoSVFS9vI gjw0YihR6FKg+Qv7J0lPBgrBWWvQla5sM8kkaWdv8lKIqMtbXu9XeXiIZd8/FlIC WNj8R5WEOXF333A10cWiRhPqRJP9YevXH7NMFSnv9BpUfyeTlD1dKklTfjumSqwq eY+RSmsTzM1OlBzw2NbxmXbahg3mFVYBu8QDPPcu8kwHcMldAsmx+Q== =Eoqh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Laws Controlling Speech
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >What I said was that the judge(s) in the Paladin case had committed a >capital crime. Saying, for example, that OJ committed a capital crime >is not uncommon, so why should judges be exempt from similar >opinions? Laws prohibiting speech are notoriously difficult to define and to enforce impartially. They quickly evolve into a blank check for the authorities. (Note that even if these laws didn't have this property, Monty Cantsin would oppose them.) OJ is fair game because the authorities would like to see him in prison. The judge is not fair game because he is a judge and this is a list with a bad attitude. The wonderful thing about language is that it is infinitely malleable. You could write a play in which a prominent character was a bear. Sounds harmless, right? In 1969 in Czechoslovakia, this is how people wrote unfriendly plays about the Russians. Child porn is notoriously difficult to define. A few years ago there was a case in which a convicted child pornographer or molester (my memory fails) was paroled.(1.) One of the conditions was that he was not to have any child pornography. Later, he was found with a videotape of children in bathing suits and his parole was revoked. The children were not involved with any sexual acts, however, the judge decided that the motion of the camera was overly suggestive. A few years ago I saw an ad for soap in which cute little girls were cast in the roles that lovely adult women usually play. To most people, this was an amusing and even charming advertisement. But, were similar footage found in the hands of a child molester there would be serious legal consequences. Pornography in general is not so hard to define. If the material in question is enjoyed by working class people and is inexpensive to purchase, then it is pornography. If the material is enjoyed by wealthy or "cultured" people, hangs in a museum, and would be expensive to purchase, then for the most part it is Art and not pornography. Let's take Michelangelo. Here is an artist who seldom portrays women. (I know of no instance, actually.) When the image of a woman was unavoidable to the work, he used male models anyway. (The Sibyls in the Sistine Chapel are a good example.) It is quite obvious that a large proportion of his work is, in fact, homoerotic in nature. Yet, it has been promoted for centuries because it was primarily enjoyed by ruling elites. For that matter, consider the centuries long fascination with images of Christ and the Saints undergoing various tortures. Clearly homoerotic in many cases and juxtaposing images of pain and death with sex. Remove the religious imagery, and anybody found painting or possessing such work will generally be relegated to the fringes of society. When speech is regulated, the meaning of the speech is defined by whether the speaker is in favor with the authorities. This is well understood by the people who propose and pass these laws. Their intention is not only to suppress bad ideas, but to liberate the government from the annoying inconvenience of obeying the law, most especially (but not exclusively) with regard to the government's political opponents. And, as we all know, this issue is particularly insidious when it comes to laws prohibiting free encrypted speech. The art of steganography has reached the point where anything can be "shown" to be a secret message of some kind. Should it be decided to truly enforce these laws, it will be done by letting the cops off the leash to do whatever they please to whomever they like. (1. Why we parole child molesters so we can imprison drug users is beyond me. It has every appearance of complete insanity on the part of the authorities. Or, I suppose, it could mean they don't really care about kids in spite of all their talk on the subject.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGqXXpaWtjSmRH/5AQFhMwf9FU/DU9+iMtflw+CZ0XW3enz+FdC14DzI GD+SIUPm3aBO+MJQHh1ScWNb2ShWVWxMCycHOcKyUhYpAvH2d/oqz6/2Feq2Aw8E 0Oxcg0djy5zri1nZtwTW7QQ2qGOfKyUq+2qJFX3aFFxAMjE2yT5uwvwBRNucPwYC zR40/b5oMJEndp47KUTjnCfbCFmwG2vHZe+3hM6vfm+07zcaRUOJsMgGjsAkTi4I /Rtg4Bxd7L+3AVs8k+ZpJoN7A9ipoOvWGUeXH+s+uwWhS62PtC9DY29sg5f4mG+j qxtCNg14TjfIEiaqjcW3/jm9rk/gFhBiT8f24Aseof2v+T+g0qI5Iw== =zihd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

