December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:00 PM 1/27/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: ... >> 2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this >> themselves? > >Perhaps because they love Saddam, who really is a great guy. Stop listening >to what U.S.gubmint and media tell you and use your brain. What did >Saddam do to _you? Those of us in the US have the luxery of secret ballots, Iraq is not. What was reported to me (by the media) was that those who decided to vote against Hussein, in a time when food was scarce, decided to vote against eating. It was not made illegal to vote him out, merely a catch 22, unless enough people agreed openly, the vocal minority would suffer. What we should have been doing as the troops pulled out and a no fly zone was being established was dropping bombs full of bread on the populus. Then they could have voted any which way they chose. ... >> Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because >> they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and >> 2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be >> able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting >> in the wings to take his place. The situation surrounding the existence >> of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him >> there, not simply that one man himself. It was the same with Hitler and >> with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" >> concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over >> others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them >> there, expecting to derive benefits from it. > >I don't like your Saddam example, having much admiration for the man, but >again this goes back to the perceived likelihood of future assassination. >If Saddam is killed in an unlikely event, he will be succeeded by someone >who does not fear assassination. If all potential successors are convinced >that the rubout can be repeated, they won't go for the job. Remember, the >purpose of "terrorism" is not just to kill someone, but to "terrorize". > >> And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" >> possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have >> to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. > >You rub out enough key people and terrorize their potential successors >into not wanting to take over their jobs, and the system collapses. ... I don't remember where I heard this, and in all likelyhood, I heard it here. This is certainly not a direct quote, ant would the origional poster please speak up. There came a time, in some ancient civilization when the king committed suicide by eating poisoned food. In the remaining week, most of the household, apparently in honor of the deceased king, jumped on kitchen knives and butcher knives, killing themselves. The brother of the king would not come out of hiding because some unknown person was terrorizing him with a meat cleaver. After a year, it was apparent that no one in the line of succession still survived, all killing themselves with kitchen utensils. It was rumored that the post was cursed. It was then that the royal galley slave bravely stepped foreward to rule the kingdom until one of the origional line should return. The decendants of the galley slave have ruled to this day. Like I said, I don't know where this came from, but I would like to see it again, if it came from here.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>That's it? The system collapsed because the guards left their posts? >And no mutiny charges? Incredible. I was there. The collapse of East Germany was quite spectacular. There was at most three months of warning. First there was a series of sit ins at foreign embassies, then a migration of large numbers of people in their twenties within the eastern block. I missed the actual collapse of the wall itself having to go to England. I was told of the sequence of events by friends in Berlin. By this time the protestors were confident enough to stage open demonstrations. The authorities had tolerated small scale demonstrations for some time provided they did not appear to be part of a larger movement. The sudden increase in numbers from tens to tens of thousands left the authorities unsure of what to do. They could not be sure of the reliability of the police should they attempt to violently suppress the demonstrations. To imprison the ringleaders was equally dangerous. The communists were aware that the South Africans had continued to be troubled by Mandela and Biko long after they were imprisoned or murdered. At some point a group of protesters approached the wall, probably hoping to goad the police into making an arrest. The guards made no response and the numbers increased to the point where firing of warning shots was impossible without causing a massacre. West German protesters joined from the other side of the wall. The border guards did try to use a water cannon but to little effect since the range was insufficient. At some point someone appeared with a sledge hammer and a pickaxe. Some people say that this was at the start of the protest, others that someone fetched them. I have heard people who believe that they were brought from either side of the wall. They started attacking the wall and soon had removed one of the panels. Next day the border guards quite literally abandoned their posts. The Brandenburg gate was opened for the first time in fifty years and the party apparatus all but collapsed. The only military activity during this period was GDR forces preparing against possible invasion by Soviet forces. Not that this was a logistical possibility since it was unlikely they would get across Poland unopposed. Read Norman Davies book "Europe a history" if you want to find out the background for the velvet revolution. It is one of the most amazing events in political history. It is a pity that people have forgotten so quickly about the real causes. It was not military power that prevailed but the protest movement. Unfortunately US commentators tend to see everything in terms of US cultural norms, many of which were explicitly rejected by the protestors. The East Germans wanted West German affluence, they wanted to be part of Western Europe. They were certainly not responding to US military spending as right wing theorists claim, nor was the economy collapsing because of the arms race, it was collapsing because of the costs of a totalitarian state and the incompatibility of that state with modern industrial organization. Phill

