December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Incoming! / Re: Chiropractic
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > And By The Way, Tim, your aura indicates a high level of cynicism, > which interferes with the psychic abilities of people around you. That's not his aura, that's tracer bullets, Bill. Bill...? Bill.......???

1 0

US DoC on anonymizer
by 3umoelle＠informatik.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/licomnet_101496.htm "A Vision of Tomorrow: Using Technology to Empower, Not to Control" We also endorse the use of technology to give privacy protection. For instance, individuals can use filtering technologies that read rating tags and block those that fail to achieve a desired level of privacy. PICS technology is being adapted to screen out Web sites that do not adhere to a specified level of privacy protection. Another example is the "anonymizer," which assigns an anonymous identity to a user and allows the user to shield personal information from Web sites that he or she visits.

2 1

Welfare Solution #389
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:30 AM 8/22/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote: > >Welfare Solution #389: > Many in the welfair class have their basic needs met by the government >and then steal to buy heroin. > How about this? - When a person on welfare is busted for heroin use, >or theft to support a habit, the State thereafter sends the person's >welfare check to a Crime Restitution fund and lets the person keep >stealing, only now it is for the purpose of supplying their own >basic needs. In NY, when a defendant gets convicted of a crime including a drug offense, s/he has to pay a mandatory surcharge part of which is a Crime Victims' Fee. [Query: who is the victim in a drug case? -- but I digress...]. Also, if it was a crime where the victim suffered financial losses, the defendant not only has to pay the Crime Victim's Fee but also restitution to the victim. Additionally, pursuant to Federal Law, anyone convicted of a drug charge and, who is residing is federally-subsidized housing, becomes subject to eviction proceedings. [Quirk: if one family member is engaged in such business activities, the entire family is captured under the law's umbrella but, again, I digress..]. > The crime rate stays the same, but the victims receive some amount >of recompensation. So-called crime rates are subject to the compilation *and* interpretation of statistics, and for those of us who were lucky enough to have studied Statistics, we know that these so-called statistical rates are ripe for producing the desired results versus providing an accurate statistical account. Case in point: Prior to Reagan's Administration, the Armed Forces were never included in the employed or non-employed categories. Reagan added the Armed Forces to the employed category, and the masses were tickled pink when the government announced that employment rates increased dramatically. >Damn, I'm smart... Since I don't know you, I am in no position to comment. You may be smart, highly intelligent, or a genius - or you may possess the analytical processes of a gerbil. Whichever category you are within, perhaps you should keep in mind the old saying: "It's a thin line between genius and insanity." [A little appetizer for thought...]. ************************************************************************** Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | Lazlo's Chinese Relatively Axiom: Poughkeepsie, New York | "No matter how great your triumphs or lharrison(a)mhv.net | how tragic your defeats, approximately http://www.dueprocess.com | one billion Chinese couldn't care less." ************************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: I am not your attorney; you are not my client. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

1 0

IPsec product progress
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Reply-To: rgm3(a)chrysler.com X-Sender: rgm3(a)pop3hub.is.chrysler.com Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:11:56 -0400 To: ipsec(a)tis.com From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3(a)chrysler.com> Subject: IPsec product progress Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ipsec(a)ex.tis.com Precedence: bulk If anyone will be in Detroit next week tues-thurs and can make it to AutoTech, we will be having a live demonstration of IPsec products interoperating. Things are touch and go. We have had routing and hardware problems that have significantly delayed us. We do have 5 vendors here and on monday I will know exactly what to whom we will be demonstrating real automotive applications secured with IPsec. All of the products are configured for the current ESP DES-CBC explicit and AH HMAC-MD5. Oakley is handling session establishment. We did not get the hardware for the CA in time to set up certificates, so we are using pre-shared keys. Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation (810) 758-8212 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

2 1

Welfare Solution #389
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:30 AM 8/22/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote: > >Welfare Solution #389: > Many in the welfair class have their basic needs met by the government >and then steal to buy heroin. > How about this? - When a person on welfare is busted for heroin use, >or theft to support a habit, the State thereafter sends the person's >welfare check to a Crime Restitution fund and lets the person keep >stealing, only now it is for the purpose of supplying their own >basic needs. In NY, when a defendant gets convicted of a crime including a drug offense, s/he has to pay a mandatory surcharge part of which is a Crime Victims' Fee. [Query: who is the victim in a drug case? -- but I digress...]. Also, if it was a crime where the victim suffered financial losses, the defendant not only has to pay the Crime Victim's Fee but also restitution to the victim. Additionally, pursuant to Federal Law, anyone convicted of a drug charge and, who is residing is federally-subsidized housing, becomes subject to eviction proceedings. [Quirk: if one family member is engaged in such business activities, the entire family is captured under the law's umbrella but, again, I digress..]. > The crime rate stays the same, but the victims receive some amount >of recompensation. So-called crime rates are subject to the compilation *and* interpretation of statistics, and for those of us who were lucky enough to have studied Statistics, we know that these so-called statistical rates are ripe for producing the desired results versus providing an accurate statistical account. Case in point: Prior to Reagan's Administration, the Armed Forces were never included in the employed or non-employed categories. Reagan added the Armed Forces to the employed category, and the masses were tickled pink when the government announced that employment rates increased dramatically. >Damn, I'm smart... Since I don't know you, I am in no position to comment. You may be smart, highly intelligent, or a genius - or you may possess the analytical processes of a gerbil. Whichever category you are within, perhaps you should keep in mind the old saying: "It's a thin line between genius and insanity." [A little appetizer for thought...]. ************************************************************************** Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | Lazlo's Chinese Relatively Axiom: Poughkeepsie, New York | "No matter how great your triumphs or lharrison(a)mhv.net | how tragic your defeats, approximately http://www.dueprocess.com | one billion Chinese couldn't care less." ************************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: I am not your attorney; you are not my client. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

7 6

Re: death of Usenet
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> If I understand the implemented Eternity service correctly, it >> fundamentally relies on Usenet as the propagation method. What happens >> if Usenet dies? How will I continue to refresh my Eternity document? Was it Yogi Berra who said "Nobody goes there any more; it's too crowded."? While Usenet is becoming a vaster wasteland by the month, for the purposes of an Eternity service, or alt.anonymous.messages, that's fine, because there's more noise to hide your signal in, and it doesn't really matter if it's 98% spam as long as your potential user base can get the service without attracting much attention. The more interesting problem with Usenet is that it no longer operates in the old flood-routing fashion, where everybody had all the news they could handle on their machines and could quietly grub the articles they wanted out of /usr/spool/news, and a 300...1200...9600 baud modem could receive it all. Instead, news tends to be exchanged between servers that can handle the flood of 1+ GB/day, and news clients download the articles they want from the servers, which makes it much easier to monitor who's actually reading what, though you could still get a feed of alt.anonymous.messages or alt.binaries.pictures.stego without the Traffic Analysts knowing which messages were for you. Some counters to this may be to use services like DejaNews to read the news through web anonymizers (if you trust them), or to build news retrieval features into remailers (if you trust them, and preferably with a pay-per-retrieval system so the remailer doesn't just get resource-abused or entrapped as a porn retriever) or to use SSH to log in to your shell accounts on your cash-paid ISP. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Bad CypherPunk! No privacy! / Re: PGP5i supports RSA keys?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > but there's also really no need for keys longer than 2048 bits unless > some radical algorithmic breakthrough > 1024 bits is probably enough Other than the above, a very informative post. Perhaps all encryption programs ought to be named Enigma-1, Enigma-2, etc. When the Allies gained the capability to break the Enigma code, there was no front-page announcement. I checked the news headlines today, and there was no front-page announcement of a "radical algorithmic breakthrough." I take this to be proof positive that the ever-present "they" have indeed made a breakthrough, and that I need to use the strongest tools currently available for secure communications. Like the ZipLock ads where they put the angry bees in the ZipLock and in the Generic Brand plastic bags, I am always tempted by the statement that "512/1024/etc." is "good enough," to ask the person making the statement to write a letter threatening the life of "You Know Who," encrypt it and send it to me for forwarding to the Whitewaterhouse. ("And don't forget to use the '-c' option.") Would you rather have the angry F-Bee-I agents in the 4096 bit encrypted CryptLock bag or the 1024 bit GenericLock bag? :: B o o t s

