December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Prof. Bernstein's appeal brief and two major Amicus briefs online
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The EFF Bernstein Legal web page has been updated to contain: * the appeal brief by Prof. Bernstein * the Amicus ("friend of the court") brief by EPIC, ACLU, CDT, CPSR, Economic Strategy Institute, Free Congress R&E, Human Rights Watch, Independence Institute, ISC2, IMC, ISOC, NAM, Privacy International, USACM, Whit Diffie, Peter Neumann, and Ron Rivest * the Amicus brief by NCSA, RSA, Maynard Anderson, Jim Bidzos, Mark Rasch, Gene Spafford, and Ross Stapleton-Gray. http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/ There are still three more amicus briefs filed with the court, which are not yet on the Web. The Government's reply is due on November 20; we'll provide page images shortly thereafter. The appeal hearing is on December 8 at 9AM at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco. John Gilmore Electronic Frontier Foundation

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the notorious Communications Decency Act. The bill punishes commercial distributors of material that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a $50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the Senate floor. (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material that was "harmful to minors." (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're involved in the commercial distribution of material that's harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David Crane said. But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to Internet providers and online services as well. The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to publish on their web sites "such information as is necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term `material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't have any luck coming up with a definition of obscenity-lite." Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There will be a concerted effort to build a substantial legislative history," says David Crane. This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other concerns," Crane says. -Declan

2 1

Re: Some IDIOT called CRYPTO CZAR INTERNATIONAL
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, VME Encryption wrote: > p.s. - I wonder if you know what's the source of all the bad rep we've got > - nobody knows us and we never posted anything on your forum, so what the > heck ? Exactly. You have not posted the source code to your allegedly secure crypto algorithm, so every serious cryptographer will laugh at you. Without independent verification, and lots of it, the only people who will consider your product are lobotomized IT departments. We've never heard of you before; we don't even know who your developers are, so we can only assume they haven't "done their homework." In essence: you have now been branded as complete morons. The only way to avoid having to leave the country is to make the complete source for your crypto available on your website in the next 24 hours. Noncompliance will lead to your mysterious reciept of a suitcase, followed shortly by the mysterious disappearance of a large portion of your city. AlgorithmMonger

1 0

Re: SET
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:18 AM 11/12/97 -0800, Jeremey Barrett you wrote: >Robert Hettinga writes: > > > > Unfortunately, I think that no MIS manager will get fired for using SET, and > > it'll take a serious demonstration of a security breach before people will > > listen to anything else. At least until someone demonstrates a transaction > > protocol which is, say 3 orders of magnitude cheaper... > >Perhaps... OTOH, SET is SO bad that it will be impossible to deploy, >probably forcing everyone away from it anyway. Having spent the last ten years at this retail outfit, I can assure you that "impossible to deploy" != "won't be deployed". If Mastercard tells us that they will jack our rates by 0.5% for every transaction processed without SET, then management will demand SET be rolled out. Function be damned, security be damned, as long as some bookkeeper somewhere is satisfied that SET happens, then we avoid a huge rate increase. If the security of SET is questioned in the trade rags, our management's approach will be to assume that Mastercard will fix it in the future, but roll it out now anyway. OTOH, it's obvious (even to them) that SET couldn't possibly be any *less* secure than current authorizing techniques. *Sigh*. Look for copyrighted swirly red/orange logos to appear on retailer's doors' soon: "SET(tm) Transaction Processing -- It's safe to use your Mastercard here" John, who will get dragged into implementing it. Got any suggestions? -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:05 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: > >By the way, my signature contains an ascii art rendition of an adult >about to have sex with a child. I believe that (i) it appeals to a >prurient interest in sex; (ii) it depicts, in a patently offensive way, >a simulated sexual act; and (iii) lacks any value whatsoever. > >Now all I need to do is put it up on a web page on a for-profit company. > More to the point, since Deja News will bring it up if you post to Usenet with it, they become 'porn distributors'.

2 1

Re: Scared of US; Where to relocate?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > It has become very clear to me over the past few years that amerika > is headed for some pretty rough times, and I've decided to leave before > it becomes illegal for me to do so. The only question is, where to? Comet CypherPunk Bop-Shoo-Bop will be approaching close to earth in late 1999 to drop off Jesus and pick up the CypherPunks. We're meeting at Tim's place. {Anyone who makes it to the pick-up site get's a T-shirt that says, "Darwin was right!"} Do[n't]

1 0

Incoming!!!
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:: Anon-To: whitehouse.gov Andy Dustman wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Robert A. Costner wrote: > > At 10:05 AM 11/12/97 -0500, Andy Dustman wrote: > > >FYI, here is the list of things blocked at cracker: ... > > >Addresses: whitehouse.gov (ONLY address in .gov domain). > > Anonymous political speech is one the most highly protected forms of > > constitutional speech. I think that whitehouse.gov should be unblocked. > Well, I agree, and since it's your ass, it's done. Dear Bad BillyC, Realizing that a plethora of death-threats were undoubtedly sent your way through the Georgia Cracker remailer even before the ink on Andy's computer screen had dried (only two of them were from me--I'm beginning to like you), I thought I would dash off a quick note to you, hopefully arriving before you send the National Park Janitors SWAT Team out to Bob and Andy's cities of residence in order to raze them to the ground. Outwardly, I am a fool and a cynic, but inwardly, I am a fool and a secret believer in Truth, Democracy and the American Way (TM). (God, the Flag, Mom's Apple Pie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"...) Although I am a member of a CryptoAnarchist non-organization which requires all of its non-members to have "NUKE DC" tattooed on their foreheads in invisible ink (paranoid enough , nonetheless. to make certain it is covered by our cleverly designed aluminum foil hats), I still have a small ember of hope burning deep inside that perhaps there is still someone within the belly of the Great Beast (that consumes the souls of all elected officials) who remains capable of reading the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, and saying, "My God, what have we done!" The Anonymous Remailers are a public service provided by those who believe that "_mostly_ free speech" =/= "free speech." The anonymous remailer operators are willing to risk abuse, loss of ISP service, prosecution, and a host of other headaches in order to provide a mechanism by which those who fear retribution for speaking freely can raise their voice anonymously, just as our country's founding fathers did. No matter how eloquent the speech of those who claim that words spoken by free men must be stifled if they are 'dangerous' to the goals of democracy, national security, etc., the fact remains that if the citizens are not allowed full freedom of speech, then there is no democracy to defend, and no nation worth securing. Nothing personal, but if you have your hand resting on the Big Red Button and still feel the need to call out the militia every time someone tells you to "Beware the Ides of March.", then maybe you ought to lift weights, or something, and see if you can't raise your level of confidence in your physical security. Has no one in DC ever heard the phrase, "Sticks and stones will break my bones...?" Never seen Kato, in "The Pink Panther?" Personally, I think that you should institute National Death Threat Week, where everyone is encouraged to send death threats in one form or another to their legislative representatives, employers, workers, family, neighbors, et al. Why? Because I don't believe that the first indication of a 'problem' should be seeing the muzzle flash and, if one is lucky, hearing the shot. The Founding Fathers did not write the Constitution 'off the cuff.' They did not fail to consider someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. They were aware of the existence of words such as "nigger" and "cocksucker." Yet they still wrote that the right to free speech should not be abridged. Figure it out... What has democracy come to when quoting those who wrote our country's defining documents has become a cause for being labeled a fanatic, radical terrorist/pedophile/drug-dealer (and a Horseman To Be Named Later)? Why does it take me half a day to find copies of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence when searching government web sites, but only a few minutes to find by searching the sites of those declared by the government to be guilty of uttering 'dangerous' free speech? I know that it can be just as thankless being President as it can being an anonymous remailer operator, so you, above all, should recognize that they are trying to keep the alligators off their ass while still remembering to drain the swamp. I have no doubt that there are several hundred laws that you or others could use to force the Georgia Cracker remailer operators to block anonymous email to whitehouse.gov, but I hope that you realize the value, in your position, of having at least one forum where people can communicate with you at a level that goes beyond ass kissing, fear of retribution, etc. My final offering of wisdom: Have "NUKE DC!" tattooed on your forehead. I have no doubt that this would create a groundswell of popular support for you that would result in the citizens storming Congress to have you declared "President For Life." Then you could have some *real* fun, without worrying about political fallout. ("Did I say 'inhale'? I meant 'exhale'! Hee...hee...") Your pal, TruthMonger "It's not FUD until *I* say it's FUD!"

