December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Is this group dead?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) In article <wimlEFHsur.6CE(a)netcom.com>, wiml(a)netcom.com (Wim Lewis) wrote: > In article <5togij$4he$1(a)quixote.stanford.edu>, > Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)disposable.com> wrote: > >No, nothing caused it. It's just dead, pretty much always has been. > >"Always" being only a few months, of course. > > Well, sure --- define "always" as "recently" and you won't see much > change. More than a couple months ago, it was non-dead (about ten relevant > articles a day on good days, IIRC). That's why I'm curious. > Some of us posted our articles to the Cypherpunks list(s) to this newsgroup, when it was first created. For my own part, this was partly to ensure propagation in case the new distributed mailing lists failed for some reason, and partly as a show of support for the new newsgroup, alt.cypherpunks. But alt.cypherpunks filled up with the usual spam and cross-posts. And the distributed mailing lists have done well. So most of us don't bother with it. If you or other readers are really interested, subscribe to the list. Newsgroups are just too prone to casual drop-ins, meaning, people who have no sense of history, no awareness of past issues already hashed out, etc. (Lest anyone think I'm being "undemocratic," sure. I cop to that. Anyone who wants to use alt.cypherpunks for discussions is free to. But if nobody does, so?) --Tim May -- There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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

Government to seek stay in Bernstein case
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:43:46 -0700 From: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)McGlashan.com> Subject: Government to seek stay in Bernstein case Hi all, Just talked to Mr. Coppolino at the Justice Department. They are filing ex parte emergency stay papers tonight or tomorrow morning to try to stay the impact of Judge Patel's ruling pending appeal. He'll be faxing me the documents when they are ready. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

1 0

Re: Re: <<Vitamin B>>(August 27, 1997) Back to the Future
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:05 PM 8/27/97 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > <<Deleted header information here>> > > > > >Vitamin B: >Your Daily Dose of Bionomics > >August 27, 1997 > >Back to the Future > >"In the pre-Civil War period, when the general >ethos of laissez faire severely discouraged >government intervention in the market economy, >private regulations arose in the form of a variety >of institutions, which accomplished much of >what we endeavor to do today with our elaborate >system of government rule making and >supervision. In particular, scholars have noted >that the period saw the development of private >measures to help holders of bank notes protect >themselves from risk. As the notes were not >legal tender, there was no obligation to accept >the currency of a suspect bank, or to accept it >at par value; accordingly, notes often were >accepted and cleared at less than par. As a >result, publications--bank note reporters--were >established to provide current information on >market rates for notes of different banks based >on their creditworthiness, reputation, and location, >as well as to identify counterfeit notes. Bank note >brokers created a ready market for notes of >different credit quality. In some areas, private >clearinghouses were established, which >provided incentives for self-regulation. " > >"Banks competed for reputation, and advertised >high capital ratios to attract depositors. Capital to >asset ratios in those days often exceeded one-third. >One must keep in mind that then, as now, a significant >part of safety and soundness regulations came from >market forces and institutions. Government regulation >is an add-on that tries to identify presumed market >failures and, accordingly, substitute official rules to >fill in the gaps. " > >"To be sure, much of what developed in that earlier >period was primitive and often ineffectual. But the >financial system itself was just beginning to evolve. " >... Your description reminds me of some descriptions of how UNIX has been evolving. I guess with time and the appropiate types of hackers, any system can become secure after a few cycles. It may not be elegant but it gets the job done.

1 0

Trademark lawsuit over key words in web pages
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:32:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Trademark lawsuit over key words in web pages This is a fascinating lawsuit. Might keywords in web pages -- inserted like tasty morsels to attract hungry scavenger robots -- violate the law? Has trademark law become so broad that it violates long-held principles of free expression? What if my web page criticizes, say, Microsoft's alliance with Apple -- am I allowed to include "Microsoft sucks" as keywords? Certainly in this case no person would confuse my web site with microsoft.com -- but might a robot webcrawler? -Declan ------------------ http://www.ljx.com/internet/ Patents.com Sues for Trademark Infringement: Can a publisher infringe a law firm's trademark by including its name in computer code? A patent law firm is taking the question to federal court. New York based Oppedahl & Larson, which operates the Internet site www.patents.com, is suing five companies it claims improperly used the firm's name to draw business to their web sites. The firm is charging the companies and three individual defendants with unfair competition and trademark infringement for including the firm's name without permission in program coding for their web sites. Attorneys say some of the coding -- called a meta-tag -- caused Internet users looking for Oppedahl & Larson to be directed by a search engine to another company. [...] ------------------ From: Sandi <sandi(a)spiderwebb.com> >Subject: Re: Competitor Name in Meta-tags Is a No-No >Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:31:45 -0600 > >Dr. Welch of Advanced Concepts (who is being sued) has been >a online friend of mine for over a year now. In fact, I bought my first >virtual domain from him and ProWebSite. He is just the nicest >guy - a dentist in Texas. This whole thing has him quite uptight >though. I guess you just can't be toooooo careful with those >pesky Meta Tags... > >~Sandi <back to lurk mode> ------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 97-Z-1592 OPPEDAHL & LARSON, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED CONCEPTS, ROBERT A. WELCH, CODE TEAM - LBK, INC., GEORGE WILLIAMS, PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT, DAVE DEAN, MSI MARKETING, INC., and INTERNET BUSINESS SERVICES, Defendants. [...] 36. Based on an evaluation of the underlying source documents, Plaintiff has determined that the URLs on defendants' web sites are using Plaintiff's "OPPEDAHL" and "LARSON" marks to erroneously identify to search services that these URLs are identifying services provided by Plaintiff. 37. Notwithstanding plaintiff's well-known and prior use of, and prior statutory and common-law rights in, the marks "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," defendants, without the consent of plaintiff, have adopted, used and caused to be used in interstate commerce, and continues to use and cause to be used, the substantially identical mark in connection with identifying the source of the content of its web pages. 38. Such use by defendants of web pages bearing a substantially identical mark to plaintiff's mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" is misleading and is likely to cause confusion and mistake, and to deceive the public into believing falsely that defendants' web pages are connected with and/or sponsored or authorized by Plaintiff, when in fact defendants have no connection whatsoever with Plaintiff in regard to such web pages. 39. Defendants' misleading use of a mark substantially identical to the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" constitutes false advertising, false designation of origin, and false representation in and affecting interstate commerce in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 40. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its business, goodwill, reputation, and profits. 41. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against this unfair competition. Unless defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Second Cause of Action (Federal Dilution) 42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-37 and 40-41 of the Complaint as set forth above. 43. As a direct result of plaintiff's long and extensive experience, care, and skill in producing and marketing legal services and providing information on intellectual property law under the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," plaintiff's mark has become famous. 44. Defendants, by using a confusingly similar trademark, are misleading the public into believing that their services are connected with Plaintiff's business. On information and belief, the defendants willfully intended to trade on the reputation of Oppedahl & Larson or to cause dilution of the "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" mark. 45. Such acts by defendants are likely to deprive plaintiff of the benefit of the goodwill attached to the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," injure plaintiff's business reputation, and dilute the distinctive quality of plaintiff's trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). 46. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage to its business, goodwill, and reputation. 47. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against this dilution of and injury to business reputation. Unless defendants are enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Third Cause of Action (Unfair Competition - Colorado Common Law) 48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-38 the Complaint as set forth above. 49. Plaintiff's mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" is inherently distinctive and has acquired a strong secondary meaning. 50. Defendants' wrongful use of a substantially identical and therefore confusingly similar trademark as alleged herein is likely to deceive the public into believing falsely that there is a connection between plaintiff and defendants. Defendants have unfairly competed with plaintiff in violation of the Colorado common law. 51. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its business, goodwill, and reputation. 52. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against this unfair competition. Unless defendants are enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. 53. In acting as alleged herein, defendants have acted with oppression, fraud, and malice toward plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing defendants. Fourth Cause of Action (Trademark Infringement - Colorado Common Law) 54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-38 and 51-53 of the Complaint as set forth above. 55. Plaintiff has used the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" for providing intellectual property information over the Internet for many years. Said mark has become extensively known and associated in the minds of the public with plaintiff's business and services. 56. Defendants have used the designation "OPPEDAHL" and "LARSON" in connection with their web pages that is confusingly similar to that created and used by plaintiff with intentional disregard of plaintiff's trademark rights. As a result of such acts, defendants are misleading the public into believing falsely that their web pages are connected with plaintiff's services, all in violation of the Colorado common law concerning the protection of trademarks. 57. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage to its business, goodwill, and reputation. 58. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the infringements of the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" alleged herein. Unless defendants are enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. 59. In acting as alleged herein, defendants have acted with oppression, fraud, and malice toward plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 1. That defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and representatives and all other persons, firms or corporations in active concert or participation with them, be preliminarily and thereafter permanently enjoined and restrained from: (1) using in any manner in connection with any of their web pages, or in connection with any advertising or promotions of such web pages, the names and trademarks "OPPEDAHL," "LARSON," and "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" and any colorable imitation thereof; and (2) doing any act or thing calculated or likely to cause confusion or mistake in the minds of members of the public or the trade, or prospective users of defendants' services, as to the source of services provided, produced, distributed, sold or offered for sale thereby, or likely to deceive members of the public or the trade, or prospective purchasers, into believing that there is some connection between defendants' and plaintiff or that defendants' web pages are being produced, distributed, sold or offered for sale with plaintiff's authorization; 2. That defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), be directed to file with this Court and serve upon plaintiff within thirty (30) days after entry of the injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the injunction; 3. That defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118, be ordered to deliver up for destruction all media, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and articles in their possession bearing the mark "OPPEDAHL," "LARSON" and/or "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same; 4. That defendants account for and pay over to plaintiff all of the profits realized by defendants, or others acting in concert or participation with defendant, from the sale and distribution of their services in connection with the unauthorized use of the marks "OPPEDAHL," "LARSON" and/or "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," and defendants' unfair methods of competition as alleged herein; 5. That plaintiff recover its damages sustained as a result of defendants' unfair competition and infringement of plaintiff's marks; 6. That plaintiff be awarded three times defendants' profits or three times plaintiff's damages, whichever is greater, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(a) and (b); 7. The plaintiff be awarded punitive damages pursuant to Colorado common law. 8. That plaintiff recover the costs of this action; and 9. That plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. OPPEDAHL & LARSON Dated: July 23, 1997 Carl Oppedahl Oppedahl & Larson 611 Main Street P.O. Box 5540 Frisco, Colorado 80443-5540 (970) 513-9950 Fax (970) 513-9948 Plaintiff Of Counsel: Marina T. Larson Stanley D. Ference III Oppedahl & Larson 1992 Commerce Street, Suite 309 Yorktown Heights, New York 10598 (914) 245-3252 Fax (914) 962-4330 Address of plaintiff: Oppedahl & Larson 611 Main Street P.O. Box 5540 Frisco, Colorado 80443-5540

