December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Transcript of Gore's remarks at "Censorware Summit"
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just had an incorrect thought that I've decided to share with everyone: The reason Al Gore (and the others) are focusing on helping All the Little Children, is that this is the only group they can offer assistance to in the U.S. who would accept it. Everyone else is stocking up on guns & ammo, waiting for The Big One. .. Blanc

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AMEN. > >so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin > >is so far left she's just plain _left_. She argues that porn for womyn (or > >is it wimmin?) is fine and dandy, because this represents lesbian > >sisterhood exploring their own blah blah blah, but porn aimed and directed > > > > What you watch is pornography; > What I watch is erotica. >

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unless there was decryption hardware in the monitor itself. Then I suppose you'd have to video the screen as each new "always encrypted" "totally secure" frame came up. > > On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > > > Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the > > digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a > > court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter > > how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently > > redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left > > decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. > > They have lost their mind. Since humans are notoriously bad at performing > decryptions in their head in real time, whatever is sent to the display > *must* be cleartext. Any competent programmer can grab it at that point. > > -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. > "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" > --

2 1

Fear of a Random Planet...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

the following excerpt from tomorrow's WSJ... {snip} YELLOW C's NOW AVAILABLE... Be the first on your block to comply with HR-666/S-7, the 'Freedom and Sane Conservation in Social Technology' (FASCIST) Law, recently signed by Chancellor Clinton... As you know, new Federal Regulations require all cryptographers, both professional and amateur, to register with the State Department, surrender their passports, and sign Form 11065-R (Int'l Travel Prohibition Ban Consent Decree). The recent amnesty granted to the cryptographic community due to the shortage of YELLOW C badges ends January 1, 1998. The badges are now available at your local Post Office, Federal Building, or authorized Microsoft retailer. Remember, 'Export a Cryptographer, Go to Jail!' {/snip} love and kisses, CPL Kaos.

2 1

Mob Combat
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The those with an interest in extraordinary descriptions of the bloody, vicious mayhem and carnage of urban warfare, The Philadelphia Inquirer has been running a series since late November describing in gory detail a disastrous battle between US Special Forces and Somalian mobs in 1993. With gunship video, maps and audio of US and Somalis participants. You won't forget it: http://www3.phillynews.com/packages/somalia/nov16/rang16.asp

1 0

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

www.borders.com: "Borders is opening new stores almost every week. If there's not one near you now, there will be soon." This is depressing. Something has to be done about "free"-market capitalism. It is as destructive as government, and built on the same lies.

4 3

words have value, for good or ill
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > >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. I didn't write this, but I wish I had. It is exactly correct, and well-done. If I had written I would've attached a nym in an attempt to accrue some reputation capital. (The author should e-mail me so I can credit her repcap account. :-) ) Monty Cantsin wrote: > > >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. > > This is a good thing to remember. However, what you seem to be > calling immoral is holding a belief with which you disagree. Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the cash token. :-) ) > What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should > refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world > because they are immoral. I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks discourse. The rightness of one's actions is independent from the legality of those actions. (Except, of course, that it is sometimes wise to avoid doing something illegal out of pragmatic concern for consequences.) If a cypherpunk is accused by her fellows of a wrong act, it is completely irrelevant and out of character for her to reply by stating that the act is legal. This is a such an obvious truth that I'm surprised no-one, including myself, has brought it up before Anonymous did. Regards, Zooko --- Software engineer for hire. http://www.xs4all.nl/~zooko/resume.html

1 0

Brown != Blue
by BrownList＠GOPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Giving you a BROWN reason to complain. Get busy. This BrownList is harder to find.