1 0

Info
by Wu Tang 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have comments, used, or know the strength of George Barwoods' Elliptic Curve Cryptosystem "Pegwit" at http://ds.dial.pipex.com/george.barwood/v8/pegwit.htm ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re:
by AJD013187＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Virtual Girlfriend and Virtual Boyfriend are artificial intelligence programs for your IBM PC or compatible and also for MACINTOSH. You can watch them, talk to them, ask them questions, tell them secrets, and relate with them. Watch them as you ask them to take off different clothes and guide them through many different activities. Watch and participate in the hottest sexual activities available on computer, including: several sexual positions, using many unique toys, even bringing in multiple partners. This is no doubt one of the most realistic, sexually stimulating computer games available. They will remember your name, birthday, your likes and your dislikes. Every time you start the program, they say different things, and act differently. Each time, they have a different personality. With the VGA digital graphics, The Virtual Girlfriend and Virtual Boyfriend software have some of the hottest, sexiest graphics out there. And with a Soundblaster or compatible card, you can actually hear their voice as they talk to you. This is the first adult software title that was designed for both heterosexual and homosexual people. I would like you to try the actual full copy out before it is put on the market. It will be sold for 1/5 of the actual price ($10.00) until I can get back some information on what people think of the program. Please give it a try and write back any comments. Thank you. If you are interested and would like to order a copy, then you can read the mailing instructions below. It comes in an unmarked package and is sent out at most 4 days after the order is received. You are not put on any mailing lists whatsoever, guaranteed. It will run on any 386, 486 or higher, and 100% IBM compatibles. Required is VGA graphics, and a hard drive. The sound card is optional. Macintosh requires at least 4 meg of ram. Virtual Girlfriend and Virtual Boyfriend are artificial intelligence programs, meaning they are completely interactive. It would be just like if you were talking to someone. You can actually have simple conversations. Their attitudes change with the different things you say, so you can say things that will upset them, and then say things that will please them. The more you play/talk with them, the more you learn what they can do, and what they like to do. It really is a blast. With all these movies coming out about virtual reality, it's amazing to actually have a virtual reality program like this for your own computer. It's easy to install, and instructions are easy to follow. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special Software Offer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is to inform you about the new adult game that VCS Magazine rated "The best game of "97". "The Search for Paradise is no doubt one of the greatest XXX adult games available". The first games where it is as much fun as it is a turn on! Travel the world to every continent, every country you can think of, and meet some of the most beautiful women in existence. These women will treat you like a king and obey your every command. Any sexual wish you can think of, these women know it all. There is a different paradise for every guy out there, and this game will have them all. This game uses real models, digital video, and digital sound to make it as realistic as possible. You will feel like you're in the same room as the girl you're talking to!!! As an added bonus you'll receive "Club Celebrity X" Meet, talk to and even have your way with the celebrities of your choice. Imagine being in a club with some very beautiful, well known, actual celebrities! You have seen these girls on T.V., Magazines and billboard ads. Now they are on your computer begging for action. This game is hot and once you start playing, you won't be able to stop!!! ~Required: 386 or better, 4 meg ram or better, Windows 3.1 or higher (Win95 is fine), sound card is optional, Rom is optional. (Game is given either CD-rom or compressed 3.5" diskettes).~~$19.95! Order now and get everything for just $24.95!!!! At your request, the programs can come with a password protection utility that only allows the program to run when the correct password is entered. (You must be 18 or over to purchase) Please fill out the following form and mail it to the address above. (Feel free to write out the order form by hand) Questions? Email us at: Virtualfriends4(a)hotmail.com - Send to: Mark Wrhel P.O. Box 0118 Tujunga, Ca. 91043 Your Name ___________________________________________ Date ____________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City ____________________________ State __________ Zip Code ______________ Phone# _____________________ E-mail Address ___________________________ Do you have an IBM ( ) or MAC ( )? CD rom ( ) or Disks ( )? ( ) Virtual Girdfriend or ( ) Boyfriend for $10.00 ( ) *both just $15.95 ( ) The Search for Paradise and Club Celebrity X for $19.95 ( ) Everything!!! The Search for Paradise, Club Celebrity X, Virtual Girlfriend and Virtual Boyfriend. >>>>All for just $24.95<<<<

1 0

Scared of US; Where to relocate?
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It has become very clear to me over the past few years that amerika >is headed for some pretty rough times, and I've decided to leave before >it becomes illegal for me to do so. The only question is, where to? Lagrange 5 and Mars are good choices. The near side of the Earth moon doesn't qualify and neither does Earth orbit since it's so easy to shoot you down.

1 0

In Burma, the Internet is access to democracy, from Newsday
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A very nice piece in Newsday. My writeup of my visit to Burma a year ago is at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,475,00.html Because of roadblocks, I had to hike across fields and through villages to get to the site of the sole Burmese Net-connection at a local university. It was set to become operational in spring 1997. I also heard of unconfirmed reports that the military had a Net-connection through a friendly nearby country, probably Singapore. (Perhaps to monitor soc.culture.burma or somesuch.) BTW, the best mailing list on Burma news I've found is burmanews-l(a)igc.apc.org. I also hid my interview notes in the bottom of my bag. I made an extra copy of the crucial ones and put the paper in my wallet, just in case. -Declan ************* Newsday (New York, NY) November 12, 1997 LIFE IN CYBERSPACE / FOR MANY, THE INTERNET IS ACCESS TO DEMOCRACY By Matthew McAllester RANGOON, Burma THE MAN LEANED across the table and spoke so quietly that no one but the two of us could hear. His eyes moved from side to side, scanning the restaurant and the street outside for possible informers or military intelligence agents. That's the way people communicate in Burma when they're talking with a foreigner about something that could land them in prison for several years. "You know what?" the man said. "I got e-mail." "You can't have," I said. For several reasons I knew he had to be telling me a tall story. For a start, it's illegal to access the Internet in Burma. It's illegal to own an unlicensed fax machine or modem. A few years ago a supporter of the largest pro-democracy party in Burma died in prison, where he'd been sent because he did not have a license for his fax machine. Besides, no one has e-mail or Internet access in Burma except for a select few business owners who are friendly with the military regime that rules the country. Diplomats at a few foreign embassies also acknowledge that they have Net access and e-mail despite the Burmese government's restrictions. Even then, they say their e-mail is intercepted and read by the Burmese authorities. This is a country where reporters have to visit in the guise of tourists, which is how I traveled in September and October. In Burma, all international calls are listened to by the operator and, the Burmese people assume, by military intelligence. When I wanted to make a call to the United States, the receptionist at my hotel told me it would cost $35 for five minutes if I wanted to dial direct. I opted for the storefront down the road, where I sat for 30 minutes waiting for a connection. When I got through to my friend, I was less than chatty about what I'd been up to. So how could the man I was talking to across the table possibly have navigated these political and technological barriers to get e-mail? "No, I do. I got it," he said. The man smiled. He's a fixer. A small business owner. People come to him for help. He's thinking of offering people access to his Net account - for a price. Most of all, he looks out for himself, keeping on the right side of the military authorities but not showing them the fear they are so used to seeing in the faces of Burmese people. "I dial out anywhere I can," he said. "My account is in Australia, but I'll use a server from anywhere. Anywhere." For the sake of communicating with the outside world, the man was prepared to risk prison. I've written before about how a good number of governments around the world restrict or ban Internet access to their citizens. Free-speech advocates told me how some governments fear the spread of anti-government information and opinions that dissent from the official line. The advocates told me how democratizing the Internet is by its nature. But being told and seeing with one's own eyes is a very different experience. After a couple of weeks viewing how the military government's system of informers and control of information contributed to its firm grip on power, I could understand why it has banned the Net. The Net's speed and resistance to control would be an unstoppable force in organizing opposition to the military regime. "What would happen if you had Net access?" I asked another Burmese man, who spoke in a whisper even when he was alone at home. "The government, it would be over," he said. "We could share information." Information and open communication in an oppressive state like Burma are invaluable tools in fighting the status quo. I spent some time one evening in Rangoon with U Tin Oo, a former general in the Burmese army and now a senior leader of the National League for Democracy, the largest pro-democracy party. All told, he's spent nine years in prison for his political activities. As we spoke, the phone often rang. Delegates to the party conference that weekend were en route to Rangoon, and they called Tin Oo to discuss the event. The conversations were superficial. "They tap my phone always," Tin Oo explained. When I left I had to take two taxis and walk among crowds in downtown Rangoon to shake the military intelligence officials that a pro-democracy contact had said would follow me. I worried about my own information, my notes. I longed to be able to turn them into ones and zeroes and e-mail them home. Instead, I hid them at the bottom of my backpack. A couple of weeks later I was in Thailand, interviewing Burmese dissidents and refugees who have fled the Burmese government. Working with them in the north of Thailand are several westerners who work as human-rights campaigners, doctors and advocates for the refugees. E-mail is an important tool in their work, as it helps them coordinate with people outside Thailand. One woman collects every story she can find about Burma into the BurmaNet News e-mail newsletter. BurmaNet News is delivered to the e-mail boxes of hundreds of journalists, activists and government officials around the world. It's precisely the kind of democratizing spread of information that the Burmese people are denied. But even in Thailand there are problems. The human-rights advocates and health workers use encryption when communicating online. "They read all our e-mail," said an Australian doctor, referring to the Thai authorities. The Thai government maintains diplomatic relations with the Burmese government, a pariah regime to many other democracies. "The other day I tried to get my e-mail and my password had been changed."