7 6

Re: State Charges in Weaver Case
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William H. Geiger III wrote: > He should be up on 1st Degree Murder charges as these were a planned, > permeditated murders. Freeh, Reno, and Clinton should all be up on the > same caharges as co-consiritors for planning and ordering the murders and > for covering up the matter after the fact. After their conviction in State court, we should execute their spouse and child, and then try them again in Federal court. > Of cource all 3 should be introduced to "'ol Sparky" for their part in the > murders at Waco. A person who never leaves their State can be arrested and charged for a resident of a different State, with different laws, accessing the material on h/is/er hard drive. Can a State without the death penalty arrest and charge an executioner in a different State, that does have the death penalty, for murdering one of their State's residents? Next time I'm on a topless beach in France, can I make a citizen's arrest on some beautiful babe and have her extradited to the U.S. to have her charged? (I would probably settle out of court for some privately arranged Victim Compensation.) If someone murders two people, shouldn't they be electrocuted, resucitated, and then electrocuted again? If Willy Clinton left D.C. at 4 p.m. on a train travelling West at 50/mph, and Louey Freeh left D.C. 2 hours later on a plane travelling NorthWest at 20/mph, then why would Willy be on a train, how would Louey's plane get off the ground, and how could the "single CypherPunk theory" account for...? ...uuuhhh. I think I've already said too much. Uuuhhh...Monger

1 0

Complete Bulk Email Pkg. ONLY $49.95
by 5436_sales＠emailblaster.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*********************SUMMER PROMOTION****************** Complete Bulk Email Package inluding 25 Million Email Addresses only $49.95 Email Blaster ranks up with all the other bulk email software such as Floodgate, Email Magnet, Netcontact, Extractor Pro. etc at hundreds of dollars less!!! Why pay $399 just for a bulk email software, when you can pay $49.95 including email addresses??? HOW DOES E-MAIL BLASTER WORK? E-Mail Blaster has dozens of special filters to automatically harvest E-mail addresses from major online services such as: America OnLine, Compuserve,Delphi, Genie, and of course the internet and will email your marketing letter to 13k consumers per hour at the single push of a button!!! SPECIAL CLOAKING DEVICE: Email Blaster can successfully hide your email address. This will help stop users from flaming your email box! SIMPLE TO USE: E-Mail Blaster does all the work for you and, unlike other E-mail programs, with E-Mail Blaster there is no need to purchase any additional software. NO SPECIAL EQUIPMENT NEEDED: E-Mail Blastert runs on a PC with Windows 3.xx Windows 95, Windows NT, a 386 or faster processor, 4 MB RAM, and a hard drive with at least 10 MB free and your own SLIP or PPP connetion. No other software needed. Also runs on a Macintosh with SoftWindows installed Plus.... You can become a distributor of Email Blaster for only $99 and you receive 5 Complete Email Blaster packages. Let's say you resell Email Blaster package at a discount of $199 each. $199 x 5 packages = $995 CASH!!! Your potential is unlimited! Price List 5 Packages: $99 10 Packages: $149 20 Packages $299. Larger quantity discounts are available upon request. What are you waiting for start making money today SIGN UP NOW!!! ********************************************************************************************************** Don't miss out on this Summer Promotion!!! ORDER NOW!!! Telephone: 609-933-3527 Fax: 609-933-1499 Name: _____________________________________________________ Address:____________________________________________________ City:___________________________________________ State:___________________________ Zip:_____________________________ Telephone::_____________________________________________ E-Mail Address:__________________________________________ Once we receive your order, you will receive a confirmation email, this will inform you of our website for you to go download your package immediately! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "COMPLETE EMAIL BLASTER PACKAGE" only $49.95 ________ 1 Copy of Email Blaster 1 Electronic Help System: Email Blaster Help System will provide you with step by step directions on how to use Email Blaster and help with setting up your provider. For your convience this is built right into your copy of Email Blaster. Unlimited Email Addresses: 25 Million And Growing You can download these addresses right from our website at your convenience. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 DISTRIBUTOR PACKAGE only $99: _________ This is a Special Promotion to new distributors only!!! 5 Copies of Email Blaster 5 Built in Electronic Help Systems: 5 Unlimited Email Addresses: 25 Million And Growing Our Email Addresses are updated monthly. You can download these addresses right from our website at your convenience. Now you can take advantage of Email Blaster Package and resell each package up to $299. each. You make $1495 10 DISTRIBUTOR PACK only $149. _______ Includes 10 Complete Packages of Email Blaster. You can make up to $2990.00 20 DISTRIBUTOR PACK: ONLY $299 ________ Includes 20 Complete Packages of Email Blaster. You can make up to $5980.00 ************************************************************************************************* If you would like to pay by check, please make check payable to: Internet Marketing mail to: PO Box 276 Bellmawr, NJ 08099 or Fax to 1-609-933-1499 along with this order form. If you are paying with a Fax Check please include an additional $3.00 for check processing fees. Credit Card: _______________________________________________ Visa, Master Card and AMEX. EXP. Date: _____________________ Total to be charged: $________________________ Signature:___________________________________________________________

1 0

$1 Million Code Crack
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

$treet Journal, August 22, 1997, p. A7A. Hackers' Paradise: Get Wealthy Legally By Cracking a Code Crypto-Logic Offers to Pay $1 Million to the Breaker Of Encryption for E-Mail By Rodney Ho A start-up company would like you to hack your way to $1 million. Crypto-Logic Corp. of Austin, Texas, claims to have created an encryption system for electronic mail so foolproof that it can't be broken. If someone can figure out a special encrypted e-mail message within a year, the company says it will pay a reward of $1 million. But wait. The technology Crypto-Logic is using for the contest hasn't exactly been foolproof. The three computers needed to create the contest's Web site unexpectedly scrambled data in the site last week, said David Neeley, vice president and chief operating officer. The breakdown forced him to backtrack from last week's announcement that the contest would begin last Friday. Instead, he spent several days attempting to fix the computers, but to no avail. On Monday, he had to get replacement computers. "I've got thousands of dollars worth of machinery that's not worth blowing up," he grouses. But he adds, "I regard this as my screw-up. In this world, there are no excuses." He finally got the contest running Wednesday, at www.ultimateprivacy.com. On the bright side, cryptologists agree that the decades-old encryption method that Crypto-Logic is claiming to use -- called a "one-time pad" -- is theoretically unbreakable. Each "pad" has a set of uniquely random digital symbols that are coded to the actual message. The recipient uses the same symbols to decrypt the message. The pads are used only once. To limit the possibility of leaks, Crypto-Logic Chairman Stan Spence is the only person who knows the message that was encrypted. The solution is kept in a NationsBank vault in Austin, Mr. Spence says. In addition, Mr. Neeley says the $1 million is backed by an insurance company he won't name. Several other companies have held similar contests, typically offering more modest sums. Jim Bidzos, president of RSA Data Security Inc. in Redwood City, Calif., says his company frequently holds break-the- code contests to test how tough certain encryption systems are. But he and other security experts are skeptical of Crypto-Logic's assertions. "Anyone who says their system is bulletproof is either a liar or stupid," says Winn Schwartau, a Largo, Fla., security expert. Mr. Neeley admits his integrity is on the line. "If I'm wrong," he notes, "we're out of business." [End]

