December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

96 Wiretap Report
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer the text and three summary tables of the U.S. Courts "1996 Wiretap Report" at: http://jya.com/96wiretap.htm (36K)

3 2

Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, > > * Is it possible for the interlinked lists to send out announcements of > > list problems to subscriber of all such lists? (Each list owner could do a > > periodic "who cypherpunks" of the other lists, then use this list to send a > > message if a problem comes up. More sophisticated cross-processing could > > eliminate duplicates, etc.) Sounds like time to start another list subscribed to the existing nodes and offer such services to the subscribers at the operators whim. I oppose any action which would force the list to become more 'cooperative' in the sense that each node operator would be forced (sorta anti-cpunks I believe) to comply with some set of scripts and such they didn't develop in the first place. It would be just another means to limit the ability of people in general, and the cpunks in particular, to communicate with as little structure and 'authority' as possible. Unless I am seriously mistaken on this, the point was to make the list more robust and less centralized. Pretty soon we'll have to join some damn union or something. Now some of you are going to say that this is taking it to extremes. That what is being proposed is a good thing and not something that could be used to 'manipulate' the lists. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the guy driving the paving truck only wants to help you (as he paves your petunia's). > > * Alternatively, if one of the sites goes down, such as > > "cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net" seems to have done, could the other sites > > automagically pick up the task of distributing articles until the site > > comes back up? This again is anti-cpunks, it forces a level of cooperation and information sharing that is in direct opposition to beliefs in anonymity and privacy. I don't want it known who is subscribed to lists through SSZ, in short: It isn't any of your damn business and quit asking. Solution? Get a life or start an archive site. > The only true reliability can be achieved by subscribing to two or more > cypherpunks sites, and eliminating duplicates. Reliability has its costs. As do freedom, privacy, anonymity, etc. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

6 5

Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Tue, 13 May 97 20:33:41 -0500 > Subject: Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd) > >> Every bill that *is not* passed by congress is just that much more freedom > >> that is saved. If all the bills passed by congress over the past 100yrs. > >> could all be repealed no one would miss them in the least (well no one > >> except the STATEST). > > >Yeah, > > >Blacks could go back to being niggers. > >Women could go back to being barefoot and pregnant > >etc... > > >Talk about statest. > > I don't know where you get the above from? Constitutional Amendments are general passed by Congress. Hence, your statement taken literaly is advocating a great deal of good that has come from such actions. > I supose that your statest brainwashing has convinced you that such social > issues could have only been resolved by Federal intervention. Quite the > contrary is true. Any laws passed by congress in these areas were brought > about *because* society was already moving in those directions not the > other way around. I was a small boy in the 60's in and around Houston. I remember what it was like before and after the desegregation that took place in the mid-60's when I started elementary. I can promise you from personal experience there were still seperate washrooms and fountains. Sweeney, Tx. still had a sign on Interstate 90 that said (and I quote) "If you are black don't let the sun set on you in Sweeney." (the sign was on private property adjacent to the interstate I found out years later) As to a little modern social commentary. Ride the city bus in your town for 1 month each day. During that time keep track of where people sit. Would you like to explain why the majority of blacks still sit in the back of the bus? And for those who are white with real cajones, walk into a black bar around 1AM on a Sunday. > If someone is going to descriminate on the basis of race or sex or any > other criteria they are going to do so reguardless of what laws are passed > in DC. Absolutely, as is their Constitutionaly protected right. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EVERY OTHER FORM OF SOCIAL AND LEGAL INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT EVER, PERIOD. Private individuals and companies should, and can, discriminate to their hearts content. I personaly wouldn't deal with a business that I knew a priori discriminated against employees or customers based on sex, religion, etc. as a matter of standard policy. I suspect that most others with 2 halves of a clue to rub together would refuse as well. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

5 4

Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd) (correction)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> > Subject: Re: KKK derails crypto bill, report from House Judiciary... (fwd) > Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:16:21 -0500 (CDT) > Constitutional Amendments are general passed by Congress. Hence, your > statement taken literaly is advocating a great deal of good that has come > from such actions. Insert 'eliminating' between 'advocating' and 'a great' on the second line.