1 0

Re: Selling a Persistent Identity
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Amad3us wrote: >Try this Monty: > >The new owner of the Monty persona is defined to be the first public >key which is signed by Monty's private key and posted to this forum. > >So the buyer sends Monty a public key, and Monty signs it and posts >it to the list. (Optionally via a trusted third party to ensure fair >play. There is a race condition in the making there but it's not too >bad, we could fix it if we were bothered.) > >So Monty can cheat and post one he signed earlier selling to a >different key, but we will ignore those because we base it on first >posted. > >Buyers will no longer be interested in buying Monty's persona after >they have seen it sold, because they know it is no longer his. > >The person who buys Monty's persona could resell it. Using the same >protocol. This arrangement has analogs in the real world. When a doctor sells his practice, the patients are all notified. But, I think there are some True Name issues. The doctor tends to assure the patients that he has carefully selected the new doctor. People know the doctor and as a consequence tend to believe him. This isn't really true of an anonymous persistent identity. Let's say it was doing a significant amount of business. If you knew that its ownership had changed, you might hesitate before doing a deal which had a lot of fraud exposure. On the other hand, the purchaser of the identity has an investment which he may not want to endanger. If the identity cost $1 million and the outstanding deals only amounted to $100,000, fraud would be a bad deal for the owner. One reason why trading anonymous identities is a good idea is that it baffles pursuit. Every time you use one, information is revealed. Even if you are doing things like transmitting 100K to the remailers every hour, from time to time your net connection will go down, or whatever, and increase the odds that The Enemy will have a more accurate picture of your True Name. (This works best if the transaction is handled privately.) But, if the persistent identity starts operating from someplace else, it makes those attacks quite a bit more difficult, especially if there is no public announcement regarding the change of ownership. The transaction makes sense even if two identities of equal value are traded. (BTW, "Monty Cantsin" a.k.a. 0x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is not for sale. After using one persistent identity for awhile, you become emotionally attached to it!) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGn0xJaWtjSmRH/5AQH3tAf/TYxrCZxJj4aUMsiKISjMzNByhwDRjfxN xkbuU4JHTklEbOmwwoz1x8goK8vmibVV35Z7Q8p4mP6fPMACJE8k/sLkMJ+EAW0r pnT8khQM4Vh2wNwpk/6FGxABjt+pIJEDdWmVaz7N5exUS3wfT/kvPelnbvHQrRUW PSjJNWQTCW+GbmVF8/e1In4oPKF+gQtAvdlH6OIjkZCJHyEpT7Bk/xKlRJlYsMC+ /UixmqhE1VsuZp3u5UjGI1zJMh96u8gzzJmYWpeYEV7mx+S5tcYlwzWjdn6EXif2 K9/90eqs+12jGNP0gtpKlL34OYQIINIzezptqodlG+5PcY6PN3NrmQ== =L4es -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Secure Hashing for Entropy
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jon Leonard wrote: >Monty Cantsin wrote: >> Often we have a source of entropy whose output we use as the input to >> a secure hash function. >> >> Does it matter if the hashing function is secure? I don't think so. >> All that really matters is that the function hashes evenly so that any >> input string is about as likely as any other input string to result in >> a particular hash. Even if the hash function is weak and collisions >> can be found, if it is even the same level of entropy is still >> available. >> >> Have I got this right? > >In the case where: >1) Your entropy source is as good as you think it is >2) Your opponent knows nothing about the data from your entropy source >and >3) Your entropy mixes the way you expect it to. > >this is indeed the case. > >If you're not completely sure about the above, using a cryptographic >hash requires your hypothetical opponent to be able to reverse the hash >to exploit what they know, rather than simpler computations. > >Since it seems that paranoia pays off in the design of cryptographic >software, I'd recommend always using a strong hash. Let's say you are using the entropy to create a session key for a symmetric cipher. If The Enemy can guess the session key, you have already lost the game. It doesn't matter if the original entropy-containing string can be guessed because the hash was weak. If your entropy source is weak and the original string can be guessed, then you've lost the game even if the hash function is strong. The Enemy knows how to compute hashes as well as you do. But, I think I now see a way a secure hash can sort of help you. Let's say you have an entropy source which gives you a base 3 number of arbitrary length. There is no even way to map base 3 numbers into base 2 numbers. Use of a hash function obscures the mapping. For example, we want a random 8 bit number. We can get this by generating a 6 digit base 3 number, P, and computing P mod 2^8. This has the unappealing property that it overlaps unevenly. 3^6 = 729 = 2 * 256 + 217. There is an 89.3% chance that the resulting number will be between 0 and 216, inclusive. The probability should be 84.7%. This gives The Enemy an edge if there are a number of messages to be broken. The cost to guarantee a break on a particular message is still the same. The use of a secure hash means that we can hope that the nature of the overlap cannot be determined. The downside is that there are no secure hash functions whose properties are completely understood. All we know for sure is that not much is really known to the public. So, the secure hash function in your crypto system could be reducing your effective entropy substantially if your entropic strings just happen to hash down to a smaller subset of possible hashes than expected. The use of the secure hash function may obscure what is happening from The Enemy. All we know for sure is that it obscures it from ourselves. Ideally, we want to match our sources of entropy with the base of the random number desired and eliminate the question. In the field, the most widely available and reliable entropy generator is a six sided die. If we are using a cipher which takes a base 2 key, this is inconvenient. You can only get one really good bit out of each throw. How hard would to be to construct a secure symmetric cipher which accepted a base 6 key? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGoiSJaWtjSmRH/5AQFzaAf+Jm1wlPlC9obQQLoRoss2qpLv5z900X9Z 2u3NO5eG/W9QQRUWTeqzeXOK3Ps8DYKhYXhgYy35AJy6uRrd5820MUUGULAhr0zH JqfVFU6FUGEgEpZsxxLTAVvU/OPx5g3LqeQJfsp92pOsIoeObhiBh6+1zxNLWHU5 fxSrDJAe9eANeUJ5nXlLBGtGwg9ZfvVw4+OWsLpO3ZsQXp+mke+dvz423WukqaQi VJ1VM+XTRBetRCZIuIcqKoCdkYrB2h/S0KIprp/7lHFOpIZWfo++p87BZm0LQuF5 Suo+NGSMtooCZwLYpPQrlQLtB51An8TjdVfr7k2YkUXpxPLcEp6CEg== =om47 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: FREE PSYCHOANLYSIS NIGHT ON THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST!!!
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >There seems to be an unhealthy desire by some to "armchair >psychoanalyze" the motivations and inner motivations of others. In >recent days, me. (And in the past, too. This recent episode of >moaning about "What makes Tim say the things he does? is not >new...we've seen this script before.) It's not too hard to figure out what is going on here. I don't think there is much question that Tim is the backbone of the list. The collective output of his critics has yet to reach even 10% of his contribution. Of course, writing interesting articles is hard work. It's easier to rain on the parade. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGotXZaWtjSmRH/5AQEQnwf8Dd7JKKKw5ub0ou2nRLgsZs4JKP0J7uHZ 0gZNYq8NBcvflcjak8tCIICFnasksXL8lXkHUN6DYb54LsqxJ8W++hm2r0kLzybt i3JhwfZe8/TURRi+G886OwqvFl0+/ideVXivr72a6Vbt/Uufhf1xEENZncoaFgd+ Plc3u4Huk9nsSQJ9WtjAWclYDuLdLGbJQ9gVYTLo8lszhUYhiSCvBi4EQgQWAipO RDDs8X29Q9R7lw9Q/4ABCKM+uKD8lVpTXFVkV7eTgltFt77fJkzHAecT1BQYWQi/ yYxsnDVKItrfnCgNOn+IssisgQN04k16cRiKdCcdkkkP+6MzDBGA8Q== =Apu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >I mean, Tim, I have to admit I'm just as nervous as the next guy >about being next to soft targets these days, but I almost find myself >agreeing with other people, people you would respect otherwise, who >are saying that you're making yourself the greatest friend that Reno >and Freeh ever had. A vertiable poster boy for statism if there ever >was one. And so on. As Michel Foucault used to say, "The only guarantee of freedom is freedom itself." Put another way, "rights which are not exercised are lost." We don't see Freeh and Reno backing off so they don't become poster children for cryptoanarchy, do we? Just because free speech is a right guaranteed under the Constitution does not mean that is necessarily a safe right to exercise. Let us hope that Tim does not come to harm. But, let us also give him the credit he deserves for having the courage to speak his mind. I've been reading about a newspaper called the "Aurora" which operated in the 1790s from Philadelphia. It made itself very unpopular with Washington by claiming he was not the "Father of the Country". It made itself doubly unpopular with Adams for other less than respectful, but astute, observations. People said exactly the same things that Hettinga is saying here. If they would only behave (i.e., go along with anything), then they wouldn't have to be censored. Even though the editors were attacked and beaten, imprisoned, and charged with Federal crimes, they persevered. It would not be unreasonable to say that Jefferson owed his Presidency to their efforts. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that the Constitution (which failed to protect them) might not have survived without their efforts. A few courageous people doing the right thing at the right time make a big difference. This does not happen by kowtowing to whichever malfeasant tyrant happens to be in power. When you are asked to wear a yellow star, you can be pretty sure that doing so will not save you. Also, let us not pretend that Tim's gun collection is much protection. It may delay capture or raise the price of execution of a no-knock warrant, but if the Powers That Be don't want Tim around, then he's gone. It could be a "lone nut" with a sniper rifle, it could be a "heart attack", it could be a rock star's plane "accidently" hitting the house: there are many ways to take care of troublemakers. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGkzI5aWtjSmRH/5AQHGfwf+P5L2fuDEA5FypnvZn7sfvvFgOwXaAfDn jhfpryY4agB/a8GhAOy0fle4sr7tz913C9tMI9bUVSX0QPygCPayiKg8aa7CDOZn nN9NXcCok6x7+03W8MFeFKSOyTeSboNY2/DRBatoJyQFmCbOSLfnPQBnZUBbxtML JKckdceiTY1S1gAJIkL1CM7eY+Zf/BxG9abyr9gYsj0Fejnv3ajau6544dlJFOH5 Anclg+UgXPR8cyO0G21DMzLoPRywOaDogxAZYXDkc8ehfF7Osa7AvEQqeBbOKOT+ PGv41+bDAgONXa8WCHi3/Ri2dRVTn8mvlSw1ezWwj/7MohTM6V7fUQ== =hCO1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

