December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: More on digital postage
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > ><Some deleted> > >> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >> person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >> the public for no explicit charge. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 5

Re: pgp encrypted messages
by Scott Auge 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scott A. Hommel wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > Suppose it depends on what ya put IN the message.... -- How has the government interfered in your life today?

1 0

Re: Procmail during the transition, anyone?
by omegam＠cmq.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com writes: > subs-cri-be to the unedited list. Nope. I get duplicates with new ID's here, and I have duplicate ID removing recipe enabled. I am subscribed to the list as cyberpass.net now, and not on toad anymore, al least I shouldn't be. Should be resolved by the 20th ;). me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by omegam＠cmq.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin writes: > Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > If any of you reading this are interested in law&crypto topics, please > bookmark my homepage, and vist every so often. I suggest that you munge up your from line and possibly your reply-to address in Usenet postings. Folks who actually want to communicate with you can derive your address from your .sig. By the way, I have intentions of including your web page(s) as references in the cypherpunks-resources faq I am producing. Any objections to this? (I know it's in your .sig and you want to advertise it, but it just strikes me as _polite_ to ask.) me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Fuck UseNet (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting > solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the > same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no > doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom > to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, > and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have > the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we might consider adding, X-distrib-policy: foo Where foo might be, Public Domain All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted Refer to authors header Copyleft etc. or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would significantly aid folks in their shopping around. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks afraid of spam?
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy > enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared > away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. > We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of > Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. It isn't the Once and a While Big Ass Knock Down Drag Outs that kick your ass, it is the mosquito's and the heat, the moldy bread and the drip drip drip of the constant rain. Even Solid rock gets worn away by the steady drip drip drip of the rain. I hate that drip.

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:39:32 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Personally, I try to let people know that they may use even my > private email in any manner they see fit. I have no objection to > even those who disagree with me using it to attack me or misdirect > others, or whatever. > I agree with Jim's 'defacto public domain' idea, as long as it > does not conflict with the reality of the need for intellectual > property rights. > e.g. - copyright and patent law I am not preventing people from retaining their rights. I simply recognize that there are entirely too many different views of 'fair use' to create a blanket order. I also recognize that one responsibility in a democracy of all citizens is the protection of the results of human effort. The best way to protect and preserve information is to place it in the public domain. Of course the other option is to sell large 'collections' to groups like Microsoft who would end up charging you out the ya-ya for looking at 'their' pretty pictures. Wonder what DaVinci would have thought of the way we treat HIS paintings? But I digress. Given that people have many highly individualistic views about copyright of their expression and the need to preserve that expression we must ask ourselves how? One obvious answer is to place everything in the public domain, I am shure the information race we experience now would be nothing compared to that worlds output. However, this prevents truly gifted individuals from being able to spend the time (eg lifetimes) needed to truly master some forms of expression. We certainly don't want to support them on the public dole, so there must be some way for them to make a living off their work. So we recognize their originality or inherent worth in their expression. We also recognize that there can't be complete and total protection because most people would not find a buyer for their expression simply from lack of knowledge. So, lets find a middle ground, one where people can tell other people about things they experience as well as feel secure that their efforts have some inherent worth and also some failsafe to ensure that as much effort as possible gets archived. So let's require each person to include their prefered choice of copyright in their communications, otherwise it falls into the public domain. The only resolution of this approach is that everyone gets what they want. Not relevant in this forum, but I also believe that material being held in copyright should fall into the public domain when the copyright holder dies. > If you are having trouble understanding the concept I am dealing > with, here, then I suggest that you drink a bottle of Scotch and > read this post again. That's certainly one way to get in the correct attitude...;) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:10:36 -0800 (PST) > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights > Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? As I understand it '(c)' is not considered acceptably close to the normal copyright symbol. What I have been advised is to always spell out 'copyright <date> <person>'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to thank you for the years of graciously hosting the cypherpunks list. Although I have only been active on the list since September, I have lurked much longer and found it to be an invaluable source of information, networking, discourse and inspiration. I respect your decisions first to experiment with moderation and later to pull the plug. I regret your attempts in resolving the uncivil behavior of 'the few' failed and that some key posters, who had served as the 'backbone' of interesting discussion on the list, were driven off by the insuing clamor and the off-topic rants. So be it. One way or another the cypherpunks have spoken. So, now its on to Usnet and more focused/moderated lists. The LIST IS DEAD, long live THE LISTS! --Steve

1 0

Re: Fuck UseNet
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Delivered-To: reece-cpunks(a)taz.nceye.net Delivered-To: reece(a)taz.nceye.net Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:02:19 +0000 From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, alt.cypherpunks(a)news.demon.net Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Absolutely, It is really, as far as I see it anyway, just a stop-gap measure. The caballers haven`t got enough room to do their censorship on the 18000 or so big 7 groups so they decide to fuck up the alt. heirachy as well ;-) Hopefully Igor and co.`s network of Majordomo's should be fully operational soon (as I understand it two are up and a third is on it's way) then we can move back there. Might even get it finished before the 20th????? Why not a network of news servers with mail<->news gateways on some of them? It should even be possible to use the news spool as the queue, so that only info on who needs what messages need lie around rather than 42 copies of the message (something like nntpsend, just using smtp). I actually have some spare time this weekend to try implementing this.

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > ><Some deleted> > >> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >> person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >> the public for no explicit charge. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re:
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[cc list trimmed!] On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > Yes. > Rubbish. It is perfectly legal. See generally http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

2 1

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor said: > I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, > and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having > read and understood the message. > > For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted > by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > justify adding postage to their letters. > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. That would be great. Sit home all day and hit web pages for a living.

1 0

Re: More on digital postage
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 5

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X >who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk >about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I >didn't harp on that point. > >A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people >were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them >enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother >with listening in to the exact message? I think it would be appropriate to insist that these guys (the LEAs) document their need for decryption, by providing "us" (the public) with an encrypted version of the data that they have accessed but cannot understand, as well as its source and what case it's associated with. The LEAs would encrypt it and publicize it (not openly identifying the details) but with the promise that the key to unlock the information would be released within, say, a year or even earlier once a case is brought. Included within the encrypted identification would be references sufficient to identify the case involved. If they have any doubts as to why they should do this, we should point out that we see no reason to believe their claims, but we want to give them the maximum opportunity to prove them without requiring that they spill the beans, completely, now. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

The EFF
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >As for the "rift," may observers said at the time that DT was a Jerry >Berman "appeasement and capitulation" scheme. Note Berman no longer works >at EFF. Note EFF is no lnoger in DC. > >And yes, I've read Tim May's essay on his EFF membership. I probably would >have had the same reaction. > It might be a useful minor footnote for me to say that I did end up renewing for a later year (though I kept getting mail as "Tim Mat"). I was semi-persuaded that they'd learned their lesson. I stopped paying attention to them a while back, though, and haven't considered renewing. They just came to seem to be irrelevant as a "membership driven" organization. (There were reportedly only about 2000 individual members as of not too long ago, and the EFF does little recruiting for new individual members. They are definitely not following the NRA or AARP models.) Their legal work support has been very nice, of course. As for Berman, he put on the "SAFE" forum, which I thought was very well done. So, he redeemed himself, for me. (I don't really understand personally whether the Digital Telephony (CALEA, Computer Assistance for Law Enforcement) thing is Just Bad, or Really Bad, or Even Worse, or Inconceivably Evil. No one seems to know what is expected for Internet telephony providers, for example, or whether DT/CALEA could be used to shut down remailers, as some of us fear. If DT/CALEA turns out to be Really Bad, or Even Worse, I'll have to put Berman back on my list of less desirable folks. :-}) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0