1 0

[Fwd: Please Read This!]
by webbiz＠MCI2000.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

P*L*E*A*S*E Do NOT Delete This Message! Hi, Just wanted to pass along some info about that I now call my "secret weapon". It's amazing! Listen to this... Myself and hundreds of others can now reach "millions of potential customers" absolutely FREE! A lot of us are creating immediate "cash flow explosions" literally overnight! And blowing our competition right out of the water! You have to check this thing out. To get some details, all you have to do is go to the web address below. Take care. I'll talk with you later. Bill Go to http://www.insider-secrets.com/home.html This is NOT wild spam! If you do not want this information and wish to be placed on a global remove list put "remove" in the subject box and mailto:hotline@insider-secrets.com

1 0

Re: Gary Burnore Caught in own Trap (Long)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > What those who are capable of looking at this with an open mind might > notice is that there is much more to this story than you and Mr. > Know-it-All Sam are telling. Excuse me while I rain on your parade and > repost some SERIOUS ANALYSIS from someone with a clue: What motive would Sam have for being part of the mythical "Spam baiting/ forgery/libel/teenager-abusing/cyber-stalking conspiracy" you've concocted? Could it be that Gary is now searching for another person to falsely accuse of doing all of these things, now that he and the first person he accused sem to have declared a de facto truce? Is Sam going to be your next victim? > > What seems to have happened here is that someone telnetted to the SMTP > > port of myriad.alias.net and forged E-mail from your address. If > > these are full headers, then this forgery did not involve remailers at > > all. The perpetrator has therefore run the risk of being traced. Which blows a huge hole in Gary's own theory that some evil "anon asshole" used a remailer to do it, thus justifying his anti-remailer witch hunt. And since you've chosen to quote that opinion, what were the results of that trace he mentioned? > Oh, my. Looks like that shoots yours and Sam's theories right straight > to hell, doesn't it? On to the next lie: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How many do you plan to tell? > In case you missed it, let me repeat: "looks like somebody sent you a > message with a Return-Receipt-To: header set to > alt.revenge(a)myriad.alias.net. To which the broken, mis-configured mail server at DataBasix autoresponded. Why would Gary have claimed he was going to fix it if it weren't broken? > >What would be the point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look > >like it came from "mmdf(a)databasix.com", anyway? > > You're the one with all the fricking "answers", why don't you tell us? You might start with asking yourself who stood to benefit from this happening. You and Gary are the ones who keep bringing it up, because it's the only "evidence" you have to support your grand conspiracy theory. Thus far, all of your alleged "evidence" has proven nothing because it's all (conveniently) had truncated path headers. > >Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly > >suspect. > > Methinks you are confusing your alleged villains. Usually Wotan gets > the blame for closing Mailmasher and Gary and I get the blame for > huge.cajones. While I have a lot of respect for Jeff Burchell (and I've > met him personally, can you say the same?), I disagree with the > allegations he made against Wotan re: the Mailmasher attack. Do try to > recall that even Jeff said he was *speculating* as to what happened with > MailMasher and the software piracy fiasco. And you've got a better explanation of what happened? Right after Billy McClatchie went on his campaign to get Mailmasher shut down, someone signs up for a Mailmasher account, puts out a fake post advertising some "warez", then dutifully turns himself into the SPA to get Mailmasher in trouble. Just a "coincidence", right? And just because you, Billy McClatchie (Wotan), and Gary Burnore are all staff members at DataBasix, and the two servers that you three attacked in sequence were both run by the same person, we're not supposed to make the conncection? As Gary himself once said "There are far too many coincidences". He was at least right about that. > And if you think Jeff closed huge.cajones because of Gary and me, you > obviously don't know the whole story. But what's new? What you don't > know, you just make up. I've read Jeff's account, and you, Gary, and Bill "Wotan" McClatchie are the only attackers he mentioned. > >First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently > >didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a > >web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer. > > I'll freely admit I don't really understand the