1 0

Re: Handbook of Applied Cryptography
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's the publisher's URL for Handbook of Applied Cryptography, which amplifies Patrick's summary, and gives ordering info. http://www.crcpress.com/PRODS/8523.HTM Just reading the mouthwatering summaries and the extensive, detailed list of topics is a good primer on crypto.

1 0

Re: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If past cryptographic software is any indication, the DES Cracker >will be available from an overseas ftp site within hours of release in >the US. And lacking that, the author can always print it out on paper and physically mail it out of the country; this is specifically allowed by the new Commerce rules as I understand them. And who's to say that the overseas FTP copies weren't scanned from such a paper copy? :-) Phil

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:13 -0500 > > I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a > geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. Exactly! By jove you got it! By demanding your liberty but demanding that 'we' go to Singapore or anywhere else and treat them as chattels we have clearly instituted a double-standard. Most parties in this discussion still haven't made that distinction. All we have done is replace their current tyrant with a new one, mainly us. > The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither > country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in > obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from > calling itself a democracy. Exactly. And by applying pressure on Singapore we only help them keep that tyrany in place. The quickest way I know to make a social institution band together is self-preservation from an outside threat, real or perceived. > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly > corrupt. ALL social orders are corrupt. The 3 laws of thermodynamics apply to everything including social institutions. 1. You can't get ahead 2. You can't break even 3. You can't quit the game Heinz Pagels (RIP) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:28:19 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy > > Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where > the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension > substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Thank you for agreeing with my thesis that the legal industry is one driven by monetary gain and not justice. It is the one major problem with law today, it ignores those who are not 'worth it'. Justice is supposed to be blind and until that happens there can be no true liberty. Law should be involved in rights and wrongs and not 'how much money do I need to buy that villa in Spain'. There is also the aspect of 'reputation' of the organization which was defamed. This will become even more critical to good business over the Internet in the future than it is now. Now the only really important 'reputation' that one has to worry about is their credit report. Since it is very unlikely that such records will be made public in the future they won't be available so some other 'reputation' verification process will be required for parties interested in doing business with other parties they have no information on other than an email address or a webpage. This problem became very clear during the Austin Cypherpunks remailer project last year. The goal was to create a economicaly viable keyserver. The problem rapidly became one of trust and reputation and there was and still is no clear cut methodology for dealing with these concepts, let alone actualy trying to quantify them. Another aspect of this that keeps coming up is one of 'big' corporations with 'lots' of money, this monotonicity in legal thought is the reason I refer to the 'legal industry' and not 'legal profession'. Currently the main force driving law is how much money is available. Expansions of liberty simply can't happen in this environment because there is no mechanism to protect 'little' organizations or persons without 'lots' of cash. This problem is one that is not being addressed by anyone, most especialy lawyers who will loose income which they aren't apt to do voluntarily. > Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still > unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access > to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. This would be hard to do in the situation such as a mailing list because the parties would have 'authorized access' and it does not include the issue of inside parties nor 'web bbs's' where parties can enter comments and other statements in a 'authorized' manner. There are mechanisms to use computers for abuse of other parties besides hacking. > Confusion > aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and > its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able > to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. > > >If they don't > >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly > >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand > >what is best, let along convince anyone else? > > There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing > up once in awhile. Absolutely. However, if there is not a fundamental understanding of the technology and its ramifications I certainly wouldn't want somebody making a case on my behalf because they would make assumptions which were not based in fact. In Toto's case the point I was refering to was not his sending private practice related material to a publicly accessible list (pretty reprehensible for my attorney accident or not) but rather his unsolicited admission that he didn't have any idea how it works. THAT would worry me if my liberty, possessions, or life were on the line. > I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually > unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if > Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably > available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not > important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So > you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, > and you'll get a different answer. Duh. Actualy it is the PERFECT example of what is wrong with the law, it is the reason that I went to such extremes to force the situation. If the law can't protect Ma. and Pa. Kettle (their poor, being share croppers) under our 'democracy' it shure can't proctect them under a more 'liberalized' democracy which so many want and the technology will force. If the coming technocracy can't (or for monetary reasons won't) then it won't be any different that what we have now. A tyrant is a tyrant, my goal is to get rid of the cage and not to put a new layer of gilt on it. > You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points > you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or > not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point > about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or > do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for > misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I > still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to > be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. The point is not whether Toto did or did not make fun of me, you seem to have a prediliction for personal attacks. It ain't. The point is that if joe-six-pack isn't secure in knowing that his views and expression are not protected from abuse he won't use it. We all loose in that case. > And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is > "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". You missed the point, keep pondering. I am shure it will come to you. > Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it > should be", Because I don't know how it should be, and it isn't my place or yours to make that decision. It is our responsibility to discuss this issue and to review the various solutions and what they will mean in the long run (as near as we can make the future out that is). In this example, if party A makes a statement and then B changes it and then re-distributes it as original comments by A then there is a problem irrespective of the monetary worth of A or B. Digital signatures in and of themselves won't help this from happening unless it is required to include the full text and signature of any quote in any subsequent use of that material otherwise the quote and the digital signature are out of sync and therefore worthless. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [URGENT] Meet-in-the-middle attack
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[retin] Maya grew a beard to look like his mother. \|||/ (o o) -ooO-(_)-Ooo- Timmy C[retin] Maya