2 1

For Platypus Eyes Only
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 5, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Define 'stealing' Winding up an ongoing but perhaps instructive debate with e-mail correspondent J.P., I had offered: "The notion that it's all right to steal at gunpoint 'some modest amount, as long it serves a legitimate public need' ignores the simple moral truth that the end cannot be allowed to justify the means." J.P. responded: "Define steal. If you are benefiting from having a court and national defense system, and pay nothing for its upkeep, then you would be stealing. OK -- one final time: # # # Hi, J.P. -- Probably the one place where we are still furthest apart is the definition of "theft." To me, it merely has to do with voluntarism, versus levying something under the threat of force. None of my federal taxes are paid voluntarily. I allow them to be "withheld" from my paycheck because if I tell my employer I won't work here any longer unless he stops "withholding," I'll be out of a job. Likewise, any other "compliance" I grant the federals is because they have repeatedly demonstrated they will seize (start ital)all(end ital) of my paycheck, and all of my bank accounts (even if I find myself unemployed, and have so notified them), if I do not "comply" -- all this without so much as a signed court order. Under those conditions -- even if I didn't know how wasteful, oppressive and counterproductive most of their schemes really are -- what would I care to how "noble" a purpose the federals assure me some of my moneys will be put? Try approaching someone taking money out of her ATM. Assure her that at least 60 percent of the money you're seizing from her at gunpoint will be used to buy medicines for the poor. Proceed to (start ital)buy(end ital) medicines for the poor with 60 percent of her money, and keep careful documentation. When you're identified from the ATM camera tape and arrested, show the police your evidence that most of the money went to "a noble purpose," while the rest merely covered your "operating overhead." Thus, you committed no "theft," and they'll let you go without prosecution. Right? I don't think so. Your underlying premise is that "government" can properly do things which would be crimes if they were done by individuals, as long as they're "for the greater good of the many." But that one concession leads, in the end, to all the evils of the police state. On the other hand, you puzzle me with the assertion: "If you are benefiting from having a court and national defense system, and pay nothing for its upkeep, then you would be stealing." Even if it weren't for the fact that more and more of these "Defense" and "court" dollars go to enslave and murder American citizens who have harmed no one -- whose only "offense" is refusal to kneel before their federal masters -- I still wouldn't follow this. If a wealthy philanthropist builds a free public library, and I use it, am I "stealing?" After all, I have "benefited from it without paying for its upkeep." If a direct-mail scam artist mails me some gimcrack plastic camera I never ordered, and then tries to bill me $29.95 for "shipping and handling," do I have to pay? I don't think so. Yet under your theory, he would be allowed to seize from my bank account or paycheck any amount by which he could demonstrate I had "benefited" from his unsolicited "gift" ... couldn't he? Unless (again) government has a right to do things which would be crimes if undertaken by mortal men. In which case I ask again, since we the citizens cannot possibly "delegate" to the government rights or powers which we never possessed, where does government claim to derive the right or power to do these immoral things? From the same place the invading bandit chieftain (or, perhaps, Union bluebelly?) gets his "right" to rape your daughter and then ransom her back to you for half your wealth? At the point of his bayonet, and nowhere else? Your only answer seems to be, "The government has to do these things, because we're not sure we could find enough funds, otherwise." Imagine a bank robber patiently explaining to you: "I have certain absolute necessities, such as keeping my family fed, and buying ammunition and gas for the car. In the past, the only reliable way I've found to meet these requirements is bank robberies. Now, if you want me to reform my bank robbery system, perhaps taking a larger share from the larger, richer banks, I'll be happy to negotiate some reasonable reforms. "But heavens, you can't expect me to take the risk of giving up bank robbing entirely, on the strength of this theory that 'Somehow, I could probably keep my family fed by taking some kind of a steady job.' Don't I see panhandlers on the street every day? Aren't those people who tried your pie-in-the-sky, 'non-coercive' way of 'earning' enough money, and failed? I'd look a fine figure, standing at my child's grave, explaining 'I HOPED you wouldn't starve if I gave up bank-robbing. I thought it MIGHT work.' In fact, no single bank robber of my acquaintance has ever given up the trade voluntarily. Surely SOMEONE would have done so, in all these years, if your way could be made to work, don't you think?" If a private citizen told you this, you would doubtless judge him an incurable sociopath, and hope to see him shot down or caged before he could terrorize and kill too many more innocent bank tellers and patrons. But when a group of men who call themselves "the government" say this same thing, you tell me they're being sensible and prudent. Others -- whether singly or in organized groups -- can volunteer to do things which benefit me, without my permission. Presumably, they figured the benefits to them would justify their proceeding, even without my agreeing to help them. They have (start ital)no(end ital) moral right to then turn around and bill me for a share of a thing they have done without seeking my voluntary help and permission in advance (what would be the proper charge for my taking aesthetic pleasure in someone else's architecturally pleasing building, I wonder?) under the theory: "You benefited, so you have to pay." They can only extract such a non-voluntary payment from me by force or the threat of force ... which is theft. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com "A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed."