1 0

Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd) > I wasn't advocating either: > > a) any "forcing" of anything > > b) any compliance with scripts, cooperation, etc. > > Instead, imagine this "service": > > - a distribution point (= list) which subscribes to all of the various > lists (cyberpass, algebra, ssz, etc.) > > - it sends out to subscribers the first instance of any message it receives > > - duplicates (see discussion below) would not be sent > > - it would, ideally, be on a robust machine > Exactly, pity that isn't what you stated in the first place. > >This again is anti-cpunks, it forces a level of cooperation and information > >sharing that is in direct opposition to beliefs in anonymity and privacy. > >I don't want it known who is subscribed to lists through SSZ, in short: > >It isn't any of your damn business and quit asking. > > No one has ever said you, or SSZ, or anyone, has to participate. Sorta defeats the whole concept of 'inter-linked lists' doesn't it? The point was to make it easy for ANYONE who wanted to participate. If you exclude parties because they won't do it 'your' way what is the difference? Nada, null, nill, zero, nothing. I can see it now; "oh, if you want to be a member you have to run this set of scripts that automaticaly subscribes you to the other lists and you can expect repeated querries of your subscription database. Oh, by the way you are also agreeing to have other lists subscribe and unsubscribe their user lists to your site at their operators whim. Oh yeah, and if they get really clever they can have you shipping subscription lists of your membership all over the place as well." Sounds so much like the FBI going to the library for loan records and denial of service attack it isn't even funny. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Spoofing Corporate Proxy Servers: poor man's SSL
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ My company, as well as many of yours I'm sure, uses a proxy server to give its users access to the internet beyond its firewall. There are strict policies concerning what is and isn't viewable or retreivable according to corporate guidelines. Unfortunately, the people making these policies aren't always as open and "fair" as they could be. Not to mention the fact that each and every request is logged and achived for eternity (or at least as long as the CDs and/or tapes last). Some of you may remember my post from ~6 months ago concerning my company's view on the use of PGP (they didn't like it and were very frank about it). My pursuit of crypto-related information is viewed very dimly, even while at the same time I am told to implement certain levels of crypto in some of the applications I develop. The constant barrage of "why did you visit this page?", or "what does this application you downloaded do?" is not only irritating but counter-productive. This got me thinking: disregarding outside proxy schemes (such as Anonymizer), we can't really keep the proxy server from knowing the site we are connecting to. We can, however, hide the page we are retrieving. Suppose each web server had a public/private key pair, sort of like SSL. Instead of requesting a page using the normal "GET /mypage.html HTTP/1.1" method, the user could encrypt the URL with the server's public key (along with appropriate headers and a random string to prevent known-plaintext attacks) and pass that to a CGI or even a dedicated server on another port. The server then decrypts the request, which may or may not have included a public key to encrypt the response, grabs the appropriate page, and sends it back (possibly encrypted). Other than the CGI (or the port number of the dedicated server), the proxy server has no idea what document has been retrieved. Essentially we have made a remailer out of an HTTPd, tangentally related to Adam's Eternity server, sort of like a poor-man's SSL. For extensibility concerns, a loose protocol would have to be developed such that different encryption schemes could be plugged in, but even a Perl POST CGI using PGP would be trivial. This would not only solve security problems (varying keysizes would set the security of the data), but could remove the corporate presence from the HTTPS market (who wants to pay $150/key, when you can generate 2048-bit keys with PGP?). While this does not stop the proxy server admins from simply blocking the entire site, it does at least offer anonymity until they figure it out. (I successfully used the Anonymizer for about 2 weeks before it was blocked.) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ (A)bort, (R)etry, (T)ake down entire network?

2 1

Re: 96 Wiretap Report
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William Geiger wrote: >I noticed in the summary report that e-mail intercepts were used. Is there >more detailed information on this? I would be interested to know how >involved the govenment is becoming involved in this area. Of great interest >would be the location and means used to do such taps. We could find no listing of E-mail intercepts in the tables, so it's not clear what the summary was referring to beyond stating that "electronic mail" was included under "electronic intercepts" along with digital display pagers, voice pagers, and cellular phones. The tables list intercept information under two categories: Type and Place. Type: 1. Phone Wire 2. Micro-Eavesdrop 3. Electronic 4. Not Reported Place: 1. Single-Family Dwelling 2. Apartment 3. Multiple Dwelling 4. Business 5. Roving 6. Other "Other" is further listed as: Automobile/Van Briefcase Cellular/Mobile Phone Cemetary Closed Circuit TV Container Digital Display Pager Facsimile Garage/Parking Lot Hospital Hotel Room/Motel Room Jail Mobile Home/Trailer Package/Cargo Pay Phone Pen Register Prison Social Club Storage Telefax Courthouse Street Computer We found only a single instance where the "place" was a computer. BTW, the 193-page printed report is available free from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Telephone: 202-273-2156. Web site: http://www.uscourts.gov/ Folks there were quite helpful, so it's possible that you might get E-mail intercept details from them by requesting it. If you do, let us know, quick!