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > any recognition of this fact. Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility or consistency. If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be dead as a doornail in a week. Phill

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Asgaard <asgaard(a)cor.sos.sll.se> wrote in article <5c92bo$lo9(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > >The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. > Actually at CERN we considered the Web to be a superset of the Internet protocols and others such as DECNET which ran on private networks such as our HEPNET. Since most of those private networks are now obsolete I would consider Web==Internet to be a reasonable equivalence. We always considered email and news to be part of the Web (news:, mailto:). The narrow view that the Web was only HTTP and HTML was a piece of Andressen propaganda. Phill

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote in article <5c5891$ah(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > > this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? > > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. If Billy-Bob wants to shoot himself in the foot, > let him. Might be purty funny to watch. I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from calling itself a democracy. > > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > > speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. That was not all. We had a political Web site established during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people when we had fewer than 100 Web sites. I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool for confirming the present social order which is manifestly corrupt. Phill

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of > 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. The net is a bunch of computers, > running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and > EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility > support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody > else is along for the ride. The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. > If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on > the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of property you do. Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" from the previous rulers. I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every philosopher since Locke. It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states I'm not a 'subject" of. > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > understand what is going on. They are allowed to connect their machinery to the Internet so long as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. They are not allowed to have a free ride, to demand a valuable connection facility on their own terms. > ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university > web site on French soil to use French. As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens as a whole. Phill