1 0

News from the Front (August Issue)
by news＠sldc.ffg.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An update to our customers and friends on happenings at ----------------------------------------------------------------------- F O R E F R O N T - Taking the Chaos out of the 'Net http://www.ffg.com Newsletter 8/25/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents: I. Special Offer II. News from the 'Front III. Hot Tip ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Special Offer Due to the popularity of the WebBundle, we're bringing it back for a limited time. ForeFront would like to offer you, our V.I.P.'s, a chance to get ALL of our Web products (WebSeeker, WebWhacker, and WebPrinter) at a discount. Get the Web Bundle for only $89.50 for a limited time. - http://store.ffg.com/webbundle/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- II. News from the 'Front Thanks to everyone for signing up for the Internet Research Course. ForeFront releases their second FREE e-mail course on Off-line Browsing. Sign-up for our no-cost course at http://www.ffg.com/courses WebWhacker 3.0 for Macintosh released. The worlds first off-line browser for Macintosh just got better. See the new features at: http://www.ffg.com/whacker Educational WebWhacker enters Beta! Ed Whacker brings WebWhacker 3.0 to the classroom. Whack Internet pages and share them with an entire classroom with a single click. The teacher can launch browsers on every station in the classroom with one button. Beta testers get 50% off the retail price when Ed Whacker is released. If you'd like to join the beta program, visit: - http://www.ffg.com/whacker/edwhackerbeta.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Tip o' the Day WebSeeker's Filtering is its most powerful feature. If you are looking for something very specific on the Internet, start WebSeeker and enter your keywords. Then choose "Filter Find". FilterFind is slower, but usually worth the wait. Every word on every page is indexed allowing you to quickly narrow your search. Choose the Filter button (funnel with 3 dots after it) and enter any specific query. You can use AND, OR, NOT, NEAR and other powerful features to narrow your search until you find EXACTLY what you are looking for. No other program gives you the power of a WebSeeker search. If you don't have WebSeeker 3 then try it now! - http://www.ffg.com/seeker/ If you have an earlier version of WebSeeker then upgrade now! - http://www.ffg.com/seeker/wsupgrade.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is only sent to those who requested the newsletter and those who downloaded, registered, or evaluated our software. If you wish to unsubscribe from the ForeFront newsletter mailing list, please visit http://www.ffg.com/press to Unsubscribe.

1 0

Freezing assets
by anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How does the U.S. government go about freezing the assets of foreign nationals? Which kinds of assets are the most and least amenable to freezing? By what legal and procedural mechanisms does one "freeze" the securities, real estate, etc. of foreign nationals? thanks, zylof

1 0

Re: CAST key size (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Gutmann ----- >From cpunks Mon Aug 25 08:03:32 1997 From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) To: hvdl(a)sequent.com Subject: Re: CAST key size Reply-To: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz X-Charge-To: pgut001 X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:39:58 (NZST) Message-ID: <87250919812278(a)cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk >Just a quick question on the keysize of the CAST algorithm. According to >the bible of Bruce, CAST uses a 64 bit keysize, while in the manual of >PGP 5.0 (page 89), Phill states that CAST uses a 128 bit keysize... > >Am I missing something? "CAST" isn't a particular algorithm, but a design process for creating algorithms. The particular CAST instantiation used in PGP 5 is either CAST-128 or CAST5, depending on who you ask. Other versions of CAST abound, including an earlier one used by MS for unknown purposes which had a 64-bit key, probably the one Bruce is referring to. Peter. ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Gutmann -----

1 0

hello
by Alexis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there anybody that can tutor me how to hack, crack, phrank, and cryptomography ( i'm not sure i speel that last part correctly. I would like to get some help, please email me back ASAP thank you so very much recall.