1 0

RSA v. PGP Complaint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Vin McLelland we offer the text of the complaint of RSA v. PGP: http://jya.com/rsavpgp.txt

2 1

Question: RC5 assembly code?
by Juriaan Massenza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have the source code for RC5 encryption algorithm, but it is in C, well it is still cool since it is "portable" but I am actually looking for a PowerPC assembly code for the same, or at least for the Key Expansion, Encryption and Decryption routines. I am not a PowerPC coder at all, I barely know 8086 assembly. Somebody have it already written? The "formula" for RC5 is pretty interesting and looks like is made to be implemented in Assembler. Cia0, Juriaan

1 0

Re: Real Terrorism
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > > At 01:14 PM 5/11/97 -0400, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote: > > AMMONIUM TRIIODIDE CRYSTALS > Sigh. Terror isn't our business, and any handbook that > can't tell ammonium tri-iodide from nitrogen tri-iodide > is more dangerous to its readers than anyone else. > > If you _really_ wanted to scare governments, > you'd start publishing papers saying things like > > AMENDMENT 1 - Congress shall make no law ...... But if we did that, then Congress would probably pass a law for our protection... TruthMonger

1 0

Re: RSA, PGP IN LEGAL FLAP OVER ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:47 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 07:11:48PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >> However, I've been waiting many years for some patent-law-knowledgeable >> person to explain why mathematics, which was widely seen as being absolutely >> unpatentable prior to the invention of public-key cryptography, suddenly >> became patentable just in time for RSA, etc. >> >> Until I hear such an explanation, I _DO_ begrudge RSA and others that "right." > >Wow! I agree with you! Sit down until the feeling goes away. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: whine politics again
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote: > What the ultimate result here should be we all demand our legislators pass > a law prohibiting the establishment of daycare centers, schools, hospitals > or nursing homes within 1000 ft of government centers, army bases, or any > federal offices. > > They could call it the "No Human Shielding law." > > What legislator would dare complain that the federal government not use > his or her constituents children to shield ATF, FBI or other TLA agents? No BATF agents died in the Oklahoma City bombing. Seems they all had the day off, so they didn't need shielding. (They didn't have the decency to suggest that the daycare take the day off, as well.)

1 0

Re: Would the anonymous person(s) please...
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

bennett_t1(a)popmail.firn.edu wrote: > > Would all those anonymous remailing people with a flame tendency, please > flame the person of your attacks, and don't send this bullshit to the > list? Thanks... No. (but thanks for asking so politely(

1 0

unsafe SAFE:
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

according to http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10604,00.html Kerrey's effort has one thing in common with the SAFE Act: It calls for the creation of an Information Security Board. The board proposal caused some privacy watchdogs to pull their endorsements of SAFE because it wouldn't have to comply with federal open-meeting act. Since a common hand has presumably been at work in both bills, this looks like good cop / bad cop to me. The good cop says, "I am your friend" He is not your friend. Create a federal board, and it will exercise power. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

4 3

Re: [STEGO] Secure envelopes
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone too gutless to use their real name and full address in their email, disguising themself as "The Spectre" wrote: > I, personally, have been on this mailing list for a while now, > and have never seen *any* worthwhile posts from either of those remailers, > or any other for that matter. If you've got something to say, say it. > Anything less is cowardice, in one form or another. It seems that The Spectre finds much on this list to be worthless, including the value of anonymity. (Except in his or her own case, obviously.) All of The Spectre's comments seem to be reruns of old posts which were followed by calls for list censorship. Personally, I prefer the ASCII art. TruthMonger