1 0

I-Link
by biz25＠prodigy.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THIS IS URGENT--TWO U.S. BASED INTERNATIONAL GIANTS MERGE FOR A GROUND FLOOR OPPORTUNITY. THIS WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT EMAIL OF YOUR MLM LIFE. Two major publicly traded giants have joined forces to harness new telecommunications technology which promises to alter the way the world communicates. Until now, calls had to be transmitted through hard wire, fiber optics, or expensive land-based relay stations. Within months, all this will change. According to industry experts, calls in certain closely guarded test markets are already being made directly from phone to phone via satellite. Distance is no longer a factor. Without the considerable costs of hard wire installation, maintenance, and major overheads. With this new technology, rates are predicted to fall as much as 50% and more. This means that a direct dial call from Sydney Australia to London, Tokyo, or anywhere else in the world, might well be less than ten cents per minute. Calls within any country should also be reduced well below any currently being offered by any existing provider. Each user will only need a portable "little black box" which contains all the electronics to instantly convert any telephone into a two-way satellite transmitter. According to industry spokesman, the clarity of the voice link significantly exceeds present standards and the technology applies to fixed based phones as well as cellular units. Although the two major participating companies have requested anonymity until the official announcement in a few weeks time, it has been revealed that each is the industry leader in its respective field with combined annual sales exceeding Eighty Billion Dollars. This Technology will be made available throughout the world as quickly as the new company can cope with anticipated demand. Pre-Launch requests are now being accepted from interested parties that will enable them to move to the top of the list to receive information on a priority basis as soon as it becomes available. In an unexpected announcement, the company has revealed its desire to introduce this technology through network marketing. To maintain an orderly marketplace, the number of Pre-Launch distributors has been severely limited. If you are interested in being placed on the priority list to receive additional information about the new service or wish to be involved in the world wide marketing, please send the form below in any of the three manners listed. and all forms and instructions will be dropped into your email box in moments. There is NO COST or obligation in taking this first step. You make the final decision only after receiving all the relevant information. Unprecedented $$$ Opportunity 1) TWO Industry Giants is Software and Telecommunications with combined annual sales in excess of $80 Billion to team up to create a major marketing joint-venture to revolutionize the telephone industry. 2) Domestic and International Rates expected to Plunge in excess 50%---far below any currently being offered by any present company. Calls linking almost all-international locations could drop below ten cents per minute! 3) Crystal Clear Technology is achieved by two-way, direct satellite link through an inexpensive, highly portable "Little Black Box" which easily connects to both fixed and cellular phones. 4) Amazing Profit Potential. The company unexpectedly revealed it would distribute this new technology through MLM. The first 5,000 responders to this announcement could easily become instant millionaires. 5) FREE PRE-LAUNCH RESERVATIONS. The following form will assure your position on our priority list. 6) TOP SECRET DETAILS will be communicated as soon as available. 7) NO COST OR OBLIGATION NOW!!! Reserve your right to make a final decision once we release the information on the products, program, and what we ca do for you with our massive marketing power. 8) Do Not Delay!! Priority places are reserved as received. Make certain commit your contacts IMMEDIATELY to keep your own marketing organization in tact. This will totally revolutionize the way the world communicates. Virtually everyone who uses a telephone or a fax for business will be converting to this system. Submit your no-obligation Priority Reservation Form Immediately. 9) Copy and rewrite this document to reflect you as the sponsor and pass on to your email friends. -------------------------------[ Start of Form ]-------------------------- INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE PROGRAM PRE-LAUNCH PRIORITY RESERVATION FORM Mail to: John Gilmore PO Box 990103 Naples, FL 34117 Phone 941-353-1049 or Fax to: 1-619-561-8967 or Email to: jgilmore(a)netnaples.com (In place of signature type "I Agree" for email entries) ***cc to: ulus12a(a)prodigy.com *** Please complete ALL information below. Incomplete applications cannot be processed Social Security or EIN Number_______________________ Print Full Name________________________________________________________ Business Name (if applicable)____________________________________________ Mailing Address (NO PO Box)____________________________________________ City______________________________State_________Zip Code_______________ Home Telephone Number (___)________ Work Telephone Number (____)________ Fax Number (_____)_____________ E-Mail Address_______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sponsor Information: Name____Sonya Seaman__________SS/EIN_161-64-8877____ Home Phone 610-760-8527 E-Mail Address____ ulus12a(a)prodigy.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to be placed on the priority list to receive information on the major breakthrough in worldwide telephone services. I understand there is no cost or obligation. I reserve the right to make a final decision once I have reviewed all the relevant information. I further understand that by submitting this application, I am assured that I and my organization will be afforded its proper pre-launch positioning, and that by signing below, I agree that my position in the genealogy will not be altered or circumvented in any manner unless agreed in writing by my upline sponsor. Signature_________________________________ Date________________ I am interested in marketing in: ___________USA _________Other Countries (Specify) ________Worldwide -------------------------------[ End of Form ]-------------------------- http://www.bluesky.net.au/~aim/downline.html id#: 21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.mlmpals.com/chain/ch049.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[GAK] FBI at it again
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri L"iposuction" Vegetable had his foreskin ripped off last night by a vacuum cleaner. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Dr.Dimitri L"iposuction" Vegetable `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