2 1

DoJ press release on Bernstein case (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 23:08:09 1997 Message-Id: <199708270251.TAA15101(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: DoJ press release on Bernstein case Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:51:24 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Forwarded-by: Shari Steele <ssteele(a)eff.org> Department of Justice For Immediate Release Tuesday, August 26, 1997 CIV (202) 616-2777 TDD (202) 514-1888 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STILL REVIEWING DISTRICT COURT DECISION ON EXPORT CONTROLS ON ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Justice Department said today it is considering what further legal measures it will take following yesterday's ruling by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco that certain aspects of the government's regulations on the export of encryption software are unconstitutional. Another federal court upheld the export controls on encryption software. The Administration is committed to promoting the legitimate use of encryption. Through encryption--or the coding of messages--businesses can protect trade secrets, hospitals can safeguard medical records, and individuals can be assured that personal messages on the information superhighway remain private. But, as President Clinton stated upon issuing an Executive Order on this subject on November 15, 1996, the use of encryption products by unfriendly parties outside the United States can jeopardize the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States, and public safety of U.S. citizens. Judicial proceedings in Bernstein v. Department of State are not yet concluded, and the decision governs only that case. In March 1996, in another pending case in Washington, D.C., Karn v. Department of State, the District Court ruled that export controls on encryption software are constitutional under the First Amendment and serve important interests of the United States. That case is still pending to consider export controls on encryption now administered by the Commerce Department. Until this issue is resolved, export controls on encryption software remain in place. Individuals or companies wishing to export encryption software by any means must continue to adhere to applicable export licensing controls on such software before exporting it abroad. ### 97-351 ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Crypto Export Restrictions are Unconstitutional (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 13:46:02 1997 Message-Id: <199708261734.KAA06596(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: Crypto Export Restrictions are Unconstitutional Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:34:53 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk CRYPTO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL Professor Bernstein is free to publish his software San Francisco, August 26, 1997 - The Federal District Court here struck down Commerce Department export restrictions on the privacy technology called encryption yesterday, concluding that "the encryption regulations are an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." For the first time, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered the government not to prosecute or harass the plaintiff, Professor Daniel Bernstein, and those who use or publish his encryption software. The decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's effort to force companies to design government surveillance into computers, telephones, and consumer electronics. "This is wonderful news," said Prof. Bernstein. "I hope I can get some of my ideas published before they change the law again." The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, human rights, and the prevention of crime. American scientists and engineers will now be free to collaborate with others in the United States and in foreign countries. This will enable them to build a new generation of tools for protecting the privacy and security of our communications. "Once again, it took a federal court to sort out technology and the Constitution," said Lori Fena, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "Let this decision signal the other two branches of government that when making laws pertaining to the Internet, they must honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution." The decision is strategic because the Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to influence domestic privacy policy. Companies that agree to build "key recovery" technology into their products are exempt from most of the restrictions. Key recovery, a follow-on to the Clipper Chip, is designed to give the government untraceable access to users' private information. The Federal District Court of the Northern District of California last December struck down the ITAR, a set of encryption restrictions enforced by the State Department. A few weeks later, the Government created virtually identical restrictions in the Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration (BXA). Yesterday's decision invalidates the new restrictions, stating, "the encryption regulations issued by the BXA appear to be even less friendly to speech interests than the ITAR." She warns that "the government cannot avoid the constitutional deficiencies of its regulations by rotating oversight of them from department to department," though concluding that she "does not believe that such was the intent here." "Our right to create, use, and deploy encryption come from our basic civil rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from arbitrary search, due process of law, and privacy. Judge Patel has affirmed those roots in the First Amendment," philosophizes John Gilmore, Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder. "Our Founding Fathers used encryption -- and even invented some -- and did not intend any ``crypto exceptions'' to the Bill of Rights." DETAILS OF MONDAY'S DECISION In the heart of the ruling, "The court declares that the Export Administration Regulations . . . insofar as they apply to or require licensing for encryption and decryption software and related devices and technology, are in violation of the First Amendment on the grounds of prior restraint and are, therefore, unconstitutional as discussed above, and shall not be applied to plaintiff's publishing of such items, including scientific papers, algorithms or computer programs." The Court also held that the government's licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved, for example by making the government go to a judge to decide the issue. The EAR does not require this; in fact, it precludes it. "And most important, and most lacking, are any standards for deciding an application. The EAR reviews applications for licenses ``on a case-by-case basis'' and appears to impose no limits on agency discretion." The Court dissected the export controls' exemption for printed materials at length, calling it "so irrational and administratively unreliable that it may well serve to only exacerbate the potential for self-censorship." The government's "distinction between paper and electronic publication . . . makes little or no sense and is untenable." The Court not only declared that these regulations are invalid and unenforceable, but also prevented the Government from "threatening, detaining, prosecuting, discouraging, or otherwise interfering with plaintiff or any other person described . . . above in the exercise of their federal constitutional rights as declared in this order." The immediate effect of this decision is that Prof. Bernstein may publish his encryption software, and that others may read, use, publish and review it. In addition, others in industry are studying the court's analysis, and might decide to publish their own software on the Internet as well. Pretty Good Privacy, Inc, is one such company, which believes that future courts will find Judge Patel's reasoning persuasive. "We are particularly pleased the court has reconfirmed that computer programs, like other literary works, are accorded full protection under the First Amendment," said Bob Kohn, vice president and general counsel for Pretty Good Privacy. The final form of the judgment will be negotiated between the parties, and presented to the court within a week. The government could either seek an emergency appeal of the injunction, or take up to 60 days from the entry of judgment to appeal. ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional legal assistance is being provided by Shari Steele of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Lee Tien of Berkeley; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped to collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Scanned images of Monday's decision are available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Legal/970825_decision.images/ The full text of Monday's decision will soon be available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Legal/970825.decision Professor Daniel Bernstein will be building his new Constitutionally- protected cryptography web page at: http://pobox.com/~djb/crypto.html Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member 541/354-6541, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail 415/341-2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Bernstein decision is out! (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 09:26:49 1997 Message-Id: <199708261312.GAA02742(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com, gnu(a)toad.com Subject: Bernstein decision is out! Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 06:12:24 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Judge Patel has made her decision, and it is up on the Web at http://www.eff.org/. We're still preparing the legal analysis, but the basic outline is that she declares the Commerce Dept. export-control scheme unconstitutional. She also issued an injunction against the Commerce Dept. preventing them from enforcing these regulations against Prof. Bernstein or others who distribute his software. More details later... John Gilmore ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Snuffle '97 Released / Re: Reuter on Bernstein Ruling
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos wrote: > > Patel also issued a permanent injunction barring the government > > from enforcing the regulations against plaintiff Daniel Bernstein or anyone > > who sought to use, discuss or publish his encryption program. > Now that Snuffle has been around for a while, it's obviously time for > an upgrade. Might I suggest "Snuffle '95" with the DES, 3DES, RC5, > and IDEA options. I just uploaded "Snuffle '97" to replay.com. The new version includes source code for PGP 5.0, a JPEG of Hillary Clinton in the nude, and the predicted date of death for the lawyer who files the government appeal in the Bernstein case. Saddam Hussein liked "Snuffle '97" so much, he bought the company! SnuffleMonger

1 0

Re: Stewart Baker on Bernstein encryption decision (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

V.Z.Nuri wrote, in reaction to Stewar Baker's message: >*spit* [...] fraudulent camel's back. soon let the whole corrupt >structure fall like the rotten house of cards that it is. [...] >SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT, even as they >wallow daily in their own hypocrisy. > >[...]the horrid and repulsive episode [...] >when in the course of human events it become necessary to expunge a >parasite... [...] >(if so, it would be the one of the least vile and sleazy tactics employed >so far in the whole sorry affair.) > >[...] sarcastic contempt I feel for you and your despicable cohorts [...] .......................................... Like, have you tried to export software lately, L.D.? You're taking this rather personally. Your heart-felt, warm&fuzzy message to Mr. Baker, who doesn't know you from anyone (except that you posted from that scum-bag pot of cypherpunk-infestation (those poisonous tentacles of Medusa), I'm sure will instill in him a deep regret for his past attitude; he'll probably recant his past, become a born-again Christian, and join the list. Eloquent, informative statements from other noteworthy representatives of the technology industry, spoken even at meetings where Mr. Baker was personally present, and even directly to him by the likes of TCM, could not, I'm sure be as persuasive as the *spit*ting and lowly modifying terms which you slew in his direction. An intellectually uplifting debate on the subject, bringing into view incontestable points of fact, could not surely be as convincing as this upchuck of verbiage from deep within yourself, where you keep your stash of special words selected for their ability to clarify difficult issues. Goodness, next you'll be agreeing with TCM that "they should all be nuked". You might even begin consider a special venue for achieving this, such as.........Blacknet? .. Blanc

2 1

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William H. Geiger III: >In the Salem witch trial they were government trials (which were >based on >a political power struggle in Salem at the time) not lynch mobs. And how about our gun-crazy friend, who'd shoot anybody who messed with him, his family, or his property. What do you think he's going to do when that witch down the street puts a hex on his cow and it dies? Sounds to me like we've got another shooting coming. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> wrote: >>Afterwards, a compensation arrangement is made between your >>protection company and the protection company of your victim. >Also, according to what I remember, the "protection company" was your >extended family. Pay up or face the wraith of all the deceased's >cousins, nephews, uncles, neices, aunts, maybe his kids. This seems to have been a common case, but it was not the rule. There were a limited number of franchises available for protection companies. Protection franchises were bought and sold like any other business. Like businesses, some did well and grew in size and value under the care of their stewards and others did not. The ability to change protection companies at will is important - it's what distinguishes this system from feudal "protection" systems where the "clients" are actually serfs. The Icelandic idea of the extended family did not map precisely to ours. Divorces were easily and commonly arranged. There was a lot of turnover and a lot of half-siblings around. There were some interesting adoption customs, too. People sometimes adopted children they liked, even if the parents were still living. This did not mean that the children didn't continue to live with the natural parents. But the adopting parent would help out here and there. (In "Njal's Saga", for example, an adopting parent beats up people for his adopted daughter and this causes no end of trouble.) Just Another Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNASrX/+1rw4IkyBFAQGkcgf/UPot2diIVhohhip4CQDpUnGdZZA9TCK6 OPAsNb01CekDk8fv0SThudb9jSf5/QFEkZ6OM/ts2f5hbpxwGx6zC+sMJ9oo+LsI 4odgrR2lbwdikgMBDoJ3FcJMOF9bKLnUPYBUUc/RwPP0b7Jj8FEfDxURu+yHAUR7 VRRxmtyWMHSp7j+2Ngz8Idu7CJHqUfekcuSdPKank3QaXO9nEDDnWsoWK94UWBrh ZJPYo1D1TgdP/0LxjoU4FH2Tq9AZYVrZ8jxXxDShzS2mVR9jhGu31HBcQ/povEYC w/BoG/6kA59bmfvV8odU/q5CM9vFuJmLb8Swtc7YZXal5a6v2KX5+g== =MFgT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