1 0

Worthless List
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Spectre wrote: > In response to this childish, no.cajones.com message, I have removed all > previous filters and added one, simpler filter on incoming mail. Delete > when recieved from nobody(a)huge.cajones.com or lucifer(a)dhp.com. > > I suggest you all to the same.. it may actually serve to make this list > worthwhile... Yet another dweeb who considers the list not to be worthwhile, but who wants to tell everyone else what to read and what not to read, nonetheless. Is there going to be another round of missives about how the list's ASCII art is the Big Enemy of cypherpunks everywhere? I'm have much more concern about a small pimple I just found on my butt. Perhaps I should start a thread to discuss the implications of this for privacy and freedom worldwide. PimpleMonger

1 0

Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials in or Near Government Buildings
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:34 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Mon, May 12, 1997 at 05:15:24PM -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>Governments have murdered 170 million people since 1900. My >>back-of-the-envelope estimate is that the civilians of the world have only >>murdered about 20 million people in the same period of time. Quite a >>disparity. > >Your estimate seems high to me. But it is meaningless, in any case. This isn't the first time you've called information that is detrimental to your position words equivalent to "meaningless." I suppose that's easier than disproving the other person's claim, or proving your own. >First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have >prevented more murders than they caused. This is unknowable, since >we don't have any worthwhile control cases. Your position is laughable. Statistics on murder rates are knowable for many countries. Studying the murder rate for those countries will at least provide a range against which deaths due to government-caused wars can be compared. >Second, such cases of civil breakdown aside, all humans, for now and >for the conceivable future, live within the context of some kind of >government. The option of non-government simply doesn't exist. That's precisely what the governments and their agents want us to believe. Minarchism is certainly possible, and at the risk of appearing to blow my own AP-horn, it is indeed plausible that the public can take down all governments in a reasonably straightforward fashion. The fact that governments will strongly dislike this option is no reason to not consider the possibility. > The >issue is how can governments be improved. By eliminating them, of course. >Third, murders caused by governments can't really be separated from >murders caused by individuals. That is, in many cases deciding >whether a murder is a personal action or a government action is >impossible. "Aye vas joost vollowink orderz!" Sorry, we're still laughing at you. >Fourth, it's fashionable in these circles to paint all governments >with the same brush, but in fact, some are much better than others. >But it only takes one bad one to start a war. Furthermore, human >motivations are complex and irrational, so wars are started for >essentially insane reasons. This is a human problem, not a problem >of government. No, quite the contrary. Considered from the perspective of the cumulative interests of society, wars are not beneficial or "profitable." Only from the very limited viewpoint of the military-industrial complex and government employees does war appear to be a net benefit, and that's true only because the interests of most of the population (on whom the effect of war is a net negative) is ignored. The reason war occurs is that the decision to have a war is made not by society as a whole, but by that tiny fraction which profits. Put the decision to have the war back into the hands of the population as a whole, and war will decrease. Give the public the option to make war upon the government parasites infesting their own land, and war will end forever. >[Parenthetically, it is absolutely amazing to me that he and >practically everyone on this list just seems to assume McVeigh is >guilty...do they know something I don't?] For the purposes of most of the arguments we make, the identity of the actual bomber is irrelevant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: Disinformation in L.A.
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:19 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >You might remember I wrote recently about the DoJ report released this >month that calls for new legislation to ban bomb-making info online. Now >Feinstein's office tells me she's going to introduce a bill. Feinswine never saw a gun/mind control bill she didn't like. She is an ultra fascist that rose to power thanks to the yellow dog Bay Area voters. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

8 12

Anonymous Remailers
by Roger J. Jones 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why is it that some who are very concerned about their personal privacy utilize anonymous remailers that: 1) Log all of their mail messages? 2) Are in many cases reputed to be run by foreign intelligence services? Do they really trust the owner of the remailer? (Unless of course, it is their remailer?) I seem to be missing something.