John Brown
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >> And so on. Throughout history there have been those who spoke their >> mind. And others who told them to cool it, to not anger the local >> prince, to not rock the boat. > >No, Tim. Your analysis is too simple, here. My point is, all John >Brown & Co. did was get shot up one afternoon in Harper's Ferry. They >didn't help the cause of abolition one whit. "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen, pages 167 through 169: "After 1890 textbook authors inferred Brown's madness from his plan, which admittedly was farfetched. Never mind that John Brown himself presciently told Frederick Douglass that the venture would make a stunning impact even if it failed. Nor that his twenty-odd followers can hardly be considered crazed too. Rather, we must recognize that the insanity with which historians have charged John Brown was never psychological. It was ideological. Brown's actions made no sense to textbook writers between 1890 and about 1970. To make no sense is to be crazy. "Clearly, Brown's contemporaries did not consider him insane. Brown's ideological influence in the month before his hanging, and continuing after his death, was immense. He moved the boundary of acceptable thoughts and deeds regarding slavery. Before Harpers Ferry, to be an abolitionist was not quite acceptable, even in the North. Just talking about freeing slaves - advocating immediate emancipation - was behavior at the outer limit of the ideological continuum. By engaging in armed action, including murder, John Brown made mere verbal abolitionism seem much less radical. "After an initial shock wave of revulsion against Brown, in the North as well as in the South, Americans were fascinated to hear what he had to say. In his 1859 trial John Brown captured the attention of the nation like no other abolitionist or slaveowner before or since. He knew it: `My whole life before had not afforded me one half the opportunity to plead for the right.' In his speech to the court on November 2, just before the judge sentenced him to die, Brown argued, `Had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, it would have been all right.' He referred to the Bible, which he saw in the courtroom, `which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further, to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction.' Brown went on to claim the high moral ground: `I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done, in behalf of His despised poor, I did no wrong but right.' Although he objected that his impending death penalty was unjust, he accepted it and pointed to graver injustices. `Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I say, let it be done.' "Brown's willingness to go to the gallows for what he thought was right had a moral force of its own. `It seems as if no man had ever died in America before, for in order to die you must first have lived,' Henry David Thoreau observed in a eulogy in Boston. `These men, in teaching us how to die, have at the same time taught us how to live.' Thoreau went on to compare Brown with Jesus of Nazareth, who had faced a similar death at the hands of the state. "During the rest of November, Brown provided the nation graceful instruction in how to face death. In Larchmont, New York, George Templeton Strong wrote in his diary, `One's faith in anything is terribly shaken by anybody who is ready to go to the gallows condemning and denouncing it.' Brown's letters to his family and friends softened his image, showed his human side, and prompted an outpouring of sympathy for his children and soon-to-be widow, if not for Brown himself. His letters to supporters and remarks to journalists, widely circulated, formed a continuing indictment of slavery. We see his charisma in this letter from `a conservative Christian' - so the author signed it - written to Brown in jail: `While I cannot approve of all your acts, I stand in awe of your position since your capture, and dare not oppose you lest I be found fighting against God; for you speak as one having authority, and seem to be strengthened from on high.' When Virginia executed John Brown on December 2, making him the first American since the founding of the nation to be hanged as a traitor, church bells mourned in cities throughout the North. Louisa May Alcott, William Dean Howells, Herman Melville, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Walt Whitman were among the poets who responded to the event. `The gaze of Europe is fixed at this moment on America,' wrote Victor Hugo from France. Hanging Brown, Hugo predicted, `will open a latent fissure that will finally split the Union asunder. The punishment of John Brown may consolidate slavery in Virginia, but it will certainly shatter the American Democracy. You preserve your shame but kill your glory.' "Brown remained controversial after his death. Republican congressmen kept their distance from his felonious acts. Nevertheless, Southern slaveowners were appalled at the show of Northern sympathy for Brown and resolved to maintain slavery by any means necessary, including quitting the Union if they lost the next election. Brown's charisma in the North, meanwhile, was not spent but only increased due to what many came to view as his martyrdom. As the war came, as thousands of Americans found themselves making the same commitment to face death that John Brown had made, the force of his example took on new relevance. That's why soldiers marched into battle singing `John Brown's Body'. Two years later, church congregations sang Julia Ward Howe's new words to the song: `As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free' - and the identification of John Brown and Jesus Christ took another turn. The next year saw the 54th Massachusetts Colored Regiment parading through Boston to the tune, en route to its heroic destiny with death in South Carolina, while William Lloyd Garrison surveyed the cheering bystanders from a balcony, his hand resting on a bust of John Brown. In February 1865 another Massachusetts colored regiment marched to the tune through the streets of Charleston, South Carolina." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGpBnj7jyGKQlFZpAQEF5wf+Ld2UdeRWbtoYKqptJPbRArQX3xyP7r5t TQuLWdYqHfEmvO4RVbCnsk0qKqFYfRHN1hPRUeaj7Zf8Y3QRghUBn7QkrIPiP6bz TU8N/Jf0RLwMOJq+bl1/BgdT8Ax9FKTMYU/i5Ye6aC9cnMAGmXmx6XTGvrhFhhFM eoyj6dHm91vr5qSJBUMZto1hlXDeSee3RsrnfN8f24hagEEIppHsYFz8kKZQ/5I5 aHWewMZTYI4H6mSbmj51mXzTrhmGfxEK+qx8GIevh4zuF6uZ7/CvO2czERuIIMIO oJOICZQlDYsx8dgGHxGpmpGM/jkLeQjCngv7moQ0Kjd0KoVe84DDhw== =ESwB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

RE: Bell vs. Woodward--ju
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> As for Australia, your countrymen acted like sheep in giving In> up their guns. If they try that kind of shit here in this In> country, a *lot* of cops are going to get killed. Hmm, I somewhat doubt that. After all, restricting guns more and more has also been happening in the US for quite a while now and overall resistance has been rather minimal. While there may be a few, who'd actually take up guns "in the defense of liberty" the gross majority of Americans seems just as "sheepish" as people anywhere else. Too many hours of watching (the good) "Cops" has left an imprint in many minds... Granted, America does have a constitution establishing civil rights for it's citizens, but America is also the country (among others) of "But I have nothing to hide" and "If it just saves one child"... In> (Not necessarily by me, though I'll defend my property and my In> constitutional rights as best I can. But the militia and In> patriot and anti-New World Order movements are preparing for In> war.) "Defending my property" is probably one of the more clear situations, where it is fairly easy to make a judgement call, and I support having the choice over necessary actions to take, if your property gets forcefully invaded by whomever and your personal freedom is being threatened. But on a more general basis things tend to become more complicated, IMHO. What if it's somebody else's liberty being taken? How many people would then take up arms (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, Roby/Ill. etc.)? It is much harder then to decide, if it's time for action or not. Especially because of pre-filtered information, that make it hard to base such a decision on "available" facts. When Reuters reported about the Shirley Allen Siege, in the first line they mentioned her to be "mentally disturbed" (implying for many, that the police-action was justified and correct in order "to save her"). People not immediately within the vicinity will have a hard time to decide, if the media-information is correct and subsequently, if "the war has now begun". (In Shirley Allens case, her fellow neighbors _did_ protest the police-action because they _knew better_, but people further away had other information and thus no incentive to defend her in any way.) The same happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge etc.etc., even with Jim Bell to a degree. Thus the .gov is able to pick us off one by one and I doubt, that a lot of "cops are going to get killed" because of it. It'd be rather interesting to devise a "Cypherpunks-911" system, that immediately provides others all over the country/world with necessary information, if something happens, and more importantly, _what_ happens (before the media faithfully recites the police-stories of "what happened") Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... "Use a Cipher - Be Free!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNGiG/zltEBIEF0MBAQGlIQf9HfcmkDmcx2uSq1s97lGpWsqGycUYgZN6 qbUTG1NhxRiKTvnGgB+5L7ki2kVF3BR89V7I02pDKZYo3cAHakO5hKmp1bVsWcIU FQhnRINsdLERVTQOdOVvcxUg5iHnPuEl1FQtRPP93051AWZeals+CDW4UrIAOycD /RS7TRc/tn4TaFR2ZSIj9sDd2Q/51hUYuoFKMPhX121lCCYr8SjDYVb9fGRY92pb 9wUqO+gWtxqMl/lPPf2SFrfR3QOXFRe9dQ5IPsyC9SOQQMLxdUuBWwx9fKyK7JlQ BdIoFqHhxMDH3l9sDRqQVlyrAZ38dYe31i3+RwTJcyissbT+tGrdBQ== =3NTr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

SWAT: A Growth Industry
by Dan Veeneman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

US News & World Report 11/17/97 Everyone gets into the terrorism game Too many SWAT teams spells confusion BY DAVID E. KAPLAN In 1995, Bill Clinton signed a presidential directive stating that the nation has "no higher priority" than stopping terrorists who have weapons of mass destruction. Congress responded with new laws and allocated more than a billion dollars in support. The result has been an extraordinary proliferation of counterterrorism programs, making this one of the few areas of rapid growth in the federal budget. But in the rush to respond, say critics, government agencies have failed to coordinate their efforts, and no one is even tracking how much taxpayer money is being spent. According to a September report by the General Accounting Office, more than 40 federal agencies have roles in combating terrorism. All of them appear eager to gobble up the new funding. Among the big winners is the Pentagon, which is getting $52 million to train local officials to cope with chemical, nuclear, and biological attacks. Other agencies have set up units inspired by NEST, the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Search Team, begun in the 1970s to thwart nuclear extortionists. The FBI has added DEST, its new Domestic Emergency Support Team, and the State Department now runs FEST, the Foreign Emergency Support Team. The Public Health Service is busily planning MMSTs, or Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams, for 100 cities. And on Energy Department drawing boards are plans for BEST, a Biological Emergency Search Team, and CEST, its chemical counterpart. (Critics contend that the Energy Department lacks both expertise and a mandate to deal with biological and chemical weapons, but that has not stopped it from seeking funds.) And if an emergency is big enough, one can always call in the Marines, who have formed their own $10 million Chemical Biological Incident Response Force. Among the biggest beneficiaries is the FBI, which has seen its counterterrorism budget nearly triple to $243 million since 1994. Bureau officials vow to "double the shoe leather" of agents working on chemical and biological terrorism and are outfitting their elite Hostage Rescue Team with $3.3 million worth of gas masks and protection suits. The bureau also wants to build a multimillion-dollar Level 3 biolab, a tightly sealed facility that would permit work with many of the world's deadliest pathogens. Some experts note that the Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already have more than a dozen Level 3 labs; the bureau says it can best conduct forensic investigations in its own facility. The private sector is cashing in as well. Contractors are arranging much of the Pentagon's $52 million local training program, while millions more are available for research and development. "It's the latest gravy train for consultants," says Larry Johnson, a terrorism consultant. Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are needed. For example, they agree that the training of local emergency workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue. The problem, they say, is that the various programs have grown so quickly that coordination and oversight have yet to catch up. A classified study this year for the CIA and Energy Department calls for a national response program to deal with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, directed by the White House. "The system is not well organized at all," says former CIA head James Woolsey, one of the study group's co-chairs. One sign of the lack of oversight can be seen at the Office of Management and Budget, the White House agency charged with managing the federal budget. An OMB guide lists over 600 areas of specialization by the agency's staff, including entries for Micronesia and marine mammals. Yet nowhere is there an analyst tracking the budget for counterterrorism, a national security priority. "It's not something we have a hard number for," says an OMB analyst. The rapid expansion of programs--likely to cost billions of dollars overall--has left some observers dismayed. "It was not our intent to create this thing," says John Sopko, who as deputy chief counsel to Sen. Sam Nunn played a key role in drafting legislation to respond to the new terrorism. "We did not want a massive entitlement program for counterterrorism." -- cypherp(a)decode.com (Dan Veeneman) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX

1 0

Mad as Hell
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several swirling themes here.... * More versions of the CDA...which the Supreme Court may let stand. (Cf. my comments about "death by a thousand cuts" and the Constitution, which is being "exceptioned" and "reinterpreted" into oblivion.) * Crypto legislation is far from dead...it is just dormant right now. * Game theoretically, Congress and the other bureaucrats win by expanding the number and scope of laws. There is little constituency for lessening the number and scope of laws, despite public opinion. * Anti-militia rhetoric continues, with politicians saying militias must be reigned in. (See misc.activism.militia for many examples.) * The U.N. is trying to get the U.S. to "ban racism." Meaning, ban free choice in whom one hires (already the case with Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, despite what this means for freedom of association). Meaning, place even more limits on free speech. Meaning, pass laws against certain organizations. (If Paladin is upheld, expect more use of the civil law system to put various clubs and organizations out of business.) * And so it goes. More laws, more prisons, more pressure points on us all. But the public is getting fed up. Here in my state of California we decisively shot down the use of hiring quotas and admissions quotas based on race. And the courts have upheld this. The free ride for unqualified minorities and "people of color" is over, at least here in California. (And a dozen or so other states are considering similar moves.) Right-wing talk show hosts are more popular than ever. Here's just the latest example, in the article below. The article makes some good points. Note especially the part about the murder of Donald Scott, the guy murdered in his bedroom by BATFag agents. No doubt Bob Hettinga thinks my mention of this case is dangerous, that good little bunny rabbits don't make Big Brother angry. Well, I will say what I said before: the BATF and LA County Sheriffs responsible and involved in this case should be tried in a criminal court, should be convicted (based on what I have seen), and they should then be sentenced to die in the gas chamber at San Quentin. This is, after all, what they do to gang bangers who shoot up liquor stores. Cops should face execution. In this case, a mass execution of the dozen raiding officers would send a strong message to other cops.) Here's the item: Hollywood Producer Says "Enough Is Enough! AARON RUSSO IS MAD AS HELL Aaron Russo, the Hollywood producer who produced The Rose with Bette Midler and Trading Places with Eddie Murphy is now on a crusade to wake up Americans to the wholesale assault on their liberties being launched by governments at every level. "America is becoming a totalitarian police state!" thunders Aaron Russo as he paces back and forth across the stage of the colorful "Mad As Hell" TV talk show set. He's not at all happy with the sinister turn that America has taken in recent years and, like the name of the new show, he is "Mad as Hell." But he's determined to do something about it and that is what "Mad As Hell" is all about. A pilot for the show, including the above scene, is being aggressively marketed to the networks and cable channels. Preview showings of the show have drawn full houses in Las Vegas and Los Angeles and Russo's angry outbreaks have provoked wild, enthusiastic response wherever he goes. It appears that Russo isn't the only one who's "Mad as Hell." The theme of the first pilot, which was sent to ISIL staff for evaluation, featured interviews and vignettes with Frances Plante Scott; Brenda Grantland president of FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers Americans' Rights), and Judy Osburn, herself a victim of civil forfeiture and author of the book Spectre of Forfeiture. Frances Plante Scott told of her chilling ordeal with Park Service officials attempting to seize their ranch and of the SWAT team raid in which her husband, Donald Scott, was shot to death by trigger-happy police. Ventura and Los Angeles County Sheriffs, D.E.A. and the Park Service were all vying to get a piece of the action and seize the valuable property using trumped up marijuana charges (there was no marijuana as if it mattered). Following this event, Ms. Scott's ranch house was burned in the Malibu firestorm and later was subjected to punitive harassment by the IRS. Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown with the federal government. At this point in time 22 states have emulated Duke by passing the resolution in their states. Duke, incidentally, is scheduled as a speaker at the ISIL world conference this August (see our conference web page). The video ends with an eloquent statement on modern slavery by Rod Taylor. In mid-June, ISIL pres. Vince Miller, Exec. VP Jim Elwood, and Board Member Jarret Wollstein had a meeting with Aaron Russo to discuss the terrible dangers facing America today. We all agreed that a majority of people have been kept almost completely in the dark regarding the massive abuses of police power in this country. I remembered the joke about how the govenment must think we are all mushrooms because they seem to enjoy keeping us in the dark and feeding us horseshit. "How could they know," I exclaimed. "The national media is as controlled as Pravda in the old Soviet Union." Any real news is scrupulously excised from national news sources and the waves of government propaganda are so pervasive that even some of our own members believe the government line in spite of themselves and think we have lost our marbles. We agreed that there must be a vehicle for a wake-up-call and Russo's new program could be the ticket. Russo also talked of establishing, with the assistance of ISIL, a massive early-warning fax network to warn citizens of dangerous legislation about to be passed. He has also created an action manual with the phone and fax numbers of Members of Congress so that you will know at whom to vent your wrath With ISIL's world wide communications network computer, fax, phone plus a network of correspondents we will be able to feed the data and expose abuses of power before they get off the ground. A merchandise line with caps, t-shirts with the blazing "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. Stay tuned for more developments in fuure issues of the FNN. FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS International Society for Individual Liberty - The World's Foremost Liberty Network Editor: Vincent H. Miller * Assistant Editors: James R. Elwood * Tim Starr * Anton Sherwood * Mark Valverde * June/July 1996

3 3

Re: FC: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Marc Rotenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Danny - Since you have associated EPIC's position on the White "compromise" with CDT's, I feel some obligation to correct the record. We did not, as you recall, support that bill which included the harmful to minor standard because we believed it was contrary to generally accepted First Amendment standards. CDT supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of the conference committee who did not endorse it. (I'd be happy to dig out the news reports on this point if there is any question). The Court's opinion in Reno v. ACLU seems to support our position. I do not think the White bill that you supported would have survived a Constitutional challenge. I wish to make a second point also. You accused Declan of mischaracterizing CDT's position on the White legislation. I'm still not clear exactly what he got wrong. But you have surely mischaracterized Larry Lessig's position in suggesting that he supports passage of new legislation. The O'Connor opinion, which by the way is a concurrence and not a dissent, relies on an article by Lessig in which he observes that restrictions have been upheld where procedures are established to segregate (zone) adult content. Thus the so-called Ginsburg statute. I read Larry's analysis and his subsequent commentary more as a warning than a recommendation. Establish such zones and content-based controls become permissible. Thus O'Connor's opinion seems to suggest that labels used to distinguish content based not on traditional library classifications (history, literature, etc) but on whether such information is suitable for minors would make it easier to permit regulation. I am not particularly interested in a lengthy back and forth on this topic. I do think it is important to set the record straight on EPIC and CDTs views on the White bill. We did not agree then. You cannot change that now. I also think you should think a little more carefully about whether the rating systems you promote will make it easier for a CDA II to survive a Constitutional challenge. Regards, Marc. At 12:05 AM -0000 11/13/97, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: >Declan, > >It's kind of you to get the word out about this new Coats bill, but you >have managed to seriously mischaracterize CDT's position on the White >legislation of 1995. We did not believe that Congress should have passed >the White Compromise, and certaily never "embraced" it, as you write. >Based on my initial reading of the Coats bill, we will certainly oppose it. > >The Coats bill, with it's emphasis on age verification as a means to >"protect" kids and provide online publishers with liability limitation, is >actually a direct result of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the >CDA case and her desire to try to "zone" cyberspace. Following Larry >Lessig, she suggests that instead of relying on individually-controlled >blocking and filtering software, it is better for the government to require >that certain content be placed behind age verification firewalls. Prof. >Lessig prefers this zoning to what you have characterized as "censorware." >I hope that you, as an opponent of user empowerment filtering tools like >Larry, do not prefer this O'Connor/Lessig approach too? > >I can't remember whether you were actually around in 1995, either as >journalist or activist, so let me remind you of what we and other civil >liberties advocates like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said. > >In the New York Times (12/2/95, p.A1) > > "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in >a way >that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard," said Jerry >Berman, director of the Center of Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group >that focuses on civil rights and technology issues. > >and Jerry went on to say: > >"I don't think we need any legislation at all." > >Marc seemed to take a similar position: > >"It is preferable to the Exon bill, but ultimately this issue will be >resolved in the courts, which is where it should be resolved," said Marc >Rotenberg.... > >Both CDT and EPIC recognized that as a plain matter of constitional law, >the "harmful to minor" standard is more broadly accepted by courts around >the country, but that the legislation was still an unwise infringement on >Internet speech. > >We still believe that. > >We can certainly have a discussion about the various legislative strategies >employed during the final days of the CDA debate and House-Senate >conference, but frankly I think there's more important work to do. > >I hope that future discussions on this list can focus on how to defeat >misguided efforts like the Coats bill, instead of misleading >characterization of the past. > >Finally, Declan, I would suggest that when you want to characterize CDT >positions you talk to someone at CDT, or at least find some documentation >of your assertions. I know that you recognize you have an obligation as a >journalist to check facts and sources with some care. That sort of care >would also help in discussions among activists. I'm never exactly sure >whether you think of yourself as a journalist or activist when writing to >FC, but whichever it is, I hope you'll try to avoid this confusion in the >future by talking to us. > >At 5:01 PM -0500 11/12/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >>censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >>notorious Communications Decency Act. >> >>The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >>that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >>$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >>web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. >> >>Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. >>Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original >>CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's >>unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I >>have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my >>colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the >>parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the >>Senate floor. >> (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) >> >>Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not >>as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that >>Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and >>Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. >>Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material >>that was "harmful to minors." >> (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) >> >>A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult >>pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're >>involved in the commercial distribution of material that's >>harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put >>it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David >>Crane said. >> >>But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. >>Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes >>any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without >>redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or >>bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. >> >>Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is >>engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of >>material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to >>Internet providers and online services as well. >> >>The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to >>publish on their web sites "such information as is >>necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term >>`material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a >>lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court >>struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of >>obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is >>obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't >>have any luck coming up with a definition of >>obscenity-lite." >> >>Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce >>Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for >>Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the >>hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. >> >>Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward >>his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges >>criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original >>CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There >>will be a concerted effort to build a substantial >>legislative history," says David Crane. >> >>This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in >>cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come >>forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other >>concerns," Crane says. >> >>-Declan >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send >>"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. >>More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ > > >============================================================================ >* Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * > Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt > > ------------- > >Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Director <djw(a)cdt.org> >Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.9800 (v) >1634 Eye St., NW Suite 1100 202-637.0968 (f) >Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org/ > ================================================================== 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