$5000 of Credit GUARANTEED - NO CREDIT CHECK/NO SSN REQUIRED
by guaranteedcredit＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If not interested, then please delete this message. $5000 WORTH OF CREDIT GUARANTEED!! * You Receive 2 Major Offshore Credit Cards! * A total of $5,000 worth of Credit @ 4.95% APR AND... * (optional) $10,000 - $15,000 Line of Credit (5.95% APR)!!! * Line of Credit could expand after 6 months to $25,000-$100,000!!! * NO Credit Check or Income Verification! * NO Social Security Number Required! * NO Deposits or Collateral Funds (Unsecured)!! * Bad Credit, No Credit, Bankruptcy, NO PROBLEM!!! * 3 x 6 forced matrix could earn you $6,941 (or more) per month!! * Complete Financial Privacy! * You will receive a $25 BONUS CHECK for every person that you personally sponsor. PAID WEEKLY!!! * Matrix participants will receive monthly commissions for all participants in your downline. IT'S EASY TO APPLY! Simply email to our autoresponder: offshorecard1(a)answerme.com and complete the Request Form with a payment in international money order of only $100.00. When you choose us to help you get an Offshore Card you're automatically put into a 3 x 6 forced matrix (forced meaning that if you fill one level, every person that signed up under your automatically goes on to fill your next level, and so on) could earn you $6941.00 per month! You will be paying $25 per month in dues to the club for services rendered. This $25 will be DEBITED EACH MONTH from your account, and will allow you to receive commission checks for the banking activities of every person in your downline! Matrix participants are recruited through a network of distributors worldwide. Participants earn monthly commissions on the dues ($25) paid by every member in good standing under them in a 3x6 forced matrix. Monthly commission schedule is as follows: Level 1 - 0% ($1.25) times 3 referrals on this level...[3x$0]..........$0.00 Level 2 - 10% ($2.50) times 9 referrals on this level....[9x$5].......$22.50 Level 3 - 5% ($1.25) times 27 referrals on this level....[27x$1.25].$33.75 Level 4 - 10% ($2.50) times 81 referrals on this level..[81x$2.50]..$202.50 Level 5 - 20% ($5.00) times 243 referrals on this level.[243x$5.00].$1215.00 Level 6 - 30% ($7.50) times 729 referrals on this level.[729x$7.50].$5467.00 Total: $6941.25 Per Month!! (referrals are the number of people underneath you in the matrix; a combination of the people you refer, and the people they refer, etc.) All the money earned as a result of matrix participation is deposited AS A PAYMENT to the member's credit card account! If their commissions exceed the minimum monthly payment, no further payments are required that month. (i.e. enroll 3 people in a month and you will more than likely have covered your minimum payment for anything you charge that month, just from the enrollee's bonuses! Develop a large downline, and your entire monthly charges could be ZEROED OUT each month!), or better yet, you will receive $6941.00 CREDIT in your account!! NO REPORTING OF YOUR CARD ACTIVITY TO CREDIT BUREAUS: Since these cards are not issued through the North American banking institutions and credit reporting systems, the existence and details of your account activity are not disclosed to government agencies or credit bureaus. ASSET PROTECTION: Your card deposits are virtually unreachable by creditors. PRESTIGE: Impress your friends and business clients with your card issued by an offshore bank of international reputation. Matrix participants agree to pay $300.00 per annum for services rendered by our club. This amount is charged to your credit card in 12 monthly installments of $25.00 each, and is then re-distributed among active Matrix Participants according to the above schedule. For an application & FAQ, email our autoresponder at: offshorecard1(a)answerme.com P.S. - EXTRA OFFER - If you'd like information on obtaining 2 MORE Guaranteed Cards (same amount of credit & opportunity to earn money), please email application1(a)answerme.com and we'll send off the applications to you ASAP! Thank you for your time.