1 0

RE: an end to "courts" (was RE: An end to "court appointed attorneys" )
by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >The modern American legal system, at least in the many recent capital >murder cases which have received such wide publicity, is not about a >"search for truth," obviously. Instead, it is an adversarial system (no >surprise there) in which competing teams spend vast amounts of money trying >to derail the other side, get jurors dismissed because of "jury consultant" >models, etc. Yes, but. The point I was trying to make is that, in a system of voluntary justice, you don't need to worry about the abuse of power, because there is no power with the judge (arbitrator). In any state-backed legal system, there is potential for abuse, because the court represents the power of the state and can enforce it. So you have the cliched checks and balances. The alternative to an American system is to limit jury trials, as is done in India and much of the ex-British colonies following common-law. While the use of juries in America is excessive (in patent trials, good grief! where even the judges can barely understand a word), they are supposed to balance the power of the state as represented by the judge. As to the common-law system itself, which is unique to England and its former colonies, true it is adversarial - but that's why _at the trial_ you're _innocent_ until proven guilty. Under code-civil legal systems, which are usually inquisitorial, and where the judge (or magistrate) _does_ try to determine the "truth", there is much less competition over technicalities because by the time a case gets to trial, the likelihood of guilt, in terms of evidence, is probably quite established. But then, you might worry that a magistrate is no longer impartial, and possibly leans towards the prosecution. The potential for abuse and excessive wielding of state powers is perhaps higher in such a system - I admit that I am biased towards common-law. However much we hate lawyers - it is worth noting here that _Shakespeare_, living under adversarial common-law, suggested that we shoot all the lawyers, rather than, say, Moliere - they do not represent the enforceable power of the state. Even when, as prosecutors in criminal trials, they are state-backed, they are on level ground with defence lawyers (possibly also state-funded) in front of the court - which _really_ represents the power of the state. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of military court judges like Tim's father, nor those who work for prosecutorial legal systems in much of continental Europe. But a legal system, if we have one at all, is designed to prevent abuses when it is operated even by dishonest people. Just as a dictatorship may be the most efficient among several models of the state, but a democracy is usually favoured because it takes just one "bad" person to ruin a dictatorship and rather more to harm a democracy, so a common-law jury system is inherently among the better of various choices for a state-backed model of justice. Excesses in its implementation in America may need restraining, but that's more pruning than uprooting. In a state-backed court system, lawyers, remember, exist to protect you against the court-directed abuse of state power. If you don't like the state, or its court system, that's fine, but it's not the lawyers who are inherently to blame. A recent issue of Forbes ran an article arguing that judges and laws, not lawyers, are to blame for American "excesses". They weren't half-wrong, for it's the judges and the laws who have the state behind them, not lawyers. No, not even state-_financed_ lawyers. Rishab First Monday - The Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet http://www.firstmonday.dk/ Munksgaard International Publishers, Copenhagen Intl & Managing Editor - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh(a)firstmonday.dk) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA

1 0

List of security courses updated
by Avi Rubin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks for all of the wonderful information on courses. As a result, the list has really grown and been corrected in several places. The newest version can be found at http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~rubin/courses.html And I'm pretty sure I got the URL right this time. This is a good place to point students who are interested in studying cryptography. Avi ********************************************************************* Aviel D. Rubin rubin(a)research.att.com Secure Systems Research Dept. Adjunct Professor at NYU AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue http://www.research.att.com/~rubin/ Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Voice: +1 973 360-8356 USA FAX: +1 973 360-8809 --> Check out http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr/websec/ for a new book on web security (The Web Security Sourcebook). *********************************************************************

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 05:39 AM 8/22/97 +0200, Boots wrote: >> The United States has a lot of redistribution of wealth and a lot of crime. Elminate it. > The United States has a lot of lawyers and a lot of crime. Don't see how you can argue against that one. > The United States has a lot of guns and a lot of crime. So? Actually, we have a lot of handguns, in the hands of criminals, and even bigger guns in the hand of government terrorist groups like the ATF, FBI, and the National Park Service. If we have guns in the hands of responsible people, we have a good society, armed, secure, and safe, like in Switzerland. We don't need disarmamant. We need armed responsible citizens forming their own militias. If we had that on a wide scale, we wouldn't need a professional army. Guns are neither good nor bad, but what we make of them. They're tools, much like plungers, which can be used to unclog a toilet after visiting a Mexican Restraunt, or to sodomize a suspect. Use plungers and guns responsibly, and for good. GunMonger

3 3

Picketing with packets enhanced version
by Patrick Oonk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, picket.pl did not work very good for me, so I changed it a bit. begin 600 picket.tar.gz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end -- | Patrick Oonk - http://patrick.mypage.org/ - patrick(a)pine.nl | | PGP Key ID 0xDA2E93FA - Internic PO59 - <clicketyclick> | | Pine Internet B.V. Consultancy, installatie en beheer | | Tel: +31-70-3111010 - Fax: +31-70-3111011 - http://www.pine.nl/ |

4 5

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

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispix drunkenly blubbered out: >> Should we just sit idly by and let police officers attack citizens? > >Of course not. There are possible responses other than the ones you >suggest, however. Like what Kent, asking cops to defend you, from Cops? Sorry, Kent, that method doesn't work. Filing a lawsuit, or bringing them to court won't stop em from doing it again, also, a chance remains that they won't get convicted, after all, almost any police force I've seen always gets off for doing things. Remember, plungering someone like that is definitely a cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore a crime in itself. Those pigs should rot in jail for violating someones constitutional rights. However, the eye for an eye thing would make for an interesting punishment for the cops. PlungerMonger "There's something wrong with not killing cops in defense who sodomize you."