10 14

I Treat All My Enemies Equally
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There have been so many posts on which I could make remarks, and I haven't enough time to prepare a really good treatment on the subject. The title of the subject line is from something LD once said to me as a joke to rile me, something like, "I'm all for Democracy - I treat all my enemies equally." (he probably stole that line from someone). Anyway, I was thinking about those who have expressed a lack of concern for the unfortunate mixture of the guilty & innocent in a close encounter with a destructive device. I was thinking that people who aren't careful about such differences make of themselves an enemy to all, because who can tell what they're supporting and whose lives they really value, since anyone at all could become their victim. In times of declared (or undeclared) wars, when it is governments which conduct the battles, one of the things which make wars hell is that anyone & everyone is potentially in harms way; everyone has to run for their lives, you never from who/where you might get hit, whether from enemy or from friendly fire. There is so much confusion, propaganda, and lies about who is in the right, who is in the wrong, whose fault it was/is and who are the real heroes, that all of those in the middle seem like ping-pong balls bouncing from side to side. Nevertheless, whichever side they think they are on or even if they don't give a flip, everyone has to to run, hide, take cover. Only when all supplies and manpower have been exhausted, does the war end; in the meantime both sides have made many smoldering enemies, which later some opportunists use as reason to attempt to sway the remaining survivors into further alliances against the latest "enemy of the people". In truth, it becomes a difficult task to determine who is the un-fairest of them all. The fact of the matter is that those in the middle must find a way to protect themselves from whatever weapon or vehicle of destruction comes around, whatever its source. Likewise, anyone who creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, where it makes no difference whether one is a friend or a foe of any particular values or ideals - one could end up dead regardless, just from being in the wrong place at the wrong time - is making of themselves an enemy to all. Like that stolen phrase, I myself would have to "treat all my enemies equally"; that is, anyone who would put me or anyone I valued, in danger. So, for instance, if Whitfield Diffie and PhilZ were walking into a Federal building in OK City, and I saw some cypherpunk not too far away getting ready to blow it up, well, I guess I'd have to kill him. (Dirty Harry saying: "feel lucky today, cpunk?"). .. Blanc

1 0

Re: The War is Underway (fwd)
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >As I recall, 3des ( DESk1 -> DESk2^-1 -> DESk3 ) has an effective >keylength of 112 bits. Less than IDEA. Schneier discusses this. Unfortunately, Schneier doesn't do a very good job at discussing the strength of 3DES. This probably is to be expected, since there is no fixed effective keylength of 3DES and a more detailed discussion would likely exceed the format of Applied Cryptography. The work factor of breaking 3DES depends on the number of known plaintexts. At best, the effective keylength is 112 bits. At worst (this is an unlikely, perhaps unrealistic worst) the effective keylength is ~90 bits. Contrast this with DESX, which has been proven to be twice as hard as DES, therefore having an effective keylength of 112 bits. >It costs little today to develop a cipher with larger keyspace. (DES with >independent subkeys already exists and has a basic keyspace of 768 bits. >A meet in the middle attack reduces keyspace to 2^384. Schneier discusses >the cipher briefly). If users are willing to deal with large keys (I >certainly am) then software designers are restraining a more secure >implementation. It costs lots to develop a cipher with a larger keyspace that has a known, or reasonably assumed, work factor of higher than 112 bits. Again, it takes years to cryptanalyze a new cipher. It isn't software designers that are restraining more secure implementations. The software designers don't have any better algorithms to work with because the theorists haven't agreed on anything better yet. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

2 1

FW: Anonymous Remailers
by Roger J. Jones 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----Original Message----- From: Tim May [SMTP:tcmay@got.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 11:52 AM To: Roger J. Jones; 'cypherpunks(a)toad.com' Subject: Re: Anonymous Remailers At 5:17 AM -0800 5/14/97, Roger J. Jones wrote: >Why is it that some who are very concerned about their personal privacy >utilize anonymous remailers that: > >1) Log all of their mail messages? With chained, multiply-encrypted messages, logs are ineffective unless all of the links in the chain collude to trace messages. While this is certainly possible, it seems unlikely. >2) Are in many cases reputed to be run by foreign intelligence services? This allegation was made by some clueless Washington think tank authors. They provided no evidence, only innuendo, and they were unwilling or unable to provide any further comments when queried by several Cypherpunks. I suggest that just because you chose to characterize the sources as "clueless Washington think tank authors" does not (as they say in Star Trek - The Next Generation) "make it so". The "allegation" that foreign governments actively participate in actions to violate personal privacy ("borrowing" laptops from traveling businesspeople, taping phones, etc.) are all documented in various places. Of course, they could all the result of a single psyop with excellent results. But I doubt it. And given that many or even most of the remailer operators are members of the various related Cypherpunks or Remailers Operators lists, and are known to various of us, the notion that most (or even many) remailers are run by intelligence agencies is absurd. >Do they really trust the owner of the remailer? (Unless of course, it is >their remailer?) I seem to be missing something. I don't recognize your name on this list. Fine, as we always like to see new subscribers. But I surmise you just haven't spent enough time yet reading and thinking about these issues. You may surmise what you choose. In fact, that is the essence of free discourse. Of course, knowing is far better than surmising. If you care to suggest a reading list please feel free to mail it to me direct. And yes, I am new to this most charming and entertaining list. Thank you for the welcome Welcome to the Cypherpunks list. * Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Spam IS Free Speech
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