1 0

Stupid CypherPunks, Negative Reputation Capital & A Warm Place To Shit
by 10th CypherPunk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stupid CypherPunks, Negative Reputation Capital & A Warm Place To Shit (Was: Re: Sweden's Social Democrats Sterilize the Inferior / Was: DoJ press release on Bernstein case / Was: lack of evolutionary pressures / Was: Save the Children! / Was: Internet Content Coal. bars press from "news rating" mtg on 8/28 / Was: Welcome to Cypherpunks!) Declan McCullagh wrote: > >From: David Boaz <dboaz(a)cato.org> > >Subject: Social Democrats Sterilize the Inferior > > > >Surprisingly, the revelations about 40 years of forced sterilizations by the > >Social Democratic governments in Sweden generated only small stories in the > >New York Times and the Washington Post. I forwarded a list of stupid CypherPunks to Swedish authorities today, asking them to see that the list was brought to the attention of whoever is currently in charge of resurrecting the concept of Eugenics. {Which has never actually left us, but has only been transmutated into a kindler, gentler, type of sterilization and euthenasia}. I was prompted to do so, not only in order to personally profit from having recently invested quite a sum of money in betting that my stock on the Futures Reputation Capital Market would dive to a new low, but also by the realization that the Great Threat To Freedom and Privacy (TM) is not the "stupid sheeple" who blindly follow the False Shepherds of Freedom (and cry out to the Pontius Pirates of Privacy to crucify the Constitution), who are to be decried as the Great Threat to Liberty and Human Rights. Neither is it the Intellectual Elitists who have decided to take it upon themself to decide "which" of our freedoms should be compromised "for the greater good"; or to decide "what" is news and what is *not* news; or to decide "who" has genetic traits which are a credit to the human race, and who has genetic traits which are a *debit* to human evolution; or to decide "why" one form of expression on the cypherpunks list is an "obscene flame" and another is "acceptable criticism." { "They came for the flamers and I wasn't a flamer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for those who 'replied' to the flamers, and I didn't 'reply' to the flamers, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Last True CypherPunk, and even the lurkers remembered they were cyphperpunks, and they spoke up. - T.C.M in the year 1 BC/beyond censorship } No, the Great Threat To The CypherFreedom and CypherLiberty is CypherUs. (The 'u' in "us" is for 'you' and the 's' is for 'stupid') What *really* prompted this post was my seeing a short news blurb, at around 3 a.m. on the Swedish sterilization story above, and then not seeing it again despite flipping back and forth between all the major TV news programs, to get further details. What *really* prompted this post was spending over an hour on the InterNet, searching online news sources for details of the story, only to find a single, brief reference to it. (But finding tens of thousands of references to Nancy Lopez's progress in the Swedish Women's Golf Tournament taking place.) What *really* prompted this post was seeing the news on the Patel ruling in the Bernstein case, and knowing that it would be the focus of a great amount of press, and discussion, and analysis, and thought, and hyperbole, and...etc., etc, despite the fact that the government is laughing their butts off over a bunch of freedom-fighting dinosaurs dancing in the streets over their victory in tearing a small piece of concrete from a Wall that is being torn down slowly while plans are being finalized for replacing it with an ElectroMagnetic Curtain that can be built quickly under false pretexes while the netizen's are having their attention diverted with false issues which are nothing more than the decaying ruins of a previous civilization. Those who are doomed to believe (forged) history are bound to repeat it. > >By JIM (BELL-)HEINTZ (57) > >.c The Associated (Bench) Press > >Sweden had as many as 60,000 of its own citizens sterilized between > >1935 and 1976 (the year that Hitler finally died). > >Adults and children were singled out by doctors, school authorities > >or other officials and were pressured to consent to the procedures. > >(Keep in mind that these were Voluntary-Mandatory dehumanizations.) ... > >Though Sweden's sterilization program was a matter of record, it > >received little public attention, ignored in schoolbooks and hardly > >mentioned in reference works. > >(In other news, Nancy Lopez is kicking butt at the something-or-other > >golf tournament in Sweden, as 5,782,386.4 URL pointers show in Yahoo, > >Mountain Dew, and Alta Vista, the tangled web search engines.) > > A recent series by the prestigious newspaper Dagens Nyheter, > >however, has stirred national debate (but has managed to be covered > >up in most of the rest of the world by Nancy Lopez and Judge Patel). We all live within our own set of "parenthesis". We used to think of them as 'principles,' but then we found out that others, sometimes very good people, had a different set of parenthesis, which enclosed thoughts and attitudes and beliefs which were different from our own, and which might be just as valid from the perspective of their position in life. Then we found out that our own personal parenthesis were not a whole lot different from the walls being built by governements to keep people apart; to keep people being enemies of one another. How did we find out about parenthesis, and walls--their effect on our lives, how they separated us from the good people on the other side of them? We found this out via information and the technologies which brought it to our attention. Word-of-mouth and sailing ships, newspapers and the telegraph, the wireless and airplanes, television and jumbo jets. And finally, we found out about parenthesis and walls when we set sail on a new technology and discovered a new world, with a new language; a world and language where technology and communication were becoming one and the same. We discovered a world of Communication Technology in which the Medium *was* the Message, and the Message could be whatever we decided it would be, because We could *control* the Medium. _We_ could control the _Medium_. We could *control* the Medium. We (whatever we conceived ourself to be within the bounds of our own personal parenthesis), could exercise...Free Speech...we could CONTROL the Medium by which we Communicated. We could "talk" to someone in Weber-Weber Land, using words, and when words were no longer adequate (You know who you remind me of? ...uhh, there's this woman, a poet...uhhh), then we could "talk" to them with pictures (here's a GIF, from me to you, of what she looks like), and we could "talk" to them with *complete* information (and I am attaching the poem I quoted here, so that you can read it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions from your own context, and hers, as well as mine). We could _emphasize_ words, or we could SHOUT! Or we could emphasize words in a way that made more sense to *us*, even though we could still see understand the emphasis that _others_ were trying to commmunicate. And when others said, "There's no need to SHOUT!"... Well, WERE WE SHOUTING OR NOT? It was pretty obvious. The new method of communicating changed what was _obvious_ and what was not; it changed how we could lie and what we could lie about (I'm only twelve, AND I AM *NOT* SHOUTING!!!); it changed what we could pretend to ourselves, and what we couldn't (I am a computer expert, and I will prove it just as soon as I manage to kick these hacker kids off my system and access my resume); it changed the rules of engagement and the structure of power (My congressman sent me and 10,000 others an email saying he would be introducing legislation to criminalize spam. I sent him back anonymous email telling him that if he did so, I would kill him.); it changed what was possible and what was not, in our own minds and in our own communications, if not in our immediate reality (Where am I writing this from? From the compound in Waco! I can see the .jpegs of the flames rising in front of my face. I can hear the .wav screams of the children as they burn to death. I can merge them with the tape loop of the government negotiator doublespeaking, "David, don't do this to these people." as the *governement* was doing it to them.) Most importantly of all, the new method of communication changed our control over the information we received. It changed the level of *access* we had to information. It *empowered* us to *seek* the information we wanted, in order to build our own personal belief systems and direct the encompassing scope of our perceptions. It empowered us to search for the word "Nazi" in our New World according to _our_own_ Order (using AND, OR, NOT, +, -, etc.) It allowed us to read about the Holocaust ~and~ Revisionism. It allowed us to read about the Death of Hitler ~and~ the Escape of the Nazi's to the South Pole. It allowed us to read about the liberation of the Death Camps ~and~ the Escape of Eugenics into the bowels of Planned Parenthood. It allowed us to read all of the things which were an accepted part of our normal reality ~and~ those things which ran totally contrary to our accepted reality ~-~AND~-~ everything in between, in a variety of combinations, according to OUR search/wishes/beliefs/perceptions. The new technology allowed us to "seek out" new communities where the netizens who passed through could share our sameness or learn from our differences. We could move from community to community, and yet always remain our own, separate, Community of One. To: Major Domo @ Dumbo_Homo_Rambo_MauMau . NET subscribe community(a)other.org <me(a)mine.com> end (<---a command. *my* command. *my choice. *my decision) We could join, we could unjoin. We could "subscribe," not to a belief system, but to a community with an individual mix of belief systems which were similar/disimilar to our own. If we had nothing to learn, and nothing to teach, we could "unsubscribe." We didn't have to be consistent. We could subscribe to the Holocaust Remembrance mailing list, the Holocaust Denial mailing list, ~and~ to the Holocaust Revival mailing list and Holocaust Prevention mailing list. {Or, if we had the extreme good fortune to be handsome, beautiful, witty and intelligent, as well as between the ages of <=zero and >=infinity, we could subscribe to the cypherpunks mailing list, get our ultrasecret magic decoder ring, an invisible Toad tattored on our over-imaginative forearm, and support the Remembrance/Denial/Revival/Prevention of the Holocaust, the Hallowed Cause, the Halloween Costume and, last but not least--Howard Cossell.} In short, the New World Communication Union allowed us not only the Freedom of Speech, but also the "Freedom of Communication." "FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION!!!" Freedom to <whisper>. Freedom to SHOUT! FREEDOM TO SHOUT REALLY, REALLY LOUDLY!!!!! FREEDOM TO SHOUT F#!U$!C%!K^!(!I)!N-!G OBSCENELY! (Freedom to <quietly> object to the previous freedom being abused.) The New World Communication Constitution was a "we the people" to whom "Anything not standardized, is permitted." Freedom to Subscribe, Freedom to Unsubscribe Freedom to 'scribive', freedom to "Take me off this damn list NOW!" (freedom to do the above 200 times and wonder why it wasn't working) Freedom to write your own majordomo code so that it supports all of the standardized majordomo commands, plus adding support for those with agraphia to 'srivibe', 'scrumbive', and 'scumdive'. Freedom to remain on the mailing lists where good-natured humorists made light fun of disabilities such as agraphia, and to leave the mailing lists where jackbooted, intolerant rednecks make fun of *serious* disabilities, such as Tourette FUCK!COCKSUCKER! Syndrome. Freedom to start a private mailing list where you can control the issues discussed, the way they are discussed, and to ask people to refrain from certain discussions on the list because they are off-topic, or BECAUSE I SAY SO, AND I'M THE MODERATOR! Freedom to start a public mailing list aimed at supporting crypto- anarchy, and leave it up to those who choose to join as to how best to address, discuss, contend, manipulate, piss, threaten, shout, insult, debate, and personally decide both what issues are relevant to the list and which issues are irreverent to the list, ~and~ which 'issues' may be leaving those nasty stains in your shorts/panties/(both). Freedom to divide your time between mailing lists where you know exactly what to expect because the list deals with specific issues and the list members stay on-topic, and mailing lists where mad hatters/dogs&englishment/scientists ramble on endlessly about a variety of issues, non-issues, re-issues, forgotten issues, and the like, often losing track of what the hell it was they were even talking about, if they were talking about anything at all. Which reminds me... The point that I may be trying to make, might have something to do with the fact that, in attempting to find further details about a 10-second sound-byte/news-blurb which had piqued my interest, I was suddenly struck by the realization that the difference between sheeple and people might be defined as whether they are passively processing input supplied by the Great Machine, or whether they are actively seeking and organizing their own information/input. Passive Information is not Knowledge. Passive Perception is not Attention. Passive Acceptance is not Decision. Passive acceptance of perceived information is not Wisdom. Robots are not human. Sheeple are not people. Humans are not robots. People are not sheeple. In attempting to seek out further details about the news blurb which concerned tens of thousands of my fellow humans being declared by others *not* to be human--to *not* have the right to pass their genes on to a succeeding generation--I realized that the mainstream media had no interest in "providing" me with those details. I realized that it *was* very important for the mainstream media to provide me with the details of how well Nancy Lopez was managing to get the small, round sphere to drop into a hole officially designated as a "cup." When I found a single, short (English) newstory on the sterilization of a mountain of my fellow humans, and a pointer to a Swedish magazine series on the issue/evert, which I couldn't read, I realized that my knowledge of further details would come from a combination of my own efforts and those of other netizens whose brains and domains and interests encompassed English, Swedish, the InterNet, and Humanity. My mundane mind recognized that life and human nature are such that others interests lie mainly in providing *their* information, which is of interest to *them*, and that it is up to *me* to position myself to encounter and/or seek that portion of the available information that I need to satisfy my own personal interests. My paranoid mind noted that I had seen the original news blurb only once, after which this newsworthy event mysteriously disappeared and had to thereafter be 'sought' by myself, and I realized that someone, somewhere, had made a decision as to what information would be made available to me througt *their* media. (After which I consulted, *my* media--the InterNet.) My depressed mind noted that I had managed to find only a single piece of usable information on the issue/event I had searched for on *my* media, and realized that the reason for this was a combination of censorship, tragedy of the commons, comfort, and stupidity. of censorship, tragedy of the commons, comfort, convenience, laziness and stupidity. Comfort - I like to sit on my fat ass and watch TV. Convenience - It is easy to just turn on the Tube and take whatever it is that the mainstream wants to provide for me. ("Watch me and I'll bleed you, cause you eat the shit I feed you." -Zappa) Tragedy of the Commons - 25,000,000 Lakers fans named Bubba would much rather hear about one putt than about 60,000 forced sterilizations. Laziness - I didn't post or make available to others the single piece of information I found. Why should I expect that others will automatically share the information they found? Censorship - The Great Battle taking place on the InterNet is the battle over *ACCESS* to information. Who will provide it? Who will be allowed to access it? What will be provided? What will access be denied to? The Great War on the InterNet is over *CONTROL* of information. Control of perception and attention. Control of virtual reality. Stupidity - I think I'm human. I think I'm people. I think I'm *me*. I think I'm a CypherPunk. I'm not human, I'm a robot who turns on the TV to get news about what is taking place in my world. I'm not people. I'm a sheeple who laughs along with the canned laugh-track on the sitcom. I'm a sheeple who taps his foot to the "Hollywood Strings Play the Rolling Stones" muzak in the supermarket. I'm a sheeple who waits for more news about my fellow humans being sterilized against their will, and then sit through three replays of Nancy Lopez's twenty foot putt, becoming comfortably numb, and forgetting about the problems of 'others'. I'm not a CypherPunk. I didn't take the information source I had found and share it with the list. I didn't write code--I didn't take this information and past information, and use my knowledge to create a post which others on the list could debug and add their own ideas to expand and diversify my creation. I'm the 'nigger' in the joke that got the presidential campaign press plane jokester fired. I just want loose shoes, tight pussy, and a warm place to shit. (The Politically Correct way to tell that joke is to replace 'nigger' with 'citizen'.) I'm a 'stupid' CypherPunk who hopes that someday the InterNet will match the high ideals of Television in providing me with all the information that is fit to byte. Well, the foregoing may not quite be true, just yet, but it *will* be after the Great Bandwidth Crisis--or the Great InterNet Terrorism Crisis--or the Great InterNet [Your Crisis Here] Crisis--when the government is "forced" to step in and "protect" us from ourself. I will settle for the 'official' internet news from the 'official' internet news sources, because I know I will not find further details on the Swedish Sterilization issue. There won't be enough 'Bandwidth' to provide the details. The details will be censored, in the interests of preventing 'Net Terrorism.' The [Your Crisis Here] problem will make it necessary to censor the details, make them top-secret, change them, deny them, reconstruct them. The foregoing *will* be true after the bumper-sticker which says, "TV is REAL!" is changed to "WebTV is REAL!" 10th CypherPunk