How to subscribe
by Theodor.SCHLICKMANN＠bxl.dg13.cec.be 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have learned from the discussions in this list that there are other lists related to this one. Can anybody send me information on what is available and when this confusion created by having different lists will stop. cypherpunks : unmoderated and uncensored cypherpunks : unmoderated and censored cypherpunks : moderated and uncensored cypherpunks : moderated and censored cypherpunks : US eyes only -- export restrictions cypherpunks : Europe cypherpunks : private mail Theodor W. Schlickmann

1 0

Dale on his podium
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> Reply-To: dthorn(a)gte.net Subject: Re: overview.htm (fwd) >Lived all over So. Cal. for 12 years, 4 years in SE Tenn., close to >Atlanta. Atlanta has some nice babes, warm weather. I fell totally >in love with a girl from Chattanooga, who was probably the best >college radio D.J. who ever lived. Lived in Charleston for a short >while. > >Much smaller than Atlanta. Very cozy. Spent a lot of time in >Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit. The best babes there are usually the >Chrissy Hynde (Akron) types. Spent 2-1/2 years in Southern Germany. >Very, very nice. Loved Berchtesgaden (sp?). Interestingly enough, >I have a fondness for English girls. Must be the ancestry thing. >I'd really like to talk to some Welsh girls - my mum's grandparents >came to the U.S. from there. What about you? Who gives a rat's ass, Dale? What a waste. Babes? Types?

1 0

Trigger-Words...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, does anybody know any contact points/Web pages, where I might get some information on e-mail filtering via trigger-words? I am interested in how this technology specifically works and a collection of trigger-words would be nice too :) Thanks in advance... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMuhpbjltEBIEF0MBAQGiOwf+N61i3Vj1XjmhKLm+qispHDxsu4Wde8nb BtMkVOAt9MGlihKftUAvp7l8aUcr5+D5jFh4/1VllO+QeZ4Yni9kM40xBLry1LYD yiLqpeNMfz2Zf6XMqGaNc8lblx9qyNHyJBHf5p8OfJWN47LcIn8CYkhDSq6b3Sch rHNBg8RjuCKQGD3XlCkwZLrYCUiCPFmSkKeuYpSaPkXgqgf7Zku68RrmqhRzbF1m UneIgxMXqWFetIBHe8PIcQpLrN0X+lRMCnCFVY9x7Rsy4QJc3f8lZ7YKo2xDiGXb Ly+wiA6sexlwwf+BdLDRu3fshI4eCpe7KbfWmzf3z0pdpvdRfUiJuw== =KEb+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