1 0

Plot of the Platypus
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ********** WARNING!!! Plot of the Platypus !!!WARNING ********** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ********** Since the death of Dale Thorn, I have lurked silently in the list background while observing the creeping conspiracies continually compromising cypherpunk costs. I mean..."posts." {Damn, now I'm doing it, too.} Doing what, you ask? How did you know what I said? Are you with the MIND POLICE? AM I SURROUNDED??!!!?? {Oh...I see that I put that thought in brackets, where you could read it. Whew! Had me worried for a minute, there.} To continue... Being an anonymous coward who hides behind remailers the few times that I post, I have been somewhat hesitant, nonetheless, to reveal the observations and accompanying thoughts about the direction that the cypherpunks lissed has taken {Damn, that's twice, already. I may be infected, like many of the others} since the end of the Nazi moderation/censorship experiment. While other, more vocal, list members were celebrating the apparent 'victory' over the johnboot of fascism being lifted from our typing fingers, I had a troubled mind, worrying whether the evil forces were truly vanquished or whether they had merely escaped by way of the anonymous remailers, to the negative pole, where they would bide their time and prepare to strike again. I was counting on the shit-disturbers, chiefly Dale Thorn, to keep a practiced eye out for signs of the evil farces {Was that a typo, a Freudian slip, or another sign of the mind infection that is rapidly spreading on the list?} regrouping to once again try to destroy the cypherpunks list. Suddenly, Dale disappeared--faster than you can say, "Jimmy Hoffa." For a time, Toto attempted to carry on in his stead, but I *knew* Dale Thorn, and Toto is no John F. Kennedy. {Shit! Now I'm beginning to steal and corrupt the words of others. I'm not certain I like the implications of this. The plot may go even deeper than I previously thought...} Where was I...? Oh, yes...the Plot of the Platypus... William H. Geiger III writed: > A prime example is the welfair class in America. *^^* Anonymous rote: > Many in the welfair class have their basic needs met by... *^^* Then, in a startling development, ? the platypus wrote: >(Australia, most of europe ect have higher welfare rates). ... *^^^^^^^* >Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Notice anything a little bit *strange* in the above quotes? Suddenly, "? the Platypus" is the the only one of this group that can spell welfair...warfair......welfare. {Damn! What's that clinging to my back?} What is going on here? As the Platypus's spelling gets better, the other list members' spelling gets worse. For example: Ray Arachelian sayhed: > what shal be the punishment? If the one who takes the order... *^* > reposability, then the one giving the order must be doubly... *^^* Tim May wroted: > Agraphia or not, this is one of the lamest posts I've seen in years. > Wealth is to be taken from those who have worked for it or put their > capitcal at risk *^* The Cypherpunk Philosophist King, lame-ing while flame-ing? Worse yet, while flame-ing about lame-ing? Lame-ing while flame-ing about lame-ing? Fucking up his spelling while taking a cheap-shot at someone's disability in their ability to 'dis' someone with proper spelling? And then, after his "capitcal" misfire, the object of his scorn returns fire with a correct spelling of "redistribution?" ? the Playtpus correctly scripted: > The US has one of the lowest rates of wealth redistribution in the... Am I making too much of this? A few simple typo's, you say? Perhaps an occasional slip of the finger--a momentary lapse of mind and/or memory, leading to a misspelled word? {Or is it 'mispelled'? I don't know, and I'm afraid to look it up. I could use the spell checker, but... No! It's too dangerous.} It's the Plot of the Platypus, I tell you...I AM NOT CRAZY!!!! I did extensive analysis of the list posts in the last few months, and I can state with absolute certainty that for every slight improvement in the quality of the Platypus's spelling, there is a court responding decease in the Kuala-T of many of T ohter libsp mambors spealing. {See? Do you SEE!?!? IT'S EVEN HAPPENING TO *ME* NOW.} That's not all. Just like before, others on the list are acting as the shills for the chief instant gator of this spelling tragivesty. Bill Stewart, a consciencious speller, said: > [If you're going to rant about government-provided education, > _please_ spell most of your words correctly, or let technology help > you...] See? Do you SEE?!? The subtle slams by the co-conspirators are beginning. It's the next stage... "Having a little trouble with your spelling there, pal? There's no more censorship, so you can say anything you want...as long as you can SPELL it! Haaa...haaaa...haaa." The ebil fartses are once again attempting to split the cybferpukes lissed in2 too kamps--the good spellers and the bag speelers. Think about it. Have you ever heard of "agraphia" before? Ever known anyone that had it? Of course not! It was developed in an underground lavoratory in Area 51 by reptilian Nazis. Well, maybe not "reptilian", but Nazis, just the same. And LOOK! I'm using double-quotes! *Misplaced* double-quotes, nonetheless. THE MARKS OF THE *TOTO*!!! The conspiracy is spreading fast. It's everywhere. Kent Crispin, government schill {Damn! I even spell 'shill' like Toto, now. At least I managed to use single quotes this time, like we did in the old days, before the censorship crisis...which just 'happened' to happen shortly after Toto happeared out of nowhere...} Where was I...? Oh, yes... Crispin, who has long previously been the target of many vicious attacks by both Toto and the Platypus, is now showing signs of the government generated Platyagraphia and the double-quote marks of the Toto. Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> say-heyed: >will force the "welfair class" to become productive citizens or die. ^ ^^^ ^ Or is Kent Crispin, gubormint chill, marking funds of the wrist of U.S.? Is he laughtering at uds B-hynd R backs? Is he a bubble agent in the Plop of the Paperplutz? Still skeptical? Wait!! There's more!!! {No, not the Ginsu knives, you fools. I'm talking about the Plop of the Pretty Puss.} Think about the following pots, which wah *snot* sent to the list in order to hide the troops from the simplefucks lips dismemberers. Since it was not cent 2 the lips, I had to make it up, and now I'm a forager, like Tutu making those bag fridgeries of ohter cheaples pastes when he abuses their names without having their parsimmons to accuse their name for making his own pissed to the cyberhunks lost. ------- Begin Pretty Good Pretending------- PGP: Bad Spelling Virgin 0.1 To: ciderpundits(a)tao.dot.commie From: TheBadSpellingForger <i_can__spell_good(a)anytime.I.please> Subject: Make Con$piracy La$t Date: {I'm typing it *now*, you idiot.} Tired of being a LOSER? Tired of failing in your list takeover bids while others, like the _fuck_you_morons_ spammer, AOL'ers, and blonde bimbos with huge breasts are getting ahead in life? Tired of not getting your secret cypherpunks decoder ring, like the others, because you don't use an "authorized" operating system, and you can't spell "welfare" even though you're on it? Join the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST today, and turn your life around. {No Bullshit! This conspiracy is so fucking secret that *nobody* knows about it--NOT EVEN ME! I had to make it up! That's how secret it is.} Good gays Finnish lost. Why do they "Finnish lost"? Because they waste their time with correct spelling, proper placement of quotation marks, and trying to develop a consistent list persona when there are already millions of Internet identities out there already, just waiting to be abused. Face it, its the assholes that usually end up on top, and not just because most people sleep on their stomaches. So why are you WASTING YOUR TIME being a good gay, when the assholes are making the BIG BUCKS by putting naked pictures of big bucks fucking big butts on their "Native American Nude MLM" web site? Tired of being an anarchist? Tired of waiting for Jim Bell to rat you out as being a co-conspirator in his evil plot to overthrow the government? Tired of standing in front of your mirror, trying to practice acting surprised when armed forces from a dozen government agencies kick down your door to announce that someone nuked D.C., and they'd like to "ask you a few questions?" Join the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. Do it TODAY, and you will be guaranteed a secret cypherpunks decoder ring when the people who pull our strings pass a law criminalizing them (except for use in meeting the legitimate needs of secret conspirators against the cypherpunks list). Listen to what these Secret Conspirators have to say: Peter Trei: "Hi. I used to be a boring guy. I was so boring that none of the assholes on the list even bothered insulting me, or forging posts in my name. "Then one day, my life suddenly changed. Someone forged a post to the list in my name, and it was exciting. It was like getting robbed at gunpoint. What a rush! "When I woke up the next morning, I couldn't face going back to my normal, moral, ethical, boring life. I sent an anonymous post to the list--as TruthMonger! It felt good, like being elected to a government office by lying to people, but I wanted MORE. I began forging posts to the list using other people's identities. If they complained to the list, then I killed them, and assumed their list identities. It felt like driving INSLAW into bankruptsy, stealing their software, and murdering those who knew too much! "Now I am Peter Trei, boring cryptographer, by day, but I am any exciting, unethical asshole I want to be, at night. "I liked the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST so much that I *stole* the conspiracy. "? the Platypus" has nothing to do with the Plot of the Platypus, I'm just making fun of his disability, like a real asshole. Toto has nothing to do with it, either. He's such a loser that everyone on the list can spot his forgeries. (Well, they "used to could". But now that I can mimic his style and have hacked his sympatico account, I can deny all of this from my real list persona tomorrow, and nobody will be the wiser.) "I'm not just a user of the cypherpunks list, I'm an abuser." Kent Crispin: "This isn't Peter's conspiracy, its MINE! I mean, get real, I work in a secret underground lavoratory as a government shill. "Think about it. Who would you expect to conspire against a bunch of anarchists...the government! You all know how much I love the government and authority. I'm Louis Freeh's secret lover. Janet Reno is going to have my baby. "It's me! *I* am the one behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. I'm a STATIST, for God's sake, why won't you believe me? "Because I'm not one of the elitist 'chosen?' Fuck you." Tim May: "God, I *love* this list." Robert Hettinga: "Hey! If you check the archives, you'll find that I said that in a post, long before anyone else did." TruthMonger: "Now Hettinga is stealing Tim May's lines. What the hell is going on, here? Has *everybody* on this list gone crazy? "*I* am the one who is *really* behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. Think about it. Everyone knows that I'm a 33rd degree Mason. No...that's Tim May. "Fuck this shit. From now on, I'm posting as Toto." John Perry: "This has gone on long enough. I'm killing this thread. ...I mean..."post." ...I mean... "Shit! I'm not the list moderator, yet. That's *after* we take over the list." "Sorry." ------- End Pretty Good Pretending------- ... ~~~~~~~ Begin Note From Igor ~~~~~~~ Do you all remember the Perl script I was working on for mimicking the posts of other people? Well, this post is the latest product of that script. What do you think? Is it convincing? Did you really believe that it was actually written by one or more of the people mentioned in the post? I think that I finally have the Perl script to the point where I can effectively fool most people about the true source and method of a computer generated post's actual origins. I was thinking about adding a conspiratoral part about myself. I was going to intimate that the fact that I was so active on the list during the censorship crisis, playing the skeptic who was gradually brought around to the truth of Dale Thorn and Toto's claims, then volunteering to host the list and quietly disappearing into the background, might indicate that *I* was really behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. In the end, I decided against it, because then the readers would be left with the notion that perhaps even this explainatory note from me was bogus, and that there really was an ongoing SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. ~~~~~~~ End Note From Igor ~~~~~~~ ********** DISCLAIMER ********** THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! There is no conspiracy by a secret government to destroy the Constitution, enslave the people, and rule the world. Individual cypherpunks are not being imprisoned and murdered and replaced with Identity Bots. There is no need to worry. Declan McCullagh can confirm all of this. You can trust him. He is your representative in D.C. He did *not* give secret testimony against Jim Bell in return for a byline in the "Time" magazine cover story. That is just a rumor. Well, not yet, maybe, but it will be, very soon. Remember, this is just a normal mailing list with a few list members who are a little odd. There are no spooks. There is no background intrigue. This whole privacy thing has just been blown a bit out of proportion. It's really not that important. Waco was just a tragic accident. Ruby Ridge was a simple error in judgement by a government agent who really feels bad about following his superiors orders. Heavily armed U.S. Marines are no match for a goat-herding boy with a .22, and it is only by the grace of God that they are alive today. Oswald acted alone. lai;ekrjke ^C THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! There is no conspiracy by a secret government to destroy the Constitution, enslave the people, and rule the world. dakl;jdafkl;jad;jfa ^C ^C Oswald acted alone. Bears are Catholic. The Pope shits in the woods. The government is concerned for your welfair. *^^^* ldfafd;ljfd; ^C^X^C THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! da;lkdf ^C THERE IS *NO* welfair ad;fljadf; *^^^* ad;sljf;afj ^C ^C ^C THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST!