1 0

PGP & IBM (Tadpole) POWERportable N40 & AIX?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Does anyone know of any gotcha's with this machine, AIX, and PGP? Thanks! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: heart
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:49 PM 8/27/97 -0700, Kent Crispinu wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 27, 1997 at 12:49:42PM -0400, Sean Roach wrote: >> At 11:55 PM 8/26/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >[...] >> >> Pretty soon every revolver will have a warning label. "Warning, misuse of >> this tool can result in injury and death. By handling this item you consent >> to bear all legal responsibility reguarding its use." Never mind that such >> should be implied. > >Product liability issues are more prominent when something doesn't >function as it is supposed to -- say you are trying to defend >yourself against a thief, and the gun blows up in your face. This is >not the same as assuming legal liability for when you shoot someone. > >Arguably, even then you should not be able to sue -- the small >aircraft industry has been decimated by product liability issues. >And I remember when Chouinard went out of the climbing equipment >business because of threat of lawsuits. > >My understanding is that warning labels -- even signed liability >releases -- are of limited use in these cases, because, while you can >sign a binding contract that limits your ability to sue, you cannot >so bind your survivors. I wasn't referring to when the things work improperly. I was referring to cases specifically like the lawsuit brought against the makers of the TEC-9 because some idiot used one on an office building full of people and it had the odassity to work.

3 2

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:10 PM 8/27/97 PDT, John Smith wrote: > >William H. Geiger III: > >>In the Salem witch trial they were government trials (which were >based >on >>a political power struggle in Salem at the time) not lynch mobs. > >And how about our gun-crazy friend, who'd shoot anybody who messed >with him, his family, or his property. What do you think he's going >to do when that witch down the street puts a hex on his cow and it >dies? Sounds to me like we've got another shooting coming. Is that >the kind of world you want to live in? > >"John I like the little comment made in the first of MIB. And I paraphrase. Individuals are intelligent, people are stupid. That is the defining element of mass hysteria. The invidiual, if left alone would probably settle down, maybe even realize that he or she was wrong. The group with its anonymity in numbers, snowballs the emotions beyond the control of one person. I unfortunately chose bad examples. Better ones would be the LA Riots and the famous broadcast of War of the Worlds.

3 2

Internet Bliss!!!!
by 67396928＠11225.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MY AMAZING STORY CAN CHANGE YOUR LIFE AS IT CHANGED MINE!!! JUST READ IT! YOU'VE SEEN IT OVER AND OVER.... IF You keep receiving this email.... IT MUST WORK!! WILL THIS BE THE TIME YOU TAKE THAT STEP??? ************************************************************************ Print This email Now For Future Reference Deleting this email is like throwing out a winning lottery ticket. Take 2 minutes to read it. Then decide!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Dear Friend, I am 27, and had received this offer 6 times before I gave it a shot. I'm not going to say that I was in debt, down on my luck, sick and couldn't pay the rent when this fantastic order came along. Things were fine. In fact, I'm an IVY League graduate and was doing very well in my career and I never gave any email money making opportunities a chance. Finally I figured, "Hey it will be IMPOSSIBLE to lose any money, so why not give it a shot... Was risking $20 worth the chance of making $50,000?" 78 days later (today), and I have made exactly 79,835.00 The crazy part is how EASY it has been!!! No meetings, phone calls. In fact, I didn't have to talk with anyone!!. Just needed a computer and email!! Obviously from the condition of this email, I don't even know much about computers. That's the beauty of it. Anyone can do it. This program is a proven mathematical formula. A PROVEN MATHEMATICAL FORMULA!! This electronic multi-level marketing program works perfectly...100% EVERY TIME! Just follow the instructions (YOU CANT LOSE) and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy, and then spend spend spend!!! p.s. This program promises $50,000 profit. I am well on my way to $100,000 and shooting for $150,000.00!! Good Luck!!! God Bless... Remeber to drop me a note. Can't wait to hear from you!!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You are about to make at least $50,000 in less than 90 days! Have you received this offer from someone else and deleted the message?? I DELETED THIS OPPORTUNITY 6 TIMES BEFORE GETTING INVOLVED!!! OVERVIEW OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY ELECTRONIC MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING PROGRAM Basically, this is what we do: We sell thousands of people a product for $5.00 that costs us next to nothing to produce and e-mail. As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the U.S. allows you to recruit new multi- level business online (with your computer). The product in this program is a series of four business and financial reports. After you get started, people will order these reports from you. Each $5.00 order you receive will include the e-mail address of the sender or a self addressed envelope of the sender. To fill each order, you simply e-mail the product to the buyer or mail it off. THAT'S IT!...the $5.00 is yours! This is the GREATEST electronic multi-level marketing business anywhere! Here are the simple instructions and details on how to get 10,000 orders at minimum. Send me a note sometime soon sharing your good fortunes!!! FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY! THE PROFITS ARE TREMENDOUS!!! Remember the 4 points below and we'll see YOU at the top! ******* I N S T R U C T I O N S ******* This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 4 reports listed and numbered from the list below. For each report send $5.00 CASH, A SELF ADDRESSED STAMPED BUSINESS ENVELOPE, OR YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and YOUR RETURN POSTAL ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to each person listed below. When you order, make sure you request each SPECIFIC report. You will need all four reports, because you will be reselling them and making big $$$. 2. Replace the name and address under REPORT #1 (THAT'S ME!) with your name and address, moving my name and address under REPORT #2. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 to under REPORT #3. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 to under REPORT #4. The name and address that was under REPORT #4 is dropped off the list and undoubtly is counting $50,000. IMPORTANT--DO NOT alter the names and addresses below, or their sequence other than instructed in this program! Or you will not profit the way you should. When doing this, please make certain you copy everyone's name and address ACCURATELY!!! 3. Take this entire program text, including the corrected names list, and save it on your computer. 4. Now you're ready to start a massive advertising campaign on the WORLDWIDE WEB! Advertising on the WEB is very, very inexpensive, but there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise also. Another avenue which you could use is e-mail mailing lists. You can buy these lists for under $20/20,000 addresses. START sending this email to thousands of people. The sooner you do. The sooner you will start to receive orders. REQUIRED REPORTS ***Order each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME*** ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (Concealed) FOR EACH ORDER REQUESTING THE SPECIFIC REPORT BY NAME AND NUMBER. ALWAYS SEND FIRST CLASS OR PRIORITY MAIL AND PROVIDE A SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPE AND YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR QUICK DELIVERY. ______________________________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "HOW TO MAKE $250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: SUCCESS AA MARKETING Suite 130 This is my address 222 Main Street Your name and adress goes here now Annapolis, MD 21401 Put my name and addess under number 2 Number 2 goes to 3, and 3 goes to 4! ______________________________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: KAW Marketing AA P.O. Box 139 1009 Bay Ridge Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 ______________________________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "SOURCES FOR THE BEST MAILING LISTS" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: R. C. 3 McCarthy Court Farmingdale, NY 11735 ______________________________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "EVALUATING MULTI-LEVEL SALES PLANS" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Big G 151 Hillside Road Farmingdale, NY 11735 ______________________________________________________________________ .............................................................................................................................. HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PLAN WILL MAKE YOU $MONEY$ Let's say you decide to start small just to see how it goes. Assume your goal is to get 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the internet could EASILY get a better response.) Also assume that everyone else you recruit gets ONLY 10 downline members. Follow this example for the STAGGERING results below. 1st level--your 10 members pay you $5 $50 2nd level-- those 10 members get 10 more (100 X $5) $500 3rd level-- those 100 members get 10 more (1000 X $5) $5,000 4th level-- those 1,000 get 10 more each (10,000 X $5) $50,000 THIS TOTALS-----------> $55,550 Do you see how easy this is? After you send out this same E Mail, your new recruits will order REPORT # 1 from you and move your name and address to #2. Their recruits will order REPORT # 2 from you and move your name and address to number 3. That group of recruits will order REPORT # 3 from you (a minimum of 1000 of $5 orders will come your way!) and move your name and address to number 4. That group will order 10,000 copies of report #4 from you, AT MINIMUM!! Remember friends, this is assuming that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone got 20 people to participate! Some people get 100's of recruits! THINK ABOUT IT! By the 3rd and 4th level, your address will be on hundreds of thousands of emails. Everyone of them wants to make money. Every one has $5.00. By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing.You obviously already have an internet connection and email is FREE!!! REPORT#3 will show you the best methods for bulk emailing and purchasing email lists. REMEMBER: Approx. 50,000 new people get online monthly! ORDER YOUR REPORTS NOW!!! It's so easy to listen to the critics who say Don't Do It. Those people will never be successful. Smile... and Enjoy! *******YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINE******* The check point that guarantees your success is simply this: You MUST receive 10 to 20 orders for REPORT #1! THIS IS A MUST! If you don't within two weeks, advertise more and send out more programs until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2. If you don't, advertise more and send out more programs until you do. Once you have received 100, or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because you will be on your way to the BANK! -OR- You can DOUBLE your efforts! REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list you are in front of a DIFFERENT report, so you can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching what report people are ordering from you. IT'S THAT EASY!!! ******* T E S T I M O N I A L S ******* This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rule of not trying to place your name in a different position, it won't work, you'll lose a lot of money. I'm living proof that it works. It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money, with little cost to you. If you do choose to participate, follow the program exactly, and you'll be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow Christian and are in financial trouble like I was, consider this a sign. I DID! Good Luck & God Bless You, Sincerely, Chris Johnson P.S. Do you have any idea what 11,700 $5 bills ($58,500) looks like piled up on the kitchen table?...IT'S AWESOME! My name is Frank. My wife Doris and I live in Bel-Air, MD. I am a cost accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received the program I grumbled to Doris about receiving "junk mail"! I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Doris totally ignored my supposed intelligence and jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work... well, the laugh was on me! Within two weeks she had received over 50 responses. Within 45 days she had received over $147,200 in $5 bills! I was stunned. I was sure that I had it all figured and that it wouldn't work...I AM a believer now. I have joined Doris in her "little" hobby. I did have seven more years until retirement, but I think of the "rat race" and it's not for me.... Frank T., Bel-Air, MD I just want to pass along my best wishes and encouragement to you. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. I even checked with the U.S. Post Office to verify that the plan was legal. It definitely is! IT WORKS!!! Paul Johnson, Raleigh, NC This is the only realistic money-making offer I've ever received. I participated because this plan truly makes sense. I was surprised when the $5.00 bills started filling my mail box. By the time it tapered off I had received over 8,000 orders with over $40,000 in cash. Dozens of people have sent warm personal notes too, sharing the news of their good fortunes! It's been WONDERFUL. Carl Wittow Tulsa, OK The main reason for this letter is to convince you that this system is honest, lawful, extremely profitable, and is a way to get a large amount of money in a short time. I was approached several times before I checked this out. I joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. Initially I let no one in the organization know that I was an attorney and, to my astonishment, I received $36,470.00 in the first 14 weeks, with money still coming in. Sincerely yours, Phillip A. Brown This plan works like GANG-BUSTERS!!! So far I have had 9,735 total orders...OVER $48,000!!! I hope I have sparked your own excitement, if you follow the program exactly, you could have the same success I have, if not better. Your success is right around the corner, but you must do a little work. Good Luck! G. Bank Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. Boy I was surprised when I found my medium-size post office box crammed with orders. After that it got so over-loaded that I had to start picking up my mail at the window. I'll make more money this year than any 10 years of my life before. The nice thing about this deal is that it doesn't matter where in the U.S. the people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return. Mary Rockland, Lansing, MI I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed another program...11 months passed then it came...I didn't delete this one!...I made $41,000 on the first try!! D. Wilburn, Muncie, IN This is my third time to participate in this plan. We have quit our jobs, and quite soon we will buy a home on the beach and live off the interest on our money. The only way on earth that this plan will work for you is if you do it. For your sake, and for your family's sake don't pass up this golden opportunity. Good luck and happy spending! Charles Fairchild, Spokane, WA Typically when I look at a money-making deal I want to know if the company is strong, will it be here when it's time for my big pay off. In this crazy thing there is no company intervention for management to blow it. Just people like me ordering directly from the source! Interesting...I had a couple of projects I'd been trying to fund to no avail so I thought; Why not give it a try? Well 2 1/2 weeks later the orders started coming in. One project is funded and I'm sure the other will be soon! Marilynn St. Claire, Logan, UT READ THIS AGAIN, AND AGAIN. PRINT IT. ITS NOT TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. EMAIL ME OR DROP ME A NOTE AFTER YOU'VE MADE YOUR 50 GRAND. ITS AN AMAZING FEELING!!!! =============================================================== *******TIPS FOR SUCCESS******* TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly the results WILL undoubtedly be SUCCESS! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF THAT YOU CAN SUCCEED! When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report to comply with the U.S. Postal & Lottery Laws, Title 18,Sections 1302 and 1341 or Title 18, Section 3005 in the U.S. Code,also Code of Federal Regs. vol. 16, Sections 255 and 436, which state that "a product or service must be exchanged for money received." * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. NOTE: IF YOU NEED HELP with starting a business, registering a business name, how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal agency) for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business taxes. ===============================================================