2 1

RE: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: I have received several private emails inquiring into what possible crypto relevance the recent exchange over libel/slander and the law. It is clear that even in democratic countries like Canada (not know as a freedom of speech protectorate) slander/libel is covered under criminal codes. While it is true that currently these statutes are not heavily used, if at all, this will change as businesses and special interest groups move even further onto electronic networks. Consider the zealous use of the law by the CoS. Ask Julf if the ramifications are not 'real world'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com Not one to ever let a mention of Canada go unchallenged - even when it is a simple fact or a compliment - I thought I should jump into the discussion. Like the CoS, many companies have threatened libel actions as a means to silence people. The McLibel Two in Britian quickly come to mind. However, also like the Cos, many companies are finding that the net effect of these libel suites are not in their favour even when they win. Some brilliant examples of subversive use of trademarks can be found at the site: http://www.adbusters.org Specific examples: http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Greasestick.html http://www.adbusters.org/Gallery/spoofabs.html http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Kalvin.html A little clever marketing could go a long way to promoting privacy issues in the public consciousness. Perhaps an NSA Friends and Family calling plan? James

1 0

Re: Passphrase Online...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >>type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >>Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >>If so, how would that be done? You're much safer if you're using an operating system instead of a kluge like Windows... On the other hand, operating systems make it easier to run applications like telnet servers that allow someone else to connect to your system while you're on line. Some different ways you could be at risk include - someone sends you a keystroke-sniffer program and tricks your machine into running it - so it grabs your passphrase from PI or PGP and sends it in later - someone sends you a keystroke-sniffer program and tricks _you_ into running it, whether they use email, web, etc. - someone logs into your system, guesses that the root password is "trustno1", and modifies your copy of PGP to save keystrokes. (On MSDOS, of course, you don't _need_ a root password.) - someone sets up a web page with an evil ActiveX script that convinces your Internet Explorer to download a new copy of PGP. - someone sends you email with an attachment named ..\..\..\windows\pgp.exe and your mail system is dumb enough to accept the pathname. - somebody sends you email with an MS-Word/Excel/PPT attachment that, instead of having a dumb Concept macro virus, has a macro that does something useful like replace your copy of PGP, and you don't have any innoculation on your MS-Word. - any of the above, where the "pgp" program is replaced with one that's almost identical but uses non-random numbers instead of good randoms, and maybe also leaks out your secret key or passphrase. - any of the above, where your email program is modified to add Cc: janet(a)kremvax.su on outgoing smtp. > Still paranoid? Good! # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Kevin L Prigge wrote: > > > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it? If I judge you to > > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can > > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else > > from hearing you as well. That's the real beauty of censorship - > > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most > > people from hearing you at all. Oh, lovely, isn't it? > Don't you like power, Dale? I have a great deal of respect for power. When I was 6, I unwound a coat hanger and put both ends into an electrical outlet. All I remember from that is something like a sledgehammer hitting me, and I went backwards rather quickly. And I never did it again. But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would suffice to be immediately terminated. The best place to begin, in the USA at least, would be the public freeways. There you have the most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for liquidation. Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public by our benevolent government ("sources and methods"). BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered by that in most cases. I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc. I call these people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive). You've seen the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate. There are a large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives.

1 0

Re: Toto's database
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg Broiles wrote: > An interesting assertion. Is your database available for others to draw > their own conclusions from? As a matter of fact, it is. It consists of the cypherpunks unedited and flames list. > I'd appreciate seeing at least a first-level abstraction of the data Given the well-developed and ratiionally strong questions you asked in your post, I am afraid that you would find my abstractions of data rather rudimentary, at best. I keep a separate directory of CypherSpam, for my own purposes, and I merely popped the moderation-related criticisms into another directory and made some direct comparisons. I used my computer-brain to draw my conclusions from, which I suppose might raise the issue of personal bias and/or competent technology. (I regard my brain as a Pentium, but there are others who aver that it can more closely be compared to the digital circuitry on their office coffee-machine) > Of course, correlation alone doesn't tell us much. If it really exists, it > suggests that the two phenomena observed are related in some way, but it > doesn't tell us the nature or the cause of the relationship. That is why the world has need of spin-doctors, conspiracy theorists and data-analysts. > Another explanation would be that a moderation opponent is sending the > spams as a way to punish the proponents of moderation. This is an illogical conclusion, since the proponents of moderation receive the censored list, and therefore do not receive the UCE/Spams. On the other hand, the UCE/Spams are passed along to the other lists, despite the fact that not a single member of the list has indicated any desire to receive them. The fact that John and Sandy have shown absolutely no concern for 'protecting' the list members from UCE/Spam until their forced censoring of 'undesirable' list members indicates that the 'punishment' you mention applies only to those who oppose the censorship of list members. > I think this is especially true given the relatively inexact nature of the > "spam" weapon Unfortunately, the 'spam weapon' is an extremely exact science in the hands of those familiar with remailer systems and bots. Also, some of the spams appear to originate from toad.com itself, as opposed to coming from outside sources. Toto