difference between the > two. But I distinctly recall seeing dozens of messages with a from line > with *my* email address and a message ID of mailmasher.com. Like so: > > ------ > > Path: > ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!news1.mpcs.com!anon.lcs.mit…! > nym.alias.net!mail2news > Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:22:07 -0800 > Message-ID: <199702060622.WAA09539(a)mailmasher.com> > From: eridani(a)ix.netcom.com (Mailbomb^me) > Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to > <remailer-admin(a)cajones.com> > Subject: Nuke Your Local Junk Mailer! > Newsgroups: misc.entrepreneurs,biz.mlm,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace, > alt.sex.erotica.marketplace,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace > X-No-Archive: yes > Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster(a)nym.alias.net > Organization: mail2news(a)nym.alias.net > Lines: 5 > > This message is not intended for humans to read. Other than a Message-ID and a Comments line (both forgeable), what indicates this came from Mailmasher? Why was Mailmasher not in the path header? You still haven't produced a single shred of evidence that this came from Mailmasher. You haven't even shown from any of the Mailmasher help files that Mailmasher even had this capability. In someone's haste to point the blame at the remailers' ability to paste From: headers, they chose the wrong target -- since Mailmasher was not a remailer and had no header pasting capability. Mail coming from Mailmasher accounts all contained a pseudonym followed by "@mailmasher.com". Access was via a web-based interface, and there was no place to specify a From: line. > You're an idiot and a liar. Engaging in ad hominem is an obvious attempt to divert attention from your lack of evidence. > First of all, Gary stubbornly didn't start > X-No-Archiving his headers until a couple of months ago. You should > know, Mr.Whining About Not Being Able to Track Gary Through Deja News > Anymore. Actually, in the beginning it was YOU, McClatchie, and the so-called "spam baiter" that used the No-Archive header. Gary didn't use it until later when he became worried that people could actually read his old posts and see how his story changed over time. Gary has apparently gone back and even had his old posts nuked from the archives, as well. Apparently Gary "I have nothing to hide" Burnore has reconsidered that stance. If someone wanted to forge a post to embarass you, would it make sense to hide it with a No-Archive header? Why limit the readership like that? > Secondly, it's not possible to forge message IDs with a piddly > Netcruiser GUI account. Netcruiser accounts can't telnet into an SMTP server, which is your theory of how the "forgery" was done? Also, you, Gary, and Wotan have shell accounts that are quite capable of doing many of the things you claim that your mythical "spam-baiting/forging/libelling/cyber-stalking/child-molesting" mega-villain is guilty of. You also once claimed that this person had spam baited "every known email address of DataBasix staff and customers". Who but a DataBasix insider would have access to that kind of information? > Lastly, it certainly is convenient that every single spam bait > posted--thousands between 4/97 and 11/97--contained the X-No-Archive: > yes header. Makes it really easy for someone with a vendetta to say, > 'oh no, they don't exist, because we can't verify them!' Conveniently similar to the posts of Wotan and yourself. And that quote is obviously the reason that you, Gary, and Wotan also utilize that same header, right? So that you can later claim that anything you post and later regret was "forged"? > That's an insane theory cooked up by someone with a very twisted mind. As are most of Gary's theories. > How many people posting anonymously have > been inadvertently denied an audience because of one IDIOT ruining it > for everyone? When have you EVER had a decent thing to say about anonymous posters? Can you cite even one instance? Are you suddenly trying to polish up DataBasix' image? Polish that turd all you want, and it still won't smell any better! > Have we "harassed" any > other remailers since then? Hhm? Why don't you _ask them_, mouth? Jeff didn't reveal your harassment of him until AFTER he had shut down his remailer and had no further retribution to fear. And we didn't learn of your attacks on Jeff's machines until Gary made a similar taunt back in June. > <cue follow up consisting of selective snipping in order to post more > lies and distortions> Stop your pitiful whining about "selective snipping". Anyone who missed it the first time can read your epic whine-fest by following the reference headers. That's what they're there for. And if they're reading this thread via DejaNews and can't, well that was YOUR choice, not mine. My posts are archived for all to read. --