"Son of CDA" Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, ACLU Says
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:40:23 -0500 (EST) From: Emilyaclu(a)aol.com To: Emilyaclu(a)aol.com Subject: "Son of CDA" Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, ACLU Says ACLU Says New Internet Censorship Statute Ignores Landmark Supreme Court Ruling FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, November 13, 1997 Contact: Emily Whitfield, (212) 549-2566 WASHINGTON--New legislation aimed at banning online material deemed "harmful to minors" would run roughshod over the landmark Supreme Court decision affirming free speech on the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. The ACLU, which led the successful battle to defeat the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act (CDA), said S. 1482, like the CDA, would restrict adults from accessing constitutionally protected speech. The bill was introduced earlier this week by Sen. Dan Coats, R-IN, an original sponsor of the ill-fated CDA. Under the statute, commercial online distributors of material deemed "harmful to minors" could be punished with up to six months in jail and a $50,000 fine. The definition could include the virtual bookstore amazon.com or a promotional site for a Hollywood movie, as well as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Microsoft and America Online, the ACLU said. And unlike the CDA, the statute applies only to web sites, not to chat rooms, e-mail or news groups. "By claiming that the bill addresses only web sites involved in commercial distribution, Senator Coats says he is hunting with a rifle,' but in fact, he has lobbed another virtual grenade into the heart of the Internet" said Ann Beeson, an ACLU National Staff Attorney and member of the legal team that defeated the CDA. Any business merely displaying material without first requiring a credit card or other proof of age could be found liable under the statute, which criminalizes commercial distribution of words or images that could be deemed "harmful to minors," even if no actual sale is involved, Beeson said. "This is the equivalent of having to pay a fee every time you want to browse in the bookstore or watch a trailer for an R-rated movie," Beeson said. "As the Supreme Court noted in its landmark decision, requiring a credit card or other age verification would impose a severe financial and logistical burden, even on commercial websites." The ACLU said there were serious constitutional problems as well with the bill's definition of "harmful to minors." In addition to using a vague definition of what constitutes "harmful material," the bill does not make any distinction between material that may be harmful to a six-year-old but valuable for a 16-year-old, such as safer-sex information, said Chris Hansen, an ACLU Senior Staff Attorney and member of the Reno v. ACLU legal team. Further, Hansen pointed out, unlike other "harmful to minors" statutes that have been upheld in the courts, the bill does not define whose community standard will be used to determine what material is harmful. "Invariably, those who decide what is harmful to a minor are going to be the least tolerant members of a given community -- such as the group in Oklahoma who sought to remove the award-winning film The Tin Drum' from local libraries and video stores," Hansen said. The Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the CDA was issued on June 26 of this year, 16 months after the law was enacted and the ACLU filed its challenge. In a ringing affirmation of online free speech, the Court said that the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.' "While we rejoiced in the Supreme Court's decision last June, we knew that the battle was not yet over," said Solange Bitol, legislative counsel on First Amendment issues for the ACLU's Washington National Office. "When Congress returns to session in the New Year, we will be ready for Round Two in the battle to protect our free speech rights." -endit-