1 0

Reduced choices in beer for cryptoanarchists
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-------Begin Forwarded Message---------------------------- The following is a letter sent to Miller Brewing. Miller's response is at the end. Miller Brewing Company Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Dear Sir or Madam, I have been a drinker of Miller beer's for many years (actually, ever since that other company donated a big chunk of change to Handgun Control Inc. back in the mid 80's). Initially, my beer of choice was Lite, but some time in mid 1990 while in Honduras I switched to MGD smuggled up from Panama. Now, for nearly six years, I have been a faithful drinker of MGD. For these past years, I have come to expect certain things from Genuine Draft. I expect that whenever I see that gold can of MGD, I am about ready to enjoy a great, smooth brew. But wait! Sometime around the first of the year, my beloved MGD changed colors, so to speak. That familiar gold can was no longer gold! Knowing that I am, by nature, somewhat resistant to change, I forced myself to reserve judgment on the new can design. Gradually, I grew to appreciate the new label. That was until about May of this year. That was when I discovered (empirically) that I really didn't like the new design. Further investigation of the cause of my distress resulted in the following observations: 1. Your cans are made of aluminum. 2. Aluminum is a great conductor of energy. 3. Your beer is commonly consumed outside, and thus, the container may be exposed to sunlight. 4. Sunlight striking the can causes radiant warming of the surface of the can. 5. The resultant heat (energy) is transferred through the aluminum, by conduction, to the contents of the can (the beer). 6. Warm beer sucks. This is a process that can be observed in just about any beer. However, this process is significantly accelerated in MGD because you painted the damn can black!!! Who was the rocket scientist that designed the new graphic for the can and implemented the change right before summer? Granted, this process may not be real evident up there in Wisconsin, but down here in Oklahoma where the summers are both sunny and hot, this effect is quite a problem. There's no telling what the folks in Texas and Arizona are having to put up with. Knowing that you would probably not address this issue unless you had firm evidence of a problem, I and several other subjects conducted extensive experimentation. The results of these experiments are listed below. The experiments were conducted over two days on the deck next to my pool. The study included seven different types of beer (leftovers from a party the previous weekend) that were initially chilled to 38 deg. (and then left exposed to sunlight for different lengths of time. These beers were sampled by the test subjects at different intervals. The subjects, all normally MGD drinkers, were asked at each sampling interval their impressions of the different beers. The length of time between the initial exposure to the sunlight and point where the subject determined the sample undrinkable (the suckpoint) was determined. The average ambient temperature for the trials was 95 degrees F. Beer Type Average Suckpoint (min) Miller Lite (white can) 6.2 Bud (white can) 5.5 Bud Lite (silver can) 5.2 Ice House (blue and silver can) 4.4 Coors Lite (silver can) 4.1 Miller Genuine Draft (black can) 2.8 Coors (gold can) 0.1 It was evident that the color of the can directly correlates to the average suckpoint, except for Coors, which was pretty much determined to suck at any point. It is to be hoped that you will consider re-designing your MGD cans. All beer drinkers that are not smart enough to keep their beer in the shade will thank you. Sincerely, Bradley Lee Beer-drinker ___________________________________________________________ Dear Bradley Lee, Thank you for your letter and your concern about the MGD can color as it relates to premature warming of the contents. Like you, we at Miller Beer take beer drinking very seriously. To that end, we have taken your letter and subsequent experiment under serious consideration. Outlined below are our findings and solution to your problem. May we add that we have had similar letters from other loyal beer drinkers, mostly from the Southern United States. First, let us congratulate you on your findings. Our analysis tends to agree with yours regarding Coors. It certainly does suck at just about any temperature. Now, it was our intention when redesigning the MGD can to create better brand identity and brand loyalty. Someone in marketing did some kind of research and determined we needed to redesign the can. You will be pleased to know, we have fired that idiot and he is now wreaking havoc at a pro-gun-control beer manufacturer. The design staffer working in cahoots with the marketing idiot was also down-sized. However, once we realized this mistake, to undo it would have been even a bigger mistake. So, we took some other actions. From our market research, we found a difference between Northern beer drinkers and Southern beer drinkers. Beer drinkers in the South tend to drink slower than beer drinkers in the North. We are still researching why that is. Anyway, at Miller Beer, it was never our intention to have someone take more than 2.5 minutes to enjoy one of our beers. We pride ourselves in creating fine, smooth, quick-drinking beers and leave the making of sissy, slow-sipping beers to that Sam guy in Boston. However, it is good to know that you feel our Miller Lite can last as long as 6 minutes. However, may we suggest in the future you try consuming at least two in that time frame. >From your letter, we had our design staff work 'round the clock to come up with a solution that would help not just MGD but all our fine Miller products. We hope you have recently noticed our solution to your problem. We found that the hole in the top of the can was not big enough for quick consumption. So, we have now introduced the new "Wide Mouth" cans. We hope this will solve all your problems. Might I also suggest that if you want to get the beer out of the can even faster, you can poke a hole on the side near the bottom, hold your finger over it, open the can, tip it to your mouth and then pull your finger off the hole. This is a common way to drink beer at parties and impress your friends. This technique is known as "shot-gunning". You should like the name. Again, thank you for your letter and bringing to our attention that there might be other beer drinkers taking more than 2.5 minutes to drink our beers. Let me assure you that I am have our advertising department work on a campaign to solve this problem, too. Sincerely, Tom B. Miller Public Relations Miller Brewing Co. P.S. And remember, at Miller Beer we do favor gun control, too. So please use two hands when firing. -----End of forwarded message----- -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent(a)songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