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 PM 1/27/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >You misunderstand AP, yet again. AP doesn't really take votes, it merely >totals donations. It is an essential element of the AP system that even a >tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as >long as this capability is universal. True, the smaller the minority the >more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well >within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by >getting rid of those pushing for it. > >In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the >population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can >maintain the majority. Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a >tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to >screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining >and relatively uninvolved 51%. > >AP disables this system. AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a >pick-up football game: Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and >anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to. The moment the >"rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation >unsatisfying, he can leave. > ... In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple majority. As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through will get 110% of the poor's bid. The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the tyrants murder. The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams.

1 0

uae_1.html
by Lynx_User＠linux.nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ Monday January 27 9:50 AM EST UAE Launches Service To Censor Internet DUBAI - The United Arab Emirates's monopoly Internet provider launched a service Saturday to censor sites in cyberspace that breached local moral values and traditions. Officials from state telecommunications company Etisalat said the new Proxy Service would be compulsory for the UAE's 9,669 subscribers, who will have to configure their web browsers that navigate the net by February 2. "The service was launched today as part of our efforts to improve the Internet service to our subscribers after lengthy study and research," said one official at Etisalat. "We were working on it before some official statements were made on the need to control access to some sites on the service," he told Reuters. The move follows repeated calls to regulate access to the Internet in the conservative Gulf region, where most women are veiled, magazine pictures revealing cleavage or bare legs are blacked out and questioning the existence of god can be punishable by death. Some are worried about the spread of pornography as well as religious and political material through the worldwide network of interlinked computers. Last year, Dubai Police chief Major General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim created a rare public row in the UAE saying the information ministry and the police, rather that Etisalat, should be authorized to issue Internet licenses as it was their job to monitor data coming into the UAE and maintain security. Telecommunications experts say the Proxy Service will not be "fully water-tight," but would help block access to known and unwanted sites -- a list of which could be constantly updated. The proxy server will be pre-fed with Internet addresses where access is blocked off, industry sources said. But the server will be unable to block access if addresses of prohibited sites are changed, as frequently happens. Etisalat says it will disconnect any customer who abused its Internet services and violated "order and clear laws." "Singapore has succeeded to a great extent in its drive to control harm done by the Internet," said another Etisalat official. "Why cannot we?" Singapore government measures to regulate political and religious content on the Internet and keep it free of pornography became effective in July last year. They require all Internet service operators and local content providers to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >I predict that within the next five years these >slander/libel laws will be used by some organization to prosecute defamation >of their Internet presence (eg web page graffitti). Within 10 years this >area will be one of the hotest areas of the new communications law. Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Corporate plaintiffs, if they chose to bring suit, would in many cases prefer to sue in federal court. (Federal juries tend to be more conservative and hence pro-corporate; they're also more likely to be friendly to an out-of-town corporation suing a local individual). To sue in federal court, the plaintiff needs to find a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Other causes of action (like copyright infringement, trademark dilution, or false designation of origin) would provide a federal question and hence federal jurisdiction. Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. Confusion aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. >If they don't >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand >what is best, let along convince anyone else? There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing up once in awhile. Perhaps you've never screwed anything up (although your summary of US defamation law ought to count), but the rest of us do, from time to time. Were I involved in computer-related litigation, I'd choose an attorney who could talk to a jury over an attorney who was good with computers, hands down. Not even a question. And I'd pick an attorney who owned up to making mistakes sometimes over someone who imagined him or herself somehow superior to people who fuck up now and then. >It has been proposed by at least one party that a district attorney or other >public prosecutor would not act on such events. This is also naive. I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, and you'll get a different answer. Duh. >The >ramifications for their political opponents to use this 'insensitive and >clearly self-interested' refusal to act as a perfect example of how that >prosecutor is interested in their own political career and not in the >interest of the people they are charged with protecting as well as a good >demonstration of their technological ignorance. It would be very difficult >to get re-elected in such an environment. Yeah, I'll bet that your local prosecutor's failure to prosecute Toto is going to cost them dearly in the next election. You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". >All that I ask is that instead of jumping the gun and saying 'it ain't so' >you simply consider the ramifications from 'their' perspective. It truly is >amazing what one can learn by walking a mile in another mans shoes. For if >there is one truth to be learned it is that this discussion is not about how >it is, but rather how it will be and how it should be. Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it should be", beyond the idea that people should learn more about digital signatures. You've forwarded lots of information from other people's web pages about defamation liability in different jurisdictions, but no discussion about why the rules we've got now are good ones (or bad ones). Other commentators have suggested that defamation law is obsolete (Tim May) or should be reconsidered in light of a victim's ability (via the net) to reply to a defamer (Mike Godwin). Do you have a proposal along these lines? Your message suggests to me that you're very pro-plaintiff with respect to defamation (at least when you're the plaintiff), but you haven't explained why other people should adopt your perspective. You did suggest that juries are also likely to think it's in their best interests to find for plaintiffs (because they might find themselves in similar circumstances someday); but it's unclear to me why that reasoning wouldn't make them equally likely to side with defendants (because they might be wrongfully accused of doing something bad), or why your logic wouldn't apply to every case, not just defamation cases. And, for what it's worth, juries aren't supposed to consider "what is in our best interest" either as individuals nor as a community, nor is that a legitimate topic for argument to the jury with respect to questions about liability or guilt. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > Kevin L Prigge wrote: > > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it? If I judge you to > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else > from hearing you as well. That's the real beauty of censorship - > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most > people from hearing you at all. Oh, lovely, isn't it? > Don't you like power, Dale? - Igor.