1 0

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Jay Holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:16 PM 12/3/97 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. >They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion >and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic >and social diversity. > Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. Several members of the religious right also call themselves libertarians. Sometimes what is meant is freedom from interference in the market rather than real freedom. Jay

6 8

Sabrin in NJ (Was: Re: Censorial leftists ...
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:45 AM 12/4/97 -0500, Jay Holovacs wrote: ... >Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my >wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. Mr. Sabrin also accepted political welfare (matching funds, a form of compelled speech if ever I saw one). This annoyed me, since he did it in a nationwide campaign for contributions claiming that this retreat from principle would give him a chance to win. As I recall, he got about 10% of the vote, and IMO didn't even deserve that. He was, however, another great argument for NOTA's (None Of The Above) candidacy -- as if another one were needed. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQEPAwUBNIaaKzUhsGSn1j2pAQGjHAfQ1a1MJKRyDr7gBgR1nGCcbTrVvLTdQ5NZ Ce2Z4w1XPzb/6ml8uilPZE1/4oDCmwWH5R42NW6QmPpQjeQSmqh3cCApo11AeZ+/ ZRQQxD+SO3FtrnGXr+kGD2CniY6UxXBfzTYtAjpdv5roF4jkRxJwkd9px/GyZjCg jyKMTTaZTVoTfZUbadjFhyX14OjJ7gkbxFOkZKHBZ1lYes6fpW4Yj6V0selR6CKp 3jJHmHAJUgWbdwhaU3rIHpV5+7QKYyk7dFRblS5pC0p91rec5JDNAecfXYltwNwR YLTcg0gqYLIPOQi0MlJxXYBogKMbYxXC7a7YOQS+OiUUug== =7bMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Anonymous Threads
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something that I have found irritating about the posts by non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be repudiated, or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster. I compared this to sound bites. On second thought, however, there is an easy way to solve this. If the anonymous poster accepts the context of previous messages, the discussion can continue. There's no reason why the person behind the virtual thread has to be the same, but the context itself is important if we want to have interesting discussions. So, if you don't want to sign your messages, just acknowledge the message ID of the relevant previous messages whose context you wish to use. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Anonymous Threads To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Lieberman/Clinton
by Jeff Schult 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Well, this isn't entirely true. Some of the loudest voices in >banning/regulating crypto come from the left:Senator Lieberman, >Senator Feinstein,Rep. Dellums, the Clinton Administration in >general, etc. The fear of 'bomb making information' and 'terrorist <snip> Lieberman is hardly considered "of the left" in his home state -- he squeaked out a win over former Sen. Lowell Weicker by staking out positions considered to the right of Weicker and has stayed over that way. There have been recent articles in the Connecticut media speculating that Lieberman could become a Republican. Though that won't happen, GOP leaders were effusive about how welcome the senator would be ... As to the Clinton administration, if you can pin it down from minute to minute on the political spectrum, you're a lot faster with pins than I ... Jeff Schult Marketing Director, JavaNet http://www.javanet.com Internet culture and technology writer, New Haven (CT) Advocate

1 0

Land Attack on Routers/Servers
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hackers Out for IP Blood with New Land Attack The Internet underworld last week unsheathed a new weapon capable of knocking out IP-based routers and servers, sending vendors scrambling to find ways to safeguard their gear. Land Attack, officially known as land.c program code, was posted on the Net by someone called "Meltman" and used last week in attacks on Cisco Systems, Inc. routers and Unix and Windows NT servers. Some of the targeted machines were slowed to a crawl, while others had to be rebooted. Land Attack represents a new twist on the dreaded "TCP SYN flooding" denial-of-service attack. But unlike TCP SYN flooding, Land Attack sends out just one sinister SYN packet in which the sending devices IP address has been swapped out for the IP address of the destination machine. When the destination machine tries to acknowledge receipt of the transmission, it ends up using its own address, which means it sends the message back to itself, resulting in a potentially fatal loopback condition. "If someone could find a way to use this Land Attack program to spread this across the Internet, it could cause major service disruptions," said Chris Klaus, chief technology officer at Internet Security Systems, Inc. ---------- More at: http://jya.com/land-attack.txt