God, Last summer we had the whole "Spam as Free Speech Debate". Now Rick Osborne drags it up again. You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick. That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and white. Some of your metaphors are kinda harsh, and a bit cartoonish. On or About 12 May 97 at 13:43, Rick Osborne wrote: > I said: > >I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of) intelligence. ;) > > To which Vulis wrote: > >Your lack of ethics, rather. You choose to work for someone who > >chooses to use inadequate Microsoft software, and you brandish > >these choices as an excuse to interfere with somene's free speech. > > I'm not brandishing anything as an excuse, simply stating this: I > should not have to walk through the street (get my email) Well, you are doing OK so far. > wearing 4 > inches of kevlar (using spam filters), It depends on what street you are walking, here. Kevelar *may* be in order. What's your problem with your 'delete' key? Broken? > *just in case* someone > decides to whip out a submachine gun (spam). Now, here's where you start to go really crazy. Spam as a weapon? Please, Rick get ahold of yourself. It's just e-mail. Nothing scary or harmful, right? Right? > It should not me my > job to defend myself from psychos, rather people should have to ask > my permission to infringe upon my space and time. You got a website? You post to usenet? I know you post to this list. By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as giving away your e-mail address. Maybe that's unethical, but it's a fact. And if you do have a website, it's an open invitation for me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages. > How am I taking away from Sanford's right to free speech by just > spamming him back? Free speech is a right. You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right to intentionally harm. You are doing wrong if you try to harm someone who is exercising their right to free speech. Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you? See, it's all the same thing. You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at someone for something they say or some ad they send you. > I sgree with this weekend's discussion on arp > attacks: technically, they should be no different than spam attacks. > WHy then should he (or whoever) have the right to spam me without > fear of retribution? Because FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT WE HAVE! Why all this talk of retribution? No one has a right to retaliate, get it? First Amendment? I didn't read in there the right to get back at some poor advertisers, did you? > Actually, and this is just MHO, I don't really care if the 100 or so > spams/arps I send them are but a mosquito's bite to them. Free Speech : Good Mail Bombs : Bad > It makes > *me* feel better. Ahhh, at last the point. Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more important that the Constitution? Feel better? How about when those black suited ninjas break into your house to steal your rights? That's my metaphor of what you are doing to people who spam you... > I'm not in this necessarily to shut anyone down > (though it would be a nice side-effect), just to annoy them as much > as they annoy me. Like I said, I'm more of the passive-agressive > type, so I'm not here to wage a war, just a few small skirmishes. It's talk like this that those good old boys in D.C. love. Bad internet, bad. Um, there is no war against spammers. Did you know that? You could be doing so much more with your time. Please reconsider. Thank you. No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws". Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best. I'm more worried about this anti bomb making recipe law that the government is yammering about now. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

2 1

Re: Disinformation in L.A.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 13 May 97 at 22:14, Lucky Green wrote: > >month that calls for new legislation to ban bomb-making info > >online. Now Feinstein's office tells me she's going to introduce a > >bill. > > Feinswine never saw a gun/mind control bill she didn't like. She is > an ultra fascist that rose to power thanks to the yellow dog Bay > Area voters. No, she rose to power over the murdered corpse of her boss. Was she involved? I lived in San Francisco for years and NEVER voted for her, it's hard to vote for a murderer =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

Kent's government spin...
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin, assuming that others on the list are not capable of understanding what someone posts unless he explains it, wrote: > And Tim did *explictly advocate* the assasination of government > officials: > "Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against > the Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other > traitors." The punishment for high crimes against the Constitution is execution, which differs from assassination. It seems to me that those most worried about government criminals being punished for their crimes are those participating in those activities while trying to justify or downplay them. Kent, why don't you start a thread explaining how important it is for government to feel free to imprison grandmothers for plugging other people's parking meters without fearing retribution from those who don't wish for their government to place them in a cage like an animal for plugging parking meters? (You could start by explaining that we need to protect our prison- based economny, in the interests of a strong GNP.) I think this would be a good project to display to everyone the type of mentality that you represent. TruthMonger

1 0