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Danny, Trying to deny that CDT supported the White harmful to minors "compromise" is a sad attempt at history revisionism. As Marc Rotenberg said, "CDT supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of the conference committee who did not endorse it." Which is of course true. After the vote you lost on the harmful to minors "compromise": -- Comm Daily reported: Jerry Berman, exec. dir. of Center for Democracy & Technology, which had tried to forge compromise on issue, said he had been betrayed "by liberal Democrats, who are supposed to be protectors of the Constitution. -- IISR reported: Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, called the [vote on the] White proposal "a significant defeat for civil liberties in cyberspace. -- EETimes reported: "The House came within an inch of getting it right," says Jerry Berman, Center for Democracy and Technology. Either the world's population of journalists are in a vast clandestine conspiracy to misrepresent your organization's position or ... CDT (gasp!) did in fact embrace the HTM so-called compromise. You must remember, after all, that CDT declined to sign a December 5, 1995 coalition letter that told Congress to "to reject *all* proposals to impose new government censorship regulations on cyberspace." Why didn't you sign it? (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) Instead, as I recall, CDT was up on stage with the anti-porn advocates to unveil the "compromise." (I admit my memory's fuzzy on this point. I'm sure you'll clarify.) Where was I then? When the news of the "compromise" broke in December 1995, I was in Cambridge having brunch with Harvey Silverglate (who's now defending the Au Pair case) and other local free-speech advocates. As I wrote in a post to f-c at the time, all of us were astonished to see the headline in the New York Times: "Civil liberties groups accept compromise." Of course it was CDT that accepted it. ACLU said at the time here on f-c that "no true civil liberties group" would ever agree to supporting that kind of censorship. Also, contrary to what you claim, I'm not an "opponent" of filtering software. Parents have the right to use it with their children. I believe, however, that public institutions must abide by the First Amendment when installing it. I'm glad you provided this opportunity to clarify these issues. Now perhaps we can move on to discussing the Coats bill. -Declan On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: > Declan, > > It's kind of you to get the word out about this new Coats bill, but you > have managed to seriously mischaracterize CDT's position on the White > legislation of 1995. We did not believe that Congress should have passed > the White Compromise, and certaily never "embraced" it, as you write. > Based on my initial reading of the Coats bill, we will certainly oppose it. > > The Coats bill, with it's emphasis on age verification as a means to > "protect" kids and provide online publishers with liability limitation, is > actually a direct result of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the > CDA case and her desire to try to "zone" cyberspace. Following Larry > Lessig, she suggests that instead of relying on individually-controlled > blocking and filtering software, it is better for the government to require > that certain content be placed behind age verification firewalls. Prof. > Lessig prefers this zoning to what you have characterized as "censorware." > I hope that you, as an opponent of user empowerment filtering tools like > Larry, do not prefer this O'Connor/Lessig approach too? > > I can't remember whether you were actually around in 1995, either as > journalist or activist, so let me remind you of what we and other civil > liberties advocates like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said. > > In the New York Times (12/2/95, p.A1) > > "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in > a way > that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard," said Jerry > Berman, director of the Center of Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group > that focuses on civil rights and technology issues. > > and Jerry went on to say: > > "I don't think we need any legislation at all." > > Marc seemed to take a similar position: > > "It is preferable to the Exon bill, but ultimately this issue will be > resolved in the courts, which is where it should be resolved," said Marc > Rotenberg.... > > Both CDT and EPIC recognized that as a plain matter of constitional law, > the "harmful to minor" standard is more broadly accepted by courts around > the country, but that the legislation was still an unwise infringement on > Internet speech. > > We still believe that. > > We can certainly have a discussion about the various legislative strategies > employed during the final days of the CDA debate and House-Senate > conference, but frankly I think there's more important work to do. > > I hope that future discussions on this list can focus on how to defeat > misguided efforts like the Coats bill, instead of misleading > characterization of the past. > > Finally, Declan, I would suggest that when you want to characterize CDT > positions you talk to someone at CDT, or at least find some documentation > of your assertions. I know that you recognize you have an obligation as a > journalist to check facts and sources with some care. That sort of care > would also help in discussions among activists. I'm never exactly sure > whether you think of yourself as a journalist or activist when writing to > FC, but whichever it is, I hope you'll try to avoid this confusion in the > future by talking to us.

5 7

about RC4
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is inhabit RC4 sourcecode same RC4 developed RSADSI perfectly ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Wed Nov 12 18:39:46 1997 Message-Id: <9711121841.AA10833(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu> Errors-To: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Sender: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:53:13 -0500 To: info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu From: Union of Councils <ucsj(a)ucsj.com> Subject: INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is INFO-RUSS broadcast (1200+ subscribers). Home page, information, and archives: http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/inforuss.html To post, or to subscribe/unsubscribe, mail to info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu INFO-RUSS assumes no responsibility for the information/views of its users. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sen. Bingaman and Rep. Skaggs Appeal to Colleagues to Urge Review of Nikitin Case UCSJ encourages human rights supporters to call their Senators and Representatives and act on Nikitin's behalf Below is a "Dear Colleague" letter from Congressman David Skaggs (D-CO) on the case of Alexander Nikitin. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is circulating a similar letter in the Senate. Please call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to sign these crucial letters. Maximum pressure and publicity is needed to help convince the Russian authorities to drop this case. It is essential that Nikitin's rights are protected and that the Russian security apparatus not be permitted to win this power struggle. (For more on the Nikitin case, please email Jason Silberberg at jsilb(a)ucsj.com.) Union of Councils ucsj(a)ucsj.com November 4, 1997 RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTALIST CHARGED WITH TREASON FOR WARNING OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISASTER Dear Colleague, I am writing to bring to your attention new developments in the case of Alexander Nikitin, a case that has broad repercussions for the future of democracy, free speech, and due process in Russia. I ask you to join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Alexander Nikitin, a Russian environmentalist who co-authored a report that revealed a nuclear waste disaster in the making, has been charged with treason by the Russian Federal Security Service (the former KGB), which completed its investigation on September 19. The Russian Procurator, Yuri Skuratov, who was appointed by President Boris Yeltsin, will now have to decide whether to move to trial in this case. Nikitin co-authored a report published by the Norwegian environmental group, Bellona, that revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after Nikitin was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding the choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. This case is critical, not only for Russian environmental policy, but for the future of Russian democracy. It is disturbing if Russia is unable to face up to these enormous environmental problems without prosecuting the citizen that exposed them. It raises questions about whether free speech and the publication of reports critical of the government will be permitted. The grave issues of due process in the Nikitin case cause doubt about whether Russia has truly put Soviet-style justice behind it. Please join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, asking him to seek a thorough review before any decision is made to take this case to trial. If you would like to cosign the letter, or if you have further questions, please call Sue Hardesty of my staff at 52161. Sincerely yours, David E. Skaggs -------------------------------------------------------------------- His Excellency Boris Yeltsin President of Russia Moscow, Russian Federation Dear Mr. President: We are writing to bring to your attention the case of Alexander Nikitin. We understand that the Federal Security Service has completed its investigation, and the Procurator General must now decide whether to take the case to trial. We applaud the enormous strides Russia has taken since the end of the Soviet era to establish a rule of law, and end the old Soviet-style approach to criminal prosecution. That is why we are very concerned that this case, if pursued, would mark a serious setback for the rule of law in Russia. Alexander Nikitin co-authored a report published by Bellona, a Norwegian environmental organization. The report revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with espionage for violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after he was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding their choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. It appears that the rule of law as embodied in the Russian constitution has not been followed in this case. We urge you to ask your government's Procurator General to order a thorough review. We believe that such an unbiased review of the case would lead to a dismissal of the charges against Alexander Nikitin, and ask that you take steps to see that such a review is conducted. We see this case as extremely significant. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