1 0

Re: [RePol] Denizen
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> wrote: > Ralph Hotmail wrote: > > > > In a moment of boredom, I took the opportunity to check into "Denizen". > > I also read his posts under a number of names to the critical mass > > mailing list and their replies. > > > In saner moments, Beckjord runs the UFO and Bigfoot Museum. > > > > This is the person who wants to use BCC from an anonymous remailer to > > get his opinion to the subscribers of the Critical Mass list. The > > message is simple - if you help him out,you can kiss your remailer > > goodbye. > > Perhaps Ralph could help the anonymous remailer 'cause' by providing > remailer operators with a list of the 'bad' people who should not > be allowed to use remailers to promote their 'wrong' views. > Maybe Mr. Hotmail could also provide a list of 'bad' words and You're a dangerous person, TruthMonger -- you make people THINK. <g> It's interesting that he mentioned the "Critical Mass" list, since one of the arrestees in last summer's Critical Mass civil disobedience blockade of San Francisco streets was none other than anti-remailer gadfly Gary L. Burnore of the fabled "DataBasix gang". I don't know whether he's a subscriber to that list or not. But according to Jeff Burchell's account of last summer's attack on the Huge Cajones Remailer by Burnore et al, someone from DataBasix did request that posts mentioning DataBasix and/or Gary Burnore should be blocked by the remailer net. Chutzpah! BTW, Burnore just made a post to alt.privacy.anon-server yesterday that looked like an attempt to suck up to the remailer user community. Unlike his recent practice of butting into TECHNICAL threads about the how-to of header pasting via PI, etc. to accuse the poster of wanting the information in order to "forge" posts in his name and "UCE bait" him, he actually gave the appearance of being helpful. Of course, in threads posted in other NGs, he's still fuming about "cowards" and "anonymous assholes" who "hide behind the skirts of a remailer". He's also indicated that he'll have databasix.com back on-line RSN. His hasty move from San Francisco to Raleigh-Durham, NC took DataBasix off of the air for awhile. Heads up! --

1 0

Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > :This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you > :have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against > :UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect. > > > Sure it does in your mind and I'm sure in the mind of the anon-asshole. Call someone an "asshole" all you like, but when you have to qualify that and call him a "black asshole", "gay asshole", "Jewish asshole", or "anon asshole", it only demonstrates your personal prejudice and bigotry. Your arguments are so weak that you must resort to ad hominem argumentation to divert attention from the facts. Repeating your unproven accusations over and over does not make them true. > All of that aside, the point is it has stopped since the remailers blocked the > address. Note btw, that the anon asshole is still claiming databasix does > this and databasix does that and yet databasix hasn't been connected to the > net since august. Are you claiming that all the DataBasix personnel no longer have access to the Internet simply because the databasix.com domain is down? Considering how lax Netcom is with their servers, any abuse you might allege could easily have come from someone with a Netcom account. You might as well reconnect databasix.com to the net because having it down is not a credible alibi -- not when most of the players involved have Netcom accounts, and a few even have shell accounts from which they could have run Perl scripts. > The issue now is as it was then. An asshole, posting anonymously, apparently > in an attempt to cause troubles for remailers at my expense is still at it. > > He OBVIOUSLY wants remailers shut down. I obviously don't. Your cute little conspiracy theory does not exactly square with the account of one of the remailer operators that you along with fellow DataBasix staffers Belinda Bryan and William J. McClatchie (aka "Wotan") harassed. Reread his message exposing your anti-remailer activities: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html > End of story as far as I am concerned. Not as long as you want to keep it alive by claiming that you are a "victim" of some grand forgery, "UCE-baiting", "cyber stalking" scheme. Sam is right in doubting your claims that most of the things you allege happened to you even occurred. He pointed out that the one flimsy piece of evidence you've been able to produce more recently than February of 1997 originated from YOUR OWN DOMAIN! --

2 1

- FREE Vitamins & Business -
by CallNow＠1-800-493-2328Ext116771 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AMAZING INCOME: UNLIMITED! New Weight Loss Capsules! ALL NATURAL! New Pyruvate, Guarana, Ginseng, Chromium--All in One! * Only $12.25/90 Count! (+S/H) * Quantity Discounts Available! * Free 90 Count Daily Multi with First Order: ASK! * Automatic MLM Distributorship Enrollment w/o obligation * NO sign up fees-NO monthly purchase required * NO ORDER TAKING yet unlimited commissions PLUS * Full Vitamin Line at "Wholesale Club" prices WHY PAY MORE? HURRY! CALL: (M-F 9-5) Nutrition World 1-800-493-2328 Ext. 116771