2 1

RE: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bob Hettinga wrote: >Frankly, waving your Glock at the local sherriff and daring him to come >shoot you out of der MayBunker is not just free speech, it's, charitably, >grandstanding. Making a threat on the life of a judge, or even begging for >Washington to be nuked -- something you can't possibly do yourself -- is in >the same catagory of "will someone rid me of this priest", or "but that >would be wrong", or the Castro assination exhortations which inspired Oswald >to kill JFK. In this country, it's all free speech, but that doesn't keep >you from getting impaled, "accidentally" or otherwise, on the pointy end of >the state, or public opinion, when you piss it off. I think you are falling into the "map _is_ the territory" mistake here, Bob. Tim is just speaking his mind, lucidly and forcefully as usual. (The same way you do, which is why I enjoy reading both your posts so much, although your prose styles differ so greatly.) Tim isn't "waving your Glock at the local sherriff" -- he is talking about his actions if law enforcement decides to violate the Constitution personally upon him. Although it is certainly the case that all rights, at their boundaries, may be observed more in the breech, I don't think the situation is so bad _yet_ that Tim has to lay awake nights worrying about a no-knock. Tim, I guess I see you as someone who has spotted a bunch of thunderclouds on the horizon, so you have decided to stock up on raingear before the deluge. But, with a little luck and a lot of common sense on the part of the populace, neither Tim nor anyone else will have to go through that particular hell. As one additional datapoint, when our local "FAX Daily" (a daily FAXed paper) took a poll on GAK, 66% were against government access to keys (and "FAX Daily" is aimed at the general population). (I have this suspicion that California is more likely to develop "thunderclouds on the horizon" that don't turn into local storms, due to the greater concentration of Democratic Party members there -- Indiana, as a Republican state, certainly sees a lot of posturing about family values and such, but with Republican anti-government rhetoric, it is hard for Republicans to push too hard for the massive increases of government regulation that would be required to actually enforce family values by governmental fiat.) Tim, from what I understand of what he said, is just getting prepared if the worst comes. One of the functions of this list as I see it is just this sort of preparation, which can often stave off the actual worst. If those who would desire this sort of power over the population are made aware that the population won't stand for it, they are less likely to continue to seek that level of power. To close with a quote that I think (from my Midwest perception of the situation) describes best how the near-term will actually work out: "There's no way the federal government could oppress the citizens, because the populace is armed to the teeth, and the officials would just get their heads blown off." -- James Madison argues the pro-government position, Federalist Papers #46 ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

2 1

cypherpunks - passing mention [FYI] [sci-fi]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Informational/Entertainment content only: Minimal crypto relevance but in Allen Steele's book Tranquillity Alternative (ISBN 0-441-00433-4) which concerns a alternate-history of the space program there is mention of 'cypherpunks' made in reference to cracking double-key encrypted passwords on Le Matrix. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 10:37 PM -0700 11/12/97, Nobuki Nakatuji wrote: > >There are RC4 sourcecode in ftp.replay.com. > >but, Is it same RC4 developed RSADSI ? > > > > It am developed. > > You go back where you came. You go back hotmail. We tired your stupid > questions on RC4 and your Misty posts. > > Sayonara! > > (And they wonder why we kicked Japan's butt.) > > --Tim May This illustrates what a liability the poster has become to the cypherpunks. The group is becoming just another militia front, identified with racism and white supremacy, applauding violent murder of government agents, one step from applauding the Oklahoma killings. Its original purpose all but forgotten, the list has died, poisoned by the hatred flowing from its leader.

10 20

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga wrote: > > At any rate, the upshot of his argument was that there are often > > attempts to ensure freedom, but in reality it can only be assured > > through its exercise. > If you lived here you'd be home now? Please. Don't you feel more like you do now than you did earlier? Footfault

1 0

Find the Mole in the Mirror
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty Cantsin wrote: >The right thing to do is to assume there are a certain number of moles >around and engineer your activities accordingly. If you really think >you can Find The Mole, then I would think your first step is to keep >quiet about what you are doing. Like, if you will, Monty Cantsin, the venerable generic pseudonym for sub rosa strategems. You fingering yourselves, Monty? If you haven't been IDed as a mole here yet, you will, probably by your own woefully engineered statements. All of us are moles for one ideology or another, maybe for several if the blowing wind tosses us that way. What's the point of being here if not for relishment of deceitful faux combat, to draw out the enemy (enemies) as Tim and Bob admirably display in their artful allure of ulterior motivated peacemakers and condescendors, me for one, as Declan love jousts CDT, as many us pisswind DC, NWO, ZOG, Armenians, Nipponese. A mole is a disguise of something more treacherously insidious than that, say, a rational human, a benevolent mediator, an advocate for peace, for justice, for the constitution, or another an unadmitted plot for no-work supremacy through criminal law (lawful crime). The mole(s) here are known, look in the mirror, and marked by the beast, look closely in the mirror, for XORing, their coming in all conceivable disguises welcomed, then tricked, attacked, ridiculed, and finally filtered, erased, deleted, plonked, censored, to resub pseudonymously, rebooted, zapped, ignored, still we-they come back for more S&M, it's an addictive calling to evangelism, anon-remailer generic pseudonym reputation-capital real and imagined Ritalin nirvana. Nothing better to do with wasted lives, the option of getting one is a dream long gone. Faking one is all that's left, the mole in the hole.