1 0

US Seeks to Stay Bernstein Court Order
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded-by: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar(a)wired.com> >From Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/6436.html US Seeks to Stay Court's Crypto Order by Rebecca Vesely 6:02pm 27.Aug.97.PDT The Justice Department is seeking an emergency stay of a ruling by a US District Court in San Francisco that granted a University of Illinois professor permission to export his encrypted email program. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in Bernstein v. Department of State that Daniel Bernstein can export his Snuffle program and make it available online without an export license. Her landmark ruling holds that software programs are literary works protected under the First Amendment. The Justice Department told Bernstein attorney Cindy Cohn on Wednesday afternoon that it will seek an emergency stay on the preliminary injunction allowing Bernstein to export Snuffle. The department is expected to file papers Wednesday night or Thursday morning, Cohn said. Justice officials were not immediately available for comment. "This is serious," Cohn said. "They feel that national security will be breached. But our opinion is that he has the right to publish his material." In what is called an ex parte emergency stay, the Justice Department asked Patel to reconsider her decision to grant a preliminary injunction. If Patel decides not to reverse her decision, the department can ask the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to override her decision. "It is unlikely Patel will give it to them," said John Gilmore, founding board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was a primary sponsor of Bernstein in the case. "If she does, we will continue with the appeal process and try to make the decision stick." The decision could affect not just the fate of Bernstein's research, but the US encryption export policy. Patel said in her decision that current export encryption regulations "are an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." Copyright =A9 1993-97 Wired Ventures Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

1 0

Stay issued; modified stay to follow
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

During a conference call with counsel today, Judge Patel issued a stay of the injunctive relief issued in her Opinion of August 25, 1997, effective until September 8. On September 8 (or sooner if we get the papers to her) the Court she will issue a formal Stay Pending Appeal which will stay the injunctive relief issued in her Opinion of August 25, 1997, except that an injunction shall be reinstated to prevent the prosecution of Professor Bernstein for the "unlicensed export" of Snuffle 5.0 (which includes Snuffle and Unsnuffle) and any later versions of that program which he has developed. This eliminates, at least for the meantime, the injunctive relief granted to Bernstein as to any other computer programs which he may have developed or otherwise wished to publish. It also eliminates the protections for persons other than Professor Bernstein. The government has said that it may still challenge this more limited stay in the 9th Circuit. Professor Bernstein may also seek relief from the stay from the 9th Circuit. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

5 4

Returned mail: Remote protocol error
by Mail Delivery Subsystem 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 <eawassermn(a)aol.com>... Remote protocol error ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: by bayonet.sjmercury.com; id AA03901; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:34:03 PDT Received: from mailspool.sjmercury.com(192.30.148.20) by bayonet.sjmercury.com via smap (3.2) id xma003851; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:33:38 -0700 Received: from bayonet.sjmercury.com by sjmercury.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08381; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:34:13 -0700 Received: by bayonet.sjmercury.com; id AA03843; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:33:32 PDT Received: from wombat.sk.sympatico.ca(142.165.5.136) by bayonet.sjmercury.com via smap (3.2) id xma003833; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:33:23 -0700 Received: from default (orenco33.sk.sympatico.ca [142.165.99.33]) by wombat.sk.sympatico.ca with SMTP (8.7.1/8.7.1) id VAA28468; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:34:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3406440E.724F(a)toad.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:37:50 -0600 From: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SYMPA (Win95; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)mcglashan.com> Cc: sadams(a)forbes.com, telstar(a)wired.com, plotnikoff(a)aol.com, Ewasserman(a)sjmercury.com, dang(a)cnet.com, steven(a)echo.net, abate(a)ccnet.com, wendyg(a)cix.compulink.co.uk, amy(a)netcom.com, courtm(a)cnet.com, alan.boyle(a)MSNBC.COM, declan(a)well.com, sep(a)cbsnews.com, kenc(a)cwi.emap.com, arb(a)well.com, exp(a)mk.ibek.com, bransten(a)interactive.wsj.com, TomBemis(a)pacbell.net, sam.perry(a)reuters.com, jimevans(a)aol.com, ljflynn(a)aol.com, wendyl(a)ljx.com, bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: Sit, Bubu. Sit! / Re: Stay issued; modified stay to follow References: <199708290123.SAA24903(a)gw.quake.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cindy Cohn wrote: > > During a conference call with counsel today, Judge Patel issued a stay of > the injunctive relief issued in her Opinion of August 25, 1997, effective > until September 8. Why are these dinosaurs fucking away perfectly good taxpayer's money trying to shore up the walls of a crumbling civilization? NEWS FLASH!!! THE GENIE *WON'T* GO BACK IN THE BOTTLE --------------------------------------- Before the ink had dried on Judge Patel's ruling, 2,000,000 emails of Professor Bernstein's work were on their way overseas, to every port of call. (Courtesy of Email Blaster, that wonderful progam that tells us, fifty times a day, how to "MAKE MONEY FA$T!!!") > On September 8 (or sooner if we get the papers to her) the Court she will > issue a formal Stay Pending Appeal which will stay the injunctive relief > issued in her Opinion of August 25, 1997, except that an injunction shall be > reinstated to prevent the prosecution of Professor Bernstein for the > "unlicensed export" of Snuffle 5.0 (which includes Snuffle and Unsnuffle) > and any later versions of that program which he has developed. Hell, Professor Bernstein can _import_ it now! By September 8, the program will be obsolete, having been tweaked upward a few generations by Iraquian programmers. I respectfully requested that the Iraquis make any future versions of the program available to American youth who have to flee to Hitler's homeland with their website in order to avoid being persecuted for their sexual predeliction. {See - http://www.guidemag.com/newsslant/vigilante-censors.html } > This eliminates, at least for the meantime, the injunctive relief granted to > Bernstein as to any other computer programs which he may have developed or > otherwise wished to publish. It also eliminates the protections for persons > other than Professor Bernstein. No it doesn't. Haven't you heard of strong crypto? Thank you for pointing out that Phil Zimmerman wishes to protect me, and Judge Patel wishes, on behalf of the government, to "eliminate the protections" which strong encryptions affords me. The governement can't even protect themself, let alone the citizens, as evidenced by the fact that the current sport of teenage hackers across the nation is to send strong encryption overseas by way of the government's email systems. (Can you say FBI? Sure you can! Can you say IRS? Sure you can!) Yet these dweebs want to destroy an industry that *is* capable of providing the citizens protection? (Considering the INSLAW affair, perhaps it would be more fitting to say "destroy _another_ industry.") > The government has said that it may still challenge this more limited stay > in the 9th Circuit. Professor Bernstein may also seek relief from the stay > from the 9th Circuit. I hope these idiots are having fun and making lots of money playing their dinosaur games, because they are certainly accomplishing the opposite of what they claim to be trying to do. The most that the dinosaurs in D.C. can manage to do, is to drag all of the American business interests down into the ashes of history with them as they attempt to build an Electromagnetic Curtain behind which to imprison their citizens. Well, the CypherPunks were digging tunnels before the government even knew they were predestined to build the Wall, so the fascist censors are sucking hind-tit and will, in all likelihood, continue to do so. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TruthMonger, CoE <tm(a)dev.null> Official Spokesperson for: Cypherpunks Cult of One, DoWell, Saskatchewan Division "Give me bandwidth, or give me death." -Admiral B. d'Shauneaux "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld

1 0