1 0

NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out the last paragraph of Andrew's op-ed: it's Larry Lessig's argument, though conveniently unattributed. It's also a dangerous one, and a favorite of leftists, claiming that "accountable" government regulations are somehow better than "unaccountable" private classification schemes. Of course Andrew neglects to say that the CDA was not just civil regulation like many FCC rules: it, and its successor, are criminal laws with serious jail time and up to quarter-million dollar fines if you violate them. He also neglects to say that the reason PICS was created is pressure from the Feds. Try as hard as they may, not even RSACi can throw you in jail -- unless Congress passes Murray's bill, which means it's no longer private-sector action. If the market VOLUNTARILY comes up with a rating system, I don't know how you can say that's worse than government censorship and possible jail time. (Read Solveig's op-ed on this, which I posted earlier this week.) Arguing that private selection is "worse" than government censorship is simply incoherent. If government is coercing industry to adopt a scheme, which is the direction we're heading now, then it's time to make the argument that the government pressure amounts to state action. Then eventually challenge it in court. I'm not sure if Andrew is going here or not, but some leftists (or "liberals," if you like) oppose rating systems and censorware because they think children have a general right to access information. Even if their parents buy the computers. I think this is another incoherent argument that we should be careful not to buy into. It may be a bad idea for parents to install such programs -- as it may be a bad idea to feed Junior poptarts instead of bran cereal -- but children do not have a of Constitutional right to have censorware-free computers. -Declan ============== Opinion: The Danger of Private Cybercops By ANDREW L. SHAPIRO At a conference this week on protecting children from the perils of the Internet, consensus emerged on a strategy to keep minors away from cyberporn: let the private sector handle it. Rather than relying on Government regulation, Vice President Al Gore said, parents should look to industry for tools that will let them filter Internet content. Civil libertarians are largely responsible for the success of this approach. Indeed, they convinced the Supreme Court that it would do less harm to free speech than the Communications Decency Act, the law criminalizing on-line indecency, which the Court struck down in June. Yet those advocates may now regret what they wished for, because some of their schemes seem to imperil free speech more than the act did. For example, software that users install to block out certain Internet content often excludes material that isn't indecent. One such program, Cybersitter, prevents users from visiting the site of the National Organization for Women. And the makers of these programs often won't even tell adults what sites have been blacklisted. Still worse is a protocol known as PICS that changes the Internet's architecture to make it easy to rate and filter content. PICS is theoretically neutral because it allows different groups to apply their own labels, but could hurt the Internet's diversity by requiring everything to be rated. Small, unrated sites would be lost. Moreover, these technologies enable what might be called total filtering, where objectionable speech of any type can be screened out effortlessly. Benign as this may seem, such filtering might be used not just by individuals but by employers, Internet service providers and foreign governments seeking to restrict information that others receive. The ground rules for an open society could also be undermined. When total filtering meets information overload, individuals can (and will) screen out undesired interactions, including those crucial to a vibrant political culture -- the on-line equivalents of a civil rights protest or a petition for a reform candidate. In such a filtered society, civil discourse and common understanding will suffer. This should lead us to think long and hard about the way that technology can be an even more cunning censor than law. That's not to say that Government solutions are problem-free or desirable. But at least when the state goes overboard, speech defenders have the safety valve of a First Amendment lawsuit. This legal recourse is not an option when politicians simply persuade industry and consumers to use speech-inhibiting tools. Who knows, free-speech advocates may find themselves nostalgic for public regulation after all. Andrew L. Shapiro is a fellow at Harvard Law School's Center for no the Internet and Society and at the Twentieth Century Fund.