1 0

Government sues to "eradicate" ebonics joke e-mail at FreddieMac
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text MIME-Version: 1.0 Priority: normal Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:35:52 PST Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Eugene Volokh <VOLOKH(a)LAW.UCLA.EDU> Organization: UCLA School of Law Subject: Government sues to "eradicate" ebonics joke e-mail at FreddieMac To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM (Please feel free to forward; copying authorized by copyright owner) A National Speech Code From The EEOC by Eugene Volokh Washington Post, Aug. 22, 1997, at A23 Telling "ebonics" jokes, the federal government says, is unlawful. Yes, that's right. You may burn the American flag, advocate violent revolution, post indecent material on the Internet, but "disseminating derogatory electronic messages regarding `ebonics'" to your co- workers is against the law. So says the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in a lawsuit filed in federal court late last month. The EEOC is now trying to force the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. to "take prompt and effective remedial action to eradicate" such speech by its workers. Remarkably, the EEOC, aided by some courts and by state civil rights agencies, thinks it can get away with this, and so far it has. Without much fanfare, the law of "workplace harassment" has turned into a nationwide speech code. Under this speech code, it's illegal to say things that are "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile or offensive work environment" -- whatever that is -- based on race, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status and an ever-widening list of other attributes. Here is a brief catalogue of some of what's been described by various agencies and courts as "harassment": Co-workers' use of "draftsman" and "foreman" (instead of "draftsperson" and "foreperson"). "Men Working" signs. Sexually suggestive jokes, even ones that aren't misogynistic. Derogatory pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini and American flags burning in Iran. In the words of one court's injunction: remarks "contrary to your fellow employees' religious beliefs." "Offensive speech implicating considerations of race." What could the government possibly be thinking about here? The Supreme Court has never suggested that the workplace is somehow a First Amendment-free zone. Many of us talk to more people at work than we do anywhere else. The workplace is where we often discuss the questions of the day, whether they be the Oakland School Board's ebonics policy or affirmative action or religion. Private employers, like private newspaper publishers or private homeowners, are not bound by the First Amendment and may thus restrict what is said on their property. But the United States government, which is under a constitutional obligation not to abridge "the freedom of speech," can't go to court to insist on the "eradication" of political speech that it thinks is reprehensible. Of course, many harassment cases involve more than just impolitic jokes. The ebonics case, for instance, also involved some threats, which are constitutionally unprotected, and some one-to-one insults, which might also be properly punishable. If the EEOC had just sued over this conduct, there would be little constitutional difficulty. But the EEOC has no business claiming that toleration of e-mailed political opinion is "an unlawful employment practice." Why have the free-speech implications here been so widely ignored? Hard to say. Maybe everyone was misled by the law's mushiness. It's always easier to build consensus behind vague terms such as "hostile or offensive work environment," which can mean all things to all people. I like to think that if the EEOC proposed a regulation that explicitly barred ebonics jokes, someone would have made a fuss. But the breadth of harassment law has now become pretty clear. The federal government seems to think it's entitled to control what we say in our workplaces so long as a "reasonable person" would find that our speech makes the environment "hostile or offensive." Pretty remarkable how far we've let things come. [The writer teaches free-speech law at UCLA.] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "irregardless of the type of insurance coverage, Eugene Volokh the limits of liability . . . shall be governed UCLA Law School by the amounts specified in subsection A . . ." 405 Hilgard Ave. 36 Okla. St. Ann. 6414 (enacted 1986). L.A., CA 90095 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Say No To Christ
by Michael Stutz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's not an _Onion_ satire: <http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9707/update.html#aliens> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: bofus? Subject: Pat Robertson advocates stoning for UFO enthusiasts Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:39:49 -0800 Message-ID: <33FDB249.335F(a)mindspring.com> RuffinP(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > > FREEDOM WRITER PRESS RELEASE > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 28, 1997 > CONTACT: Skipp Porteous (413) 528-3800 > > > > Robertson advocates stoning for UFO > enthusiasts > > > Great Barrington, MA -- In a recent > pronouncement, television evangelist and > head of the Christian Coalition, Pat > Robertson, advocated death by stoning for > UFO enthusiasts. > > Freedom Writer magazine, in its July/August > issue, mailed today, disclosed Robertson's > statement. Freedom Writer is published by > the Institute for First Amendment Studies, > a group that monitors the right. > > Robertson used the news of the July 4th > Mars landing to promote his extreme > beliefs. A segment on the July 8, 1997 > broadcast of The 700 Club featured news of > the Mars Pathfinder mission. Employing the > historical event as a starting point, the > program delved into the possibility of the > existence of UFOs and space aliens. > > While Robertson viewed the space program > with suspicion, on a more serious note, he > launched into a diatribe against those who > entertain the existence of space aliens and > UFOs. He said, in a rambling discourse, that > if such things exist, they are simply demons > trying to lead people away from Christ. > According to Robertson, the threat is so > serious that people who believe in space > aliens should be put to death by stoning -- > according to "God's word." > > "The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, > but the heavens belong to the Lord," > Robertson said. > > "He has given us the Earth. He also warned, > way back when Moses was writing down not > only what is the Ten Commandments, but > Deuteronomy, which is almost the Second Law. > > "Here is what he said to the children of > Israel about this whole matter: > > "'If there is found among you, within any > of your gates which the Lord your God gives > you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in > the sight of the Lord your God, in > transgressing His covenant, who has gone > and served other gods and worshipped them, > either the sun or moon or any of the hosts > of heaven which I have not commanded you, > and you hear of it, then you shall inquire > diligently. And if it is indeed true and > certain that such an abomination has been > committed in Israel, then you shall bring > out to your gates that man or woman who has > committed that wicked thing, and stone to > death that man or woman with stones.'" > (Deuteronomy 17:2-5, NKJV) > > "Now, that's what Moses said to the > children of Israel about those who worship > the sun and the moon and the hosts of > heaven, because these things, at best, are > lifeless nothings, or, if they are > intelligent, they're demonic. And, yes, > there is a host of heaven. There are angels > and there are fallen angels. There is no > question about it." > > "Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, > funny-looking creature? Of course he can, > or it can. Of course they can deceive > people. And if they can lead somebody away > from the true God, or away from Jesus > Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't > matter, you will lose your salvation. It > doesn't matter how they get you. The > question is, did they get you, and under > what guise? > > "This is man in rebellion against God, who > refuses to take God's Law. And God says, > 'My covenant says you won't do this. And if > I find anybody in Israel,'-- "which is his > pure nation" -- 'If I find anybody in > Israel that's doing this sort of thing, > then I want you to take him out and dispose > of him." > > "It's a clear violation of God's word." > > Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer publisher, > commented: "As the founder and chairman of > the Christian Coalition -- a group > dedicated to becoming the most powerful > political force in America -- Robertson's > extreme ideas need to be taken seriously, > for they not only negate pluralism, but > condemn to death those who dare to believe > differently." --------- End forwarded message ----------