1 0

Re: Hyperlinks case settles at door of court
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > >The Shetland Times case has been settled - links will be permitted with > >certain conditions > >See http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/headline/97nov/settled/settled.html > And it was even settled reasonably, and without setting new bad UK case law. People acting reasonably and settling their differences without resorting to promoting strict new laws enforced by armed agents of the government? The end of the world _really_is_ drawing close, isn't it? [That wasn't an earthquake...that was the people in Hell, beginning to shiver, from the cold.] BrrrrMonger > (For those who don't remember the case, the Shetland News and > Shetland Times are Scottish newspapers with web pages. > The News was linking from its page to some of the Times's stories > without pointing out that the stories were in their competitor's paper, > and the Times sued them. In the settlement they agree that the > News may link to the Times's pages, and that they'll only do so > with visible indications that they're doing so.) > Thanks! > Bill > Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com > Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

2 1

Fwd: Set Phasers to Stun.
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:56:52 -0500 From: glen(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org To: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Cc: bostic(a)bsdi.com Subject: Set Phasers to Stun. Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:56:48 -0500 Sender: glen(a)shell.ncm.com Resent-From: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org X-Mailing-List: <0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org> archive/latest/2463 X-Loop: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: 0xdeadbeef-request(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Forwarded-by: Mark Stewart <mark(a)ps.cus.umist.ac.uk> Forwarded-by: DarkTrick <dan(a)coromir.demon.co.uk> 1 NS 01 Nov 97 SET PHASERS TO SHOCK . . . (358) By PAUL GUINNESSY Real life is catching up with Star Trek. Hans Eric Herr from San Diego,California, has been granted a patent for a 'phaser' that uses laser light to stun or kill. Crude stun weapons called tasers are already available in the US. The weapons fire two small darts attached to a wire. A pulsing electrical current passes down the wire and stuns the victim by 'tetanisation'. The pulses make the muscles of the victim contract in unison, rendering them helpless. The disadvantages of tasers are that they can only be fired once before they have to be reloaded. They are also classified as firearms because they fire projectiles. One attempt to overcome the limitations of tasers uses a stream of liquid that hits a victim with a 10 000-volt charge. This causes painful muscle spasms in the victim. But the liquid can split into droplets, breaking the electrical connection, and is hard to aim. Herr's invention uses lasers to generate intense beams of ultraviolet light. These create a path of ionised air down which precisely modulated electrical current is sent. The currents can be manipulated to cause painful contractions, stun a victim painlessly, or induce a heart attack. It has a far longer range than the taser-over 100 metres-and the beam can penetrate clothing. The phaser can also fire many shots before it needs reloading. Using ultraviolet light avoids legal restrictions on weapons that blind with laser light, since it would take several minutes to damage the retina with the wavelength of light used by the device. A hand-held version of the phaser is not yet available because the argon-fluoride discharge-pumped excimer laser it uses is as big as a kitchen table. Herr is hoping that others will find ways to make his device smaller and more powerful, as well as improve its range. He says that any technically competent person would be able to build a phaser. Steve Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, says: 'At first glance it seems incredible, and rather disturbing.' New Scientist Volume 156. Issue 2106. --- 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/>