6 7

Re: words have value, for good or ill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zooko Journeyman <zooko(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: >Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of >thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that >the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. >Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the >cash token. :-) ) It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic. In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the discussion. Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works. Strictly speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is meant over here. (1) The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has been writing. To keep things simple, let's consider the statement "McVeigh did the right thing." It is not a contract. It is not a threat. It is not copyrighted. It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list. I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this thought. So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it immoral to express it? It's hard for me to see how. If the belief is correct, then other people certainly will benefit from hearing it. If the belief is not correct, then other people may be able to enlighten you. In either case, it is preferable that the belief be expressed. >> What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should >> refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world >> because they are immoral. > >I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the >meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it >should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks >discourse. I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. My dictionary defines "eradicate" in two ways: 1. to destroy utterly 2. to erase or remove I don't believe the meme should be "destroyed" and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the means that would be required to do this. Nor do I see it as desirable to erase or remove posts which have already been made, if it were even possible. If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't read their messages. If you don't want to see a particular idea, perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail queue that contain it. If you don't like other people hearing certain ideas, I recommend you get used to it. (1) It is interesting to consider a world in which these exceptions are not made. If there were no coercive enforcement mechanisms for contracts, then this exception would not have to exist. The idea of doing business solely on the basis of reputation is not only fascinating, but not very unlike much of the world today. There are two ways in which threats can be no ops. One is if the person being threatened is just a public key whose identity is simply unknown. A threat in that case is irrelevant. The second is if the person being threatened can adequately protect him or herself in which case the threat is dangerous to the threatener. And "intellectual property" is somewhat peculiar and implies a centralized enforcement mechanism. If we are to have "intellectual property" in a worldwide networked environment, it implies a de facto world government. The alternative may be preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

2 1

- POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER -
by CallNow＠1-940-383-1233 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

**************************** THE MOST POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER IN THE WORLD! *$10,000 Plus Per Month Possible With Little Or No Effort! *The Only True Money Back Guarantee! *Complete Turnkey System Does All Of The Work For You! *Phenomenal Product! *Anyone Can Succeed Immediately! *Powerful Monthly Residual! *No Selling - No Recruiting *No talking To Anyone *No Presentation To Learn *No Meetings To Attend *No People To Manage *No Product Inventory *No Response HeadAches Never Worry About Money Again!!! Takes 2 Minutes To Find Out How!!! Call Now!!! TOLL FREE 1-888-248-1794 or (888) 693-5490 FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 Please have a pen handy when making this call FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 NEW: Customer Service Department (To Answer All of Your Questions!) (940) 383-1233 Hours - 9am to 9pm "CST" Monday thru Friday - Sat - 9am to 5pm -- Sun-- 12pm to 6pm "CST" P.S.hold on to this email. You'll need this control number. GI0927EM control number Dear Friend for the past 2 years, I've put countless hours into numerous business ventures and MLM. Yet I have never achieved true success. Then I found a program, where anyone can succeed immed- iately and put profit in their pocket almost overnight! This gets better and better every day! During my short tenure with this company, I received a profit check of $4579.83 after my second month. I didn't have to worry about the headaches of sponsoring of people. I signed the application and immediatedly, the company went to work for me. Prosperous regards, Leon S. Gillis CONTROL NUMBER: GI0927EM

1 0

Man-in-the-Middle Chicken Attacks
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sampler-request(a)lmboyd.com wrote: > ====================================================== > At night, if you want to see the chicken without the > chicken seeing you, use a red light. > ============================================== > LMBoyd Web Site / U. S. Newspapers / Start Email / Stop Email > http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm

1 0

Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friday Noon. MONEY LAUNDERING - The Cato Institute holds a policy forum, "Should Money Laundering Be a Crime," with Lawrence Lindsey, AEI and former governor, Federal Reserve; Stephen Kroll, Treasury Department, and Richard Rahn, president, Novecon Corp. Location: Cato Institute, F.A. Hayek Auditorium, 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW. Contact: RSVP, James Markels, 202-789-5256.