1 0

Re: Mathematics > NSA + GCHQ
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Thus, as bright as Brian Snow or Don Coppersmith or John Conway may be, the >"edge" the NSA may have once had is largely gone. Which is not to say that >they are not still a formidable technical organization, with substantial >computer resources. > >But modern crypto systems are, as we all know, based on fundamental >mathematical results ... Along this line: A few days ago we received an 8-page excerpt from "Shift Register Sequences," by Solomon W. Golomb (at USC), Holden-Day, Inc., no date, with a handwritten note: NSA has tried to suppress knowledge of this stuff. Nearly all NSA 'good' algorithms are based on this technology. IANAM, so would any of the mathematicians here give any credibility to this claim? We'll scan and put the excerpt on our Web site if worthwhile. It's composed of the book's 3 page preface and 5 pages of text and diagrams of Chapter 2 on The Shift Register as a Finite State Machine, with principal focus on de Bruijn diagrams for shift registers.

3 2

Marc Rotenberg on Time cover story on privacy (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:12:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Marc Rotenberg on Time cover story on privacy [My comments on privacy that I forwarded yesterday under the Subject: line "Response to Time cover on privacy" were in response to Marc's criticism, attached below. -Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:49:13 -0400 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: Response to Time cover on privacy ---- Josh - I appreciate the excellent coverage of privacy issues in this week's Time Magazine and at the Pathfinder site, but I am concerned about three particular points made in your article and the general tenor of your reporting. First, much of your discussion of the privacy issue assumes that there is a necessary trade-off between privacy and social benefit. Give up some data, get a good parking space. I think this is a very shallow view of privacy rights. A person who lives in a prison has very little privacy and very little benefit. An affluent person in a democratic society, however, may have both. Clearly, there is something more going on than a zero-sum game. Many of the current efforts to promote genuine privacy enhancing techniques, such as anonymous cash, are based on the belief that we can obtain many of the same benefits of customized service without giving up personally indentifiable information. In this context, the discussion of cookies is critical -- a non-actual user identified cookie is very good for service and privacy, but a user-identified cookie can be good for service but bad for privacy. But your discussion of cookies glosses over this critical point. These questions come up all the time. Should intelligent highways capture actual IDs? Can medical services be delivered psuedo-anonymously? What about communication services? Web access? You substituted an old privacy cliche ("in the modern world we give up some privacy for some benefit") for coverage of the interesting, cutting edge policy issues that the net and the debate about identity has raised. Second, following Alan Westin's line, you suggest that we have generally avoided privacy legislation in the private sector. This is simply not true. We have federal privacy legislation for credit record (1970), school records (1974), bank records (1978), cable subscriber records (1984), stored email (1986), video rental records (1988), junk faxes and auto dialers (1991), and dozens more at the state level for everything from insurance and health records to library records. You can say that these laws are at times ineffective or incoherent -- why federal privacy for video records but nor medical records? -- but it is just wrong to start tearing pages from the history books and the US code to support a bias against privacy laws. Alan should know better; you should as well. Finally, you and Kevin K. take a big swing at my call for privacy legislation and a privacy agency. I appreciate that it is a cardinal rule of some to oppose any government anything, but at least understand the argument for the privacy agency "We need new legal protections to enforce the privacy act, . . ." The Privacy Act was established in 1974 to restrict the ability of government to collect information on citizens and to give citizens the right to get access to their own files. But since '74, federal agencies have shown little interest in upholding the law and privacy concerns *across the federal government* have mushroomed. Do I take from Kevin's criticism that he would prefer that there was no effort to improve enforcment of the Privacy Act, limit record sharing in the government, and ensure people get access to their own files? Is that right? Can we at least agree that the Privacy Act plays an important role in protecting citizen rights and that efforts to strengthen it should be supported? " . . . to keep federal agencies in line, . . .' So that, for example, when law enforcement agencies in the federal government press the White House and the OMB for new law enforcement authority there is a counterveiling agency in the government that requires that privacy concerns are addressed before the proposal reaches the President's desk. And if they aren't adequately addressed, maybe the proposal doesn't get to the President's desk. It is obvious after both the Clipper episode and the OECD Crypto Guidelines that governments with privacy agencys have done a better job resisting these calls for extended government surveillance. The problem is that the one-dimensional critique of government provided in the article (and Wired and Netly) simply doesn't allow for the possibility that one of the best ways to constrain government power is through checks and balances. That, btw, was the key to controlling government authority in the US Constitution. In the absence of a federal privacy agency, you can almost be guaranteed that administration proposals will always tip in favor of surveillance. And the irony of the opposition by some to a federal privacy agency is that it has made it easier over the last few years for NSA/FBI to push forward crypto standards and roll the Department of Commerce. What in the federal government should stop them? Absent an office to push back, they have a clear course to the President's desk. " . . . to act as a spokesperson for the Federal Government . . ." This is for the fairly obvious reason that privacy is one of the biggest issues today in the US and there is no office in government that can even say authoritatively what the position of the US is. (Note that this problem doesn't exist over on the surveillance side or with copyright protection. The government values both. So David Aaron was given the title and the authority to promote the Administration position on key escrow/key recovery, and Bruce Lehman did the same at WIPO for copyrights interests. Do you understand now what's going on?). The result is that there is not even a basis for trade discussion or government negotiation. . . . and to act on behalf of privacy interests." So that when SSA is putting PEBES on line there is some privacy evaluation. Or, to take a recent European example, the new German communications law encourages the development of anonymous payment schemes to promote on-line commerce and to protect privacy. Where did the idea come from? The privacy agency. So, I have to ask, what is it exactly in my proposal that you/Kevin/Declan object to? Is it the fact that there will be a government <something>? I can't argue against that. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, but it has nothing to do with reporting or policy. Is it the fact that Trustee, OPS will do all of this better? If you have been following my point, you'll realize now that doesn't make any sense. Or what if it costs taxpayer dollars? In 1993 I backed creation of a federal privacy agency. Total cost: $5 m. The industry balked. "Too expensive. We have to trim the federal budget." The following year they backed Digital Telephony and a $500 m authorization to make the phone system easy to wiretap. I am also getting a little tired of the myth of the small town where everyone knew everything about everyone else and that there was no privacy. First off, this myth runs directly contrary to another, better description of American society -- the unexplored frontier. Where exactly did all those frontiersmen come from? The answer is the small town. People were constantly picking up and moving, building new homes, and establishing new identities. Many people born in these small towns left and went to school, joined the military, started businesses, moved to the city. Mobility, more than any other characteristic, is central to the American experience. Read Tocqueville. Civic association was and is constantly formed and reformed. Finally, I do agree with Kevin that privacy is very much about social relations. In fact the tag line for the book that Phil Agre and I edited for MIT Press, "Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape" http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl?isbn=026201162X begins "Privacy is the capacity to negotiate social relationships by controlling access to personal information." Privacy rules essentially establish the base lines for negotiating social relations between individuals and organizations. If you collect personal information, you take on some responsibilities. If you give up some information, you get some rights. You'll find those principles in just about every privacy law and policy in the world. Not only is this commonsense, but it has some nice benefits for an era when technology allows us to shape new forms of social relations -- we can design techniques that allow organizations and inviduals to interact without disclosure of personal information. Indeed, the web and the Net provided all of this to us, but now it could be quickly lost. I don't know what it will take to persuade some of the opinion leaders in the on-line world that law will play a critical role in protecting individual privacy in the coming years, but I'm willing to listen and learn.And I hope, whatever form this dialogue takes, we can all move beyond ideology, myth, and charicature. Marc Rotenberg. EPIC. ================================================================== Marc Rotenberg, director * +1 202 544 9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301 * rotenberg(a)epic.org Washington, DC 20003 USA + http://www.epic.org ==================================================================