1 0

Trolling with Dale (a bite)
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> Subject: Re: overview.htm (fwd) Dale Thorn hopelessly wrote: >Let's be realistic about how AIDS is acquired. Yes, Dale, let's >AIDS, OTOH, is likely to be a development from years of 1) Contact >with germs, chemicals, food additives, antibiotics other medical >treatments, sexual contact, etc. and 2) Immune-suppressing activities >such as lack of sleep and exercise, anxiety and stress, and so on. Sounds reasonable to me, especially contact with germs (Who says "germs?"), and sexual contact. Take it on the road, Dale. >It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab >with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses >go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also >(on average) drug users extraordinaire. Yes, nebulous! Extraordinaire (on average), certainly. At the risk of being offed by the moderator, I do believe that Dale is masturbating when he writes nonsense such as this. Perhaps "masterbating" as opposed to j.o. will pass muster. Dale makes an excellent case for having a moderated list right here. What do his nutball beyond-the-fringe remarks have to do with crypto, privacy, security? Cripes, in the old days even an _accurate_ off-list remark would open a blast furnace of condemnation, a la Jim B. If the list won't moderate itself to "guide" the Dale's, it DESERVES to be moderated. He's gotta be trolling to keep it hard. (Dangerous ground here!) Read "erect" for "keep it hard." I suggest even (even!) "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" would disavow this pseudo-scientific nonsense regardless of his stated feelings toward homosexuals which I do not share but, nevertheless, believe may be aired. Step up, Doc. P.S. Does tripe such as Dale's latest make the mod list?

2 1