3 2

Household toxins
by info＠planet-solutions.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TOP "10" KILLER HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS AIR FRESHENERS: Most air fresheners interfere with your ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil film, or by releasing a nerve deadening agent. Known toxic chemicals found in an air freshener: Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Phenol: When phenol touches your skin it can cause it to swell, burn, peel, and break out in hives. Can cause cold sweats, convulsions, circulatory collapse, coma and even death!! AMMONIA: It is a very volatile chemical, it is very damaging to your eyes, respiratory tract and skin. BLEACH: It is a strong corrosive. It will irritate or burn the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema or vomiting and coma if ingested. WARNING: never mix bleach with ammonia it may cause fumes which can be DEADLY. CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY SHAMPOO: Most formulas are designed to over power the stain itself, they accomplish the task but not without using highly toxic substances. Some include: Perchlorethylene: Known carcinogen damages liver, kidney and nervous system damage. Ammonium Hydroxide: Corrosive, extremely irritable to eyes, skin and respiratory passages. DISHWASHER DETERGENTS: Most products contain chlorine in a dry form that is highly concentrated. # 1 cause of child poisonings, according to poison control centers. DRAIN CLEANER: Most drain cleaners contain lye, hydrochloric acid or trichloroethane. Lye: Caustic, burns skin and eyes, if ingested will damage esophagus and stomach. Hydrochloric acid: Corrosive, eye and skin irritant, damages kidneys, liver and digestive tract. Trichloroethane: Eye and skin irritant, nervous system depressant; damages liver and kidneys. FURNITURE POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Highly flammable, can cause skin and lung cancer. Phenol: (see Air fresheners, Phenol.) Nitrobenzene: Easily absorbed through the skin, extremely toxic. MOLD AND MILDEW CLEANERS: Chemicals contained are: Sodium hypochlorite: Corrosive, irritates or burns skin and eyes, causes fluid in the lungs which can lead to coma or death. Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Irritant to eyes, nose, throat, and skin. May cause nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, memory loss and shortness of breath. OVEN CLEANER: Sodium Hydroxide (Lye): Caustic, strong irritant, burns to both skin and eyes. Inhibits reflexes, will cause severe tissue damage if swallowed. ANTIBACTERIAL CLEANERS: may contain: Triclosan: Absorption through the skin can be tied to liver damage. LAUNDRY ROOM PRODUCTS: Sodium or calcium hypocrite: Highly corrosive, irritates or burns skin, eyes or respiratory tract. Linear alkylate sulfonate: Absorbed through the skin. Known liver damaging agent. Sodium Tripolyphosphate: Irritates skin and mucous membranes, causes vomiting. Easily absorbed through the skin from clothes. TOILET BOWL CLEANERS: Hydrochloric acid: Highly corrosive, irritant to both skin and eyes. Damages kidneys and liver. Hypochlorite Bleach: Corrosive, irritates or burns eyes, skin and respiratory tract. May cause pulmonary edema, vomiting or coma if ingested. Contact with other chemicals may cause chlorine fumes which may be fatal. OTHER NASTY THINGS THAT ARE AROUND YOUR HOME PESTICIDES: Most pesticides have ingredients that affect the nervous system of insects. Imagine what these extremely poisonous chemicals do to your body. or your baby's. Dimpylate: Better known as Diazinon, extremely toxic. Impairs the central nervous system. Chlorinate Hydrocarbons: Suspected carcinogen and mutantagen. Accumulates in food and in fatty tissue. Will attack the nervous system. Organophosphates: Toxic and poisonous. If you can smell it, your lungs are absorbing it. FLEA POWDERS: Why put toxins on "man's (or woman's) best friend." Carbaryl: Very toxic, causes skin, respiratory and cardiovascular system damage. Chlordane: Accumulates in the food chain, may damage eyes, lungs, liver, kidney and skin. Dichlorophene: Skin irritation: May damage liver, kidney, spleen and central nervous system. LICE SHAMPOO: Especially vulnerable are children. Lindane: Inhalation, ingestion, or ABSORPTION through the SKIN causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions and circulatory collapse. May cause liver damage, stillbirths, birth defects and cancer. CAR WASH AND POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Associated with skin and lung cancer, irritant to skin, eyes, nose and lungs. Entry into the lungs may cause fatal pulmonary edema, most marked Danger, Harmful or Fatal. TAR AND BUG REMOVER: Contains XYLENE and PETROLEUM DISTILLATES. As you become more aware, you will realize that YOU have to make the first step. YOU have a responsibility to tell your friends, neighbors, and relatives to stop using these dangerous chemicals that are both hazardous to your health and the environment. So come join the revolution to rid toxic chemicals from the planet. That's our MISSION at PLANET SOLUTIONS! Clear Choice(non-toxic cleaner) Buy3 get 1 free. If you want to learn more about out "solution to the toxic dilemma please reply with the subject "More Info" in the subject box.If you would like a free sample of Clear Choice (non toxic cleaner) please send your name ,address and phone number. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings.

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of any banks that provide full internet banking services outside of the USA's banking regulations?

1 0