2 1

Weapons on the Web, and mention of remailers
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is from http://techweb.cmp.com/ng/online/current/specials/guns/guns2.htm Lots of misinformation and disinformation. Perfectly legal items are referred to as "banned." Scare tactics about silenced machine guns, sniper rifles, and even "speed loaders to load all of the cylinders of a revolver at once" (horrors! does the author know that every gun store I've ever been in sells these things for about $6 each?). One quote even refers to "our" technologies: "It might seem that the contents of rec.guns alone could be easily monitored for illegal transactions. However, my sources have shown me that with the availability of anonymous remailers and several sources of digital cash, it is increasingly possible for seller and buyer to never know who the other party is or where they are." (This of course is nonsense, about the digital cash, etc. If one exchanges an item in physical space, at least for now there is some mailing or shipping nexus. (Anonymous drops in storage lockers are a possibility, though ripe for stings.) Certainly I have never heard of a digital cash transaction for a gun...and not for a lot of other things, either.) In view of the Paladin case, the Feinstein "bomb-making instructions ban," and calls to shut down gun shows, this article may give some tips on coming actions. And the plans for the Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration to start cruising the Web looking for illegal speech also provides a clue. Personally, I'm beginning to think --Tim May --begin quote-- Threaded Chat The rec.guns group is a bit like a combination of Town Hall and Market Square in Firearms Land. People sound off about government regulations, at any level, in any locale. Disgruntled users warn others about substandard products. New members ask advice and old hands compare notes on match grade ammunition. Once I saw an advisory posted to all people who had bought surplus East German ammunition. This writer had acquired an old East German technical manual that showed the exact chemical composition of the propellant charges in their bullets. It included a warning that after 5 years, the charges could chemically degrade and become subject to misfires or dud rounds, a useful thing to know about if you happen to be holding some of said ammunition, certainly. There are also quite a lot of messages on rec.guns on the best legal way to buy a gun online (decidedly not the procedure followed by Z and many others). But rec.guns is also a marketplace: long banana clip magazines (usually 30-40 shot magazines for semiautomatic rifles that were banned under the Assault Rifle ban; of course, all these are advertised as being manufactured "pre-ban"), speed loaders to load all of the cylinders of a revolver at once, equipment for hand-loading one's own ammunition, and, of course, guns: revolvers, semiautomatic pistols, rifles, shotguns, and others. One night while writing this article I saw a Galil for sale. The Galil is an Israeli-made assault rifle, rated as one of the best in the world. On an earlier visit I saw an ad for quantities of Dragunovs. The Dragunov was the standard issue sniper rifle for the Red Army. In the hands of a sharpshooter, such a gun can be accurate to within inches at ranges out to 2/3 of a mile. And given the present state of the economy in Russia, we are likely to see more, not less, of any of the standard Russian weapons, Dragunovs and others. It might seem that the contents of rec.guns alone could be easily monitored for illegal transactions. However, my sources have shown me that with the availability of anonymous remailers and several sources of digital cash, it is increasingly possible for seller and buyer to never know who the other party is or where they are. That becomes even more of a concern on the World Wide Web, where, just as all other forms of advocacy and commerce are flourishing, so are firearms advocacy and sales. The NRA is online; everyone knows their position. At Sniper Country/Extreme Shooting Sports, the motto is "happiness is a confirmed kill," and you can learn all about famous and infamous snipers. At Shootin' Stuff you can read comparisons of handguns for home or self defense use, including the Makarov 9mm, the sidearm once issued only to officers in the Red Army. You can even download images of slugs being fired from a stationary rifle held in a vise. If this puts you in a buying mood, you can travel over to Stokes's Firearms Enthusiasts' Web Magazine, where a graphic of a silenced submachine gun greets you. When I first went to this site earlier this year, it was open and anyone could peruse the ads and offerings; now, however, a password is required. For those who lack patience or don't want yet another net password, there are sites that offer immediate access to their ads. The Champion Firearms Home Page, Guncraft Sports Web Pages, and the Electronic Gun Shop are all open for business now. They offer, variously, revolvers, semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns. It must be emphasized that there is nothing illegal about any online gun commerce; there are existing laws and regulations that do cover the situation. But when UPS, however unknowingly, delivers 9mm pistols, it is clear that ignoring the existing rules is accomplished rather easily online, a point that applies for any other sort of online commerce, whether presently regulated by law or not. ... --end excerpt---

1 1