1 0

Say No To Robertson (was Say No To Christ)
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> <http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9707/update.html#aliens> > Great Barrington, MA -- In a recent > pronouncement, television evangelist and > head of the Christian Coalition, Pat > Robertson, advocated death by stoning for > UFO enthusiasts. > Robertson used the news of the July 4th > Mars landing to promote his extreme > beliefs. > "The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, > but the heavens belong to the Lord," > Robertson said. "The earth is the LORD's and the fulness thereof;" Psalm 24:1 Administration != Ownership an idea seemingly beyond all politicians -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

1 0

MAN_iax
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-4-95. NYPaper: "Computers Beware! New Type of Virus Is Loose on the Net." A new and deceptively simple type of computer virus, one that can sneak past security devices by hitching rides on electronic mail and other common Internet files, is causing deep concern among computer security officials around the world. Mr. Schmidt of Sun says, "There are criminals in the world and some of them are programmers. With computer networks, they have an amplifying effect that they've never had before. If I were a criminal with a gun, I might attack one person. But with a computer network, I can attack a million people at a time. It's like an atomic bomb." To avert a potential disaster, Mr. Schmidt has enlisted three of the world's top computer security experts, including Tsutomo Shimomura, Dan Farmer and Whitfield Diffie. "Cybervirus Whodunit: Who Creates This Stuff?" Ms. Gordon conducted detailed interviews, by electronic mail, Internet chat, telephone and in person, with more than 60 virus writers. "The virus writer has been characterized by some as a bad, evil, depraved, maniac, terrorist, technopathic, genius gone mad, sociopath." This, she said, "is a gross oversimplification of the situation." "Dick Tracy, Eat Your Heart Out." Move over, Captain Midnight. Heads up, Mata Hari. Now anyone can have a real-life decoder ring. The ring has a computer chip encoded with an identification number that gives the wearer access to secret computer files or locked rooms. The chip transmits your secret ID number or data at the space-age speed of 16,000 bits a second. Triplets: MAN_iax

1 0

Re: Wearing RSA shirt to school
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Let's get real. Yes, please. The head of Sun's network security group is a foreign national. They're doing DES and public key work. :)

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 06:30 PM 8/22/97 +0200, A druken remailer user wrote: > To continue... > Being an anonymous coward who hides behind remailers the few times Did Patrick Oonk send this one? > Tired of being an anarchist? Tired of waiting for Jim Bell >to rat you out as being a co-conspirator in his evil plot >to overthrow the government? Tired of standing in front of your >mirror, trying to practice acting surprised when armed forces >from a dozen government agencies kick down your door to announce >that someone nuked D.C., and they'd like to "ask you a few >questions?" If someone nuked D.C., most of those bastards would probably be dead. Then again... they propably have em stuffed in capsules, to be opened when communication is lost with Washington D.C. Millions of theses bastards!!!! All located on the surface of Uranus. Upon losing the signal with D.C., they'll fly to Earth, to once again enslave the free. What's the solution???!!!??? We must send all our nuclear arsenals to the surface of Uranus, and set them off, ONLY THEN WILL WE BE SAFE!!! >Peter Trei: > "Hi. I used to be a boring guy. I was so boring that none of the >assholes on the list even bothered insulting me, or forging posts in >my name. > "Then one day, my life suddenly changed. Someone forged a post to >the list in my name, and it was exciting. It was like getting robbed >at gunpoint. What a rush! Heheheh >Kent Crispin: > "This isn't Peter's conspiracy, its MINE! I mean, get real, I >work in a secret underground lavoratory as a government shill. > "Think about it. Who would you expect to conspire against a >bunch of anarchists...the government! You all know how much I >love the government and authority. I'm Louis Freeh's secret >lover. Janet Reno is going to have my baby. > "It's me! *I* am the one behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST >THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. I'm a STATIST, for God's sake, why won't >you believe me? > "Because I'm not one of the elitist 'chosen?' Fuck you." Heheh, well, at least they got Kent summed up in 3 paragraphs. >TruthMonger: > "Now Hettinga is stealing Tim May's lines. What the hell is >going on, here? Has *everybody* on this list gone crazy? > "*I* am the one who is *really* behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY >AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. Think about it. Everyone knows >that I'm a 33rd degree Mason. No...that's Tim May. > "Fuck this shit. From now on, I'm posting as Toto." heheh > There is no conspiracy by a secret government to destroy > the Constitution, enslave the people, and rule the world. "Like them new Stealth Helicopters, equipped with devices to drown out the sound." "Dale, where the hell did you hear that!?" "Alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters" > Remember, this is just a normal mailing list with a few list > members who are a little odd. There are no spooks. Except for Kent Crispin. > Waco was just a tragic accident. Ruby Ridge was a simple error > in judgement by a government agent who really feels bad about > following his superiors orders. Heavily armed U.S. Marines are > no match for a goat-herding boy with a .22, and it is only by > the grace of God that they are alive today. Oswald acted alone. Yeah, no one's safe when those god-damn goat herding sniper kids, lucky those good soldiers hit him fast! There is, however, a secret-conspiracy by Paul Pomes to shut down remailers. ConspiracyMonger "Ahhh, look, another mutilated cow." "Musta been them aliens." "Nah, it's them damn black helicopters. Killin' all my friggin livestock."

1 0