1 0

Re: Minor Language Note
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >>> While it was not Tim's intention to make Jim look like a criminal, >>> the use of a defendent's full name is often used to connote >>> criminality. >>> >>> Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacy, Richard >>> Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton... there are many >>> examples. > >George Washington Carver, James Fennimore Cooper, Richard Dean >Anderson, Clare Booth Luce, Robert Anton Wilson, Francis Scott Key,..... We don't usually think of these people as defendants. >(Sometimes people have three names, sometimes two names, popularly >used. Criminality has little to do with it. For example, Richard >Speck, Charles Manson, John Walker, Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, >Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols. Most of them presumably have middle >names.) I did not say that the use of middle names was required for defendants. >Oh, and as to divining what Tim's "intention" was, this mindreading >and psychoanalysis shtick is getting old. My opening sentence was intended to be friendly. It was supposed make clear that it was not suggested that you thought Jim Bell was a criminal. Certainly that was obvious, but a little redundancy never hurts. It looks like the meaning didn't convey properly, so I'm sorry if I seemed to be psychoanalyzing you. It's generally considered courteous to call people by the name they wish to be called. Jim Bell seems to go by the name "Jim Bell". (This would not hold if somebody makes an inappropriate request such as asking to be addressed as "James Dalton Bell, Defender of the Faith, God of Vengeance, and Lord of the Universe.") Back to the original point, I believe that it's hard to find instances in which two-named people are involuntarily converted to three-named people when they are not charged with a crime. Lee Oswald became "Lee Harvey Oswald" after the Kennedy Assassination, for example. I've also noticed that Wardens have a marked tendency to refer to inmates on death row by their first name, even when speaking publicly. As in, "Don's death was very upsetting as it was obviously very painful." (Paraphrased from a real example.) I believe the wardens are expressing a few things with this name choice. One is that they have complete power over the inmate. Teachers call children by their first names, and it seems to me that there is an element of that here. (Admittedly, this is a troubling image.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGpi1JaWtjSmRH/5AQEsLwf9H4ZmvsVVkQgh9WU/HOUZYdet7+9p9nBf frvYBTgRNoOPiM0pl7Yusl/GhAK6nhCpEb0dCUaWjFLW889I5CyvrbqkzWoA6tj0 k5ULieQs390JEzGAn1LEkvzUCjlEBn5WFgpzJCFYzWpAMaQPT6qcczRIXqoCPG7l R822+EBuL9eikWruy+8V6Bt45mQyB/aHemhmIa/V4YKCn7mc8FmfZ/qQHknaPdFP wJz3cXmw1im4Br/0UkLv9bD2CfZCqcq74VpbujMvUFnsAOmbrWJVqlSV+Gs1MDXf Zli7VCarhzAU9j4sPU9gbTBYsuApRYd8IrJtvOfQcDDMw0dEd9/tjA== =Az6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown >with the federal government. This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread about "What Will Revolution Look Like" >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the purpose at hand. (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous of EFGA wrote: >This illustrates what a liability the poster has become to the cypherpunks. >The group is becoming just another militia front, identified with racism >and white supremacy, applauding violent murder of government agents, >one step from applauding the Oklahoma killings. Its original purpose >all but forgotten, the list has died, poisoned by the hatred flowing from >its leader. Wait a minute, that list is way too short. This list is far more diversely mean-spirited, and venomously hilarious, than that. It offers a lot more hatred and humor than you give credit for, or maybe can enjoy. All praise to Tim, beloved mad as hell assassin, he's one of the sharpest killer humorists-satirists here, call's the jokes and the buffoons as he sees them, insults hot shot leaders and fawning beggars indiscriminately. Hate and love on both Glocks. Check the anarchives: Tim's no leader, says it often, proves it more so by destroying anyone who pretends to be, scares off anyone who tries to suck up to him for protection, and promises to kill (filter) the bloodsuckers if they send PGPed tips. Kill them with ridicule for not thinking for themselves, paying their own way, lapping others' blood and brains. If that doesn't work he tells a public joke about their overtures. Then the anon shits fly. Is he not these very days razzing the big iron folks, taunting the tank in Tienamen Square? We'll yet see some anon turds for this, too, maybe yours is one. Some have weird sense of playfulness, cut your throat to see you flop. Call you a leader, a bullseye target. Hettinga, helluva beloved Bob, another bleeding edge satirist, self-flagellator for philo-fun and E$, this is adose of clap also for your exemplary rant of a schtick of a buffoonery of a calling them as you deadeyedly see them miraging the desert of Maine.

1 0

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:01 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. On the legal side this narrowing has a modest merit in that the government has established (rightly or wrongly) the power to control publishers. It is difficult to find a reference to a website that does not make a reference to publishing. Thus it falls under a reasonable interpretation of existing law and precident (and distinguished from, the internet is a telephone as the frozen brains would have it.) The critical problem is obvious, harmful to minors. Tooth decay is harmful to minors, all product advertising that can be construed as increasing the incidence of tooth decay is harmful to children. It also brings up the German "I can trump your arguement and invent a new one" excuse for banning Zundelsite, that it was "ethically disorienting to children." If one presumes ethical disorientation is a harm then one has to hold all forms of education that promote independent thinking are harmful to children. It would therefore make huge numbers of academic sites criminal including the Gutenberg Project for carrying materials that resulted in the prosecution of Socrates for essentially the same crime. It is not a viable concept without a definition of harm to children. Given current events, any mention of air bags is not merely harmful to children but lethal to children. -=-=- I have contacted the owner with a problem. It still sends to me but does not receive. Until the mailing list problem is corrected I will try to continue participation this way. Let me know if you have a problem with this method.

1 0

Re: SWAT: A Growth Industry
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan Veeneman wrote: > US News & World Report 11/17/97 > Everyone gets into the terrorism game > BY DAVID E. KAPLAN > >Congress...allocated more than a billion dollars in support ... > Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are > needed. For example, they agree that the training of local emergency > workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue. Are these guys with the same government that ignores the fact that the development of antibiotic-resistant *natural* diseases due to the greed of the medical and pharmaceutical industries may well lead to more death and disaster than any terrorist threat?

1 0

(Fwd) Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!!
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: gregruggiero(a)earthlink.net (Greg Ruggiero) Subject: Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!! Friends, This should raise the hopes of all microbroadcasters. We, who oppose the barriers against free communications and the corporate takeover of our media institutions, need to do all we can to ensure that the airwaves really become free. Support your local alternative media. Howard Rosenfeld ---------------------------------------------- ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE RADIO BERKELEY & MICROPOWER BROADCASTING At 7 PM on Thursday, [ed: correction - Wednesday] November 12 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer & Free Radio Berkeley received a 14 page decision via fax from Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken announcing her ruling in favor of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Her ruling denies the FCC's motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction, states that she has jurisdiction in this case and that the FCC's regulatory structure is unconstitutional. Further, she orders the FCC to submit within 14 days a brief on the constitutional issues raised. Essentially Judge Claudia Wilken affirms all the merits and arguments raised by the defense attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Stay tuned for further details. The full text of the decision will be posted ASAP. A victory party will take place on Saturday evening, November 15 in Berkeley. Place to be announced as soon as one is secured. Everyone is invited. Stephen Dunifer Free Radio Berkeley ******************************************************************* NEW YORK Media for Change <<< FREE MEDIA >>> Changing the Media ALLIANCE listserve: nyfreemedia(a)tao.ca voicemail: (212) 969-TOFM website: http://artcon.rutgers.edu/papertiger/nyfma ******************************************************************* =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://ross.adnetsol.com Voice: (408) 259-2795

3 3

Think Locally...Act Globally / Re: FTC, Canada, Mexico officials launch "health claim surf day"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ****************************************** > > FTC Launches North American Health Claim Surf Day > > ****************************************** > > by Michael Evers ... > > The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its federal and state law > > enforcement partners, and public health and consumer protection > > agencies from Mexico and Canada are sending you (and hundreds of other > > Internet advertisers) this message based upon a review of the promotion > > you disseminated through the Internet. How about if you are selling something on your web site and giving pointers to information/advertisements located on a foreign website? Let me guess...hhmmm...disabled grandmothers who are selling their home-grown chamoemille tea will have their homes confiscated, and corporations with expensive lawyers will be approved for an exemption on some flimsy grounds. Anybody know of any Mexican laws I can break by putting something illegal there, but legal in Canada, on my web site? Any CypherSpics who would like to put up a "Canadian Hate" page that I could link to? CyhperCanuck

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:02:38 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: Mad as Hell > Tim May wrote: > > >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, > >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern > >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown > >with the federal government. > > This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread > about "What Will Revolution Look Like" > > >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing > >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. > > However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and > needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from > the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies > playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights > minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the > purpose at hand. > > (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, > crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) A reasonable motto should be something like: 10th? I'm all for a political faction, they really don't have to be as organized as the Big Two & Little Third would like you to believe. Perhaps the concepts of multiple political parties with their own popularist views has become truly effective because of the impact of technology in particularly on concept expression, and communications. What needs to happen is a small group of suitably inspired whiz kids need to get together and form a complete plan for creating legal cases to decide the respective aspects of the 10th. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In some manner the question of whether the first sentence is an implicit limitation of *all* laws and regulations at the federal level needs to be tested. In other words, each and every law *must* trace its existance to a specific set of sentences in the Constitution. If it could be found to be so then each and every law and regulation at the federal would have to pass constitutional review at every stage of its existance within the federal government. Then a case needs to found of some situation say the founding of a church based on smoking marijuana was a illegal entity under the 1st where it is found that such organizations were illegal (rather trivial I suspect). At this point the wording of the 1st becomes *much* more specific. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Under this light it becomes glaringly clear that not only is Congress not allowed to even discuss legislation respecting claims of religion. Per the 10th that would fall to the individual states to resolve under their individual constitutions. This would force many of the major social issues onto a regional basis where they could be dealt with in a plurality of ways. Issues regarding infringement of private ownership of weapons becomes glaringly clear in that light. It simply isn't a federal issue. Per the 10th it must be dealt with at the state level. Other issues such as no searches except under warrant issued with probable causes automaticaly prohibits various sorts of searches including samples of body tissue. The issue of the use of federal military troops for any sorts of operations except those respecting the operations of the defence of the US would be clearly decided. Such silliness as the Supreme Court finding that teachers have the Constitutional right to search kids because of supposed criminal wrong doing is clearly shown for what it is, an violation of an individuals civil rights. Warrants can only be issues on probably cause. Under these sorts of conditions the various consensual crimes our government now routinely practices would end. This is vary scary to the status quo crowd. And here lies the rub, the initial 10th test cast must be irrefusable concerning the 10th. The question then becomes, "What is the issue?". What law or aspect thereof is found so compelling that the Supreme Court *must* accept the case for ruling *and* must find in favor of Constitutional review. For maximum impact somebodies life must hang in the balance in such a manner that some fundamental question of legal lineage is brought forth. This reduces the issue to its most fundamental, "Is the right of the state more important than the life of the individual?" Why some lawyer has not used this basic question in the numerous murder trials is truly amazing. If he wins a legal precidence is set. If he looses and gets to appeal. Then walk that appeals train right up to the fundamental question of the 10th. Forcing the Supreme Court to either reject, stating clearly their answer in favor of the majority, or else to review and find that laws must pass Constitutional muster. Either way the question gets answered. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. Oh joy. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. ^^^^^^^^^ What defines a "web site?" "The World Wide Web" originally meant "material accessible using the HyperText Transfer Protocol." The media and Klintonkov distorted the term into something else, but that's what the term still means. USENET newsgroups do not become "Internet chat groups" just because the clueless sheeple start calling them that. Of course this is how the government thinks. If I make a posting to USENET did I post the material on a "web site?" If I make the material accessible via ftp is it posted on a "web site?" What if it's available using FSP? How about IRC? What about a Bob's Proprietary Pornography Transfer Protocol? How are they going to track this? What happens when I post this material on an Eternity server outside of the U.S.? What if I just keep posting my porn through the remailer network? What if the porn site is in Amsterdam? What if I just get tired of the totalitarians and double-blind the entire process using the remailer network and while I'm at it I accept anonymous payment? What if I bring my porn into a public computer lab and upload it somewhere without any identification or with a psuedonym? Is the P.Q.R.T. (Pornography Quick Response Team) going to bust through the door before I've done this, which takes all of about 30 seconds? What happens when people start posting such porn to sci.chem? What about sci.crypt or alt.christnet? What about misc.legal? comp.org.eff.talk? news.groups? >Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. >Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original >CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's >unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I >have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my >colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the >parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the >Senate floor. > (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) Is this bill available on the "World Wide Web?" I would argue that reading this bill is "harmful to minors" because it completely ignores the Constitution of the United States. Further, it encourages people to lie, cheat, violate oaths of office, and generally abuse power. Senator Coats, what an example for America's youth! >Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not >as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that >Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and >Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. >Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material >that was "harmful to minors." > (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) >A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult >pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're >involved in the commercial distribution of material that's >harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put >it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David >Crane said. What happens when they say "this material must be put behind a firewall?" Do I comply with the letter of the law if I firewall some random port like 49554? What if I firewall everything except port 80? What if I use a dedicated box as a network router and firewall? These things are all "firewalls." Who determines what is a "valid firewall?" Microsoft? A Coats staffer? A credit card company? What happens when these credit card numbers are sent all over the network in the clear? As it stands now you usually send a credit card number when you want to buy something. What they want here is for everybody to go send credit card numbers all over the net just to view free previews and get to text-based information. And, of course, since we have to protect society from the Four Horsemen, these credit card numbers will likely be sent in the clear or using encryption which can be cracked by a college student running a distributed cracker at idle priority on each of the several hundred machines in a lab. And getting even *one* credit card number is worth a lot. What prevents me from setting up a bogus site which asks for credit card numbers to view some nudie pictures I pulled off USENET or other sites and just storing the credit card numbers? How many of these people access just one porn site so it would be that easy to track? How can anybody prove that's what I did? Once handing credit card numbers out is as second nature as SSNs, all bets are off. And what happens when Little Johnny goes and gets Daddy's credit card and uses the number as ID? If they aren't charging, this probably won't be showing up on an invoice. And Little Johnny has plausible deniability anyway. What about stolen credit card numbers? Who determines what is "material harmful to minors?" Coats? The Supreme Court? Psychologists? Scientologists? Klitonkov? The United Nations? My hamster? Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod? Who? Well, I guess this outlaws any meaningful political discussions, discussions of abortions, any meaningful social discussions, any meaningful discussions about sex or romance, any discussions about the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, any discussions of firearms, any discussions of hand-to-hand combat, any discussions of self defense, any discussions of guerilla warfare, any discussions of pyrotechnics, any discussions about chemistry, lists like BUGTRAQ where exploits are posted, et cetera ad nauseum. All of those things might be considered "harmful to minors." Damn the Constitution and freedom! If it saves the life of one innocent yet incredibly stupid child then just forget about that pesky freedom thing. After all, that's only the domain of "far right-wing nazi gun nuts and radicals," right? >But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. >Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes >any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without >redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or >bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. Yeah! Go Senate! Go ahead and ban any digital copies of books like 1984 (oh the irony!), digital versions of the Christian Bible, the Torah, et cetera ad nauseum. >Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is >engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of >material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to >Internet providers and online services as well. How are they going to enforce this one? Mandate that sites only serve "government certified safe" or "independantly certified safe" sites? Turn off all phone and network access, jam all radio and sattelite communications, and legislate that anybody caught with a laser capable of communications or floppy disks with files on them which might contain stegoed data will be summarily executed? >The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to >publish on their web sites "such information as is >necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term >`material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a >lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court >struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of >obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is >obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't >have any luck coming up with a definition of >obscenity-lite." >Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce >Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for >Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the >hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. "This bill will ensure that our freedoms are further eroded." >Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward >his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges >criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original >CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There >will be a concerted effort to build a substantial >legislative history," says David Crane. >This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in >cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come >forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other >concerns," Crane says. >-Declan My fellow Cypherpunks, what we have here is best explained by an analogy like this: The government decides that the youth of America is corrupting themselves and harming their health by drinking soft drinks. The Congress introduces legislation to outlaw softdrinks. Everyone except the National Law Center for Fruit and Vegetables and some other far flung totalitarians think that this legislation is rediculous and an unreasonable restriction of rights. It passes anyway. It goes to the Supreme Court and the Court shoots it down. Two years later Congress again tries to outlaw soft drinks. Since outlawing of soft drinks en masse was not allowed by the Supreme Court, they just outlaw Coke. This passes. People start drinking Mountain Dew and JOLT instead. The Justice Department brings charges against these drinkers, the people who manufactured it, the people who sold it to them, and the truck drivers who shipped it. It goes to court and the defendants claim that the law wasn't broken. The State says that the law was indeed broken because "everybody refers to soft drinks as Coke." This, of course, begs the question of why, if "Coke" is a synonym for "soft drinks" they passed a law after the Supreme Court clearly stated that they couldn't do such. If "Coke" is not a synonym for "soft drink" then they have no charge against these people. Welcome to the Land of the Freeh.

1 0

Fight CDA 2...?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems to me that the fundamental question that should be asked here is: Does the 10th require strict compliance with the wording of the Constitution per the first sentence of the 10th or explain specificaly what Constitutional sentences are being used to justify the 10th and by extension the entire Constitution itself being exempt of mandatory constitutional review at all stages of a laws life. This is perhaps the key question that needs to be asked in order to properly understand the language of the Constitution. Viewed in the light of strict compliance the wording of the Constitution becomes remarkably free of ambiguity. If the 10th is taken literaly it can only be interpreted as saying: - The federal government is required to justify all its rules, regulations, and offical actions within the explicit context of the text of the Constitution. - In situations where there is no clear ruling the issue is remanded to the states for resolution per their own individual constitutions. Or in cases where the state constitution would not apply to the people. - "to the people" needs to be interpreted as meaning to be left to individual discretion and therefore fundamentaly exempt from review at the state or federal level. - This is the level a behaviour or action becomes a Constitutionaly recognized right exempt from future regulation per the 9th. - The above interpretations are open to change per the methods described for Constitutional Amendments. - "Congress shall make no law..." & "shall not be infringed." become much clearer and less open to federal level inteference. Some of the results of this would be: - The entire 'Drug War' machine would grind to a halt - Many people in jail on solely drug possession and use charges with no other jailable charge would be released immediatly - NASA would require some sort of Constitutional amendment to continue to operate - The interaction and use between the US military and the state and local level regarding law enforcement would cease immediately - CDC would require Constitutional amendment funding - Issues of what is and what is not 'legal' speech would be resolved at the state level. - Confiscation of property without compensation would be completely abandoned. - The recognition that police have no fundamental rights under the Constitution because it in no way draws a distinction between polic & a non-police citizen. Laws can not draw distinction of this sort at the federal level. - Each and every search *must* be at the direct interaction of a magistrate *and* must explicity describe what is being searched for *and further* demonstrate probable cause within a much more precise environment. - The recognition that laws based on the distinction of 'victimless' and 'victim' crimes is a distinction that can't be drawn at the Constitutional level. - A action or behaviour is either protected or it isn't. This would create a set of states with quite a range of constitutional environments. I can just see the "Mormon State of Utah" where the official constitutional religion is Mormonism by amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

about RC4
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are RC4 sourcecode in ftp.replay.com. but, Is it same RC4 developed RSADSI ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Meaning of course, when Patrick Henry... --- Oops, Thomas Paine, sorry, >transposed my patriots there -- first stood up to be counted, he did it with >a pseudonym. Think how difficult it must have been to publish a pseudonymous writing back in their day. And compare how easy it is now. With a basic Internet connection and some software I can post this message under the name Nerthus, and anyone who took the time to save my public key in their keyring can verify with almost complete certainty that "Nerthus" wrote this. But as we progress on some fronts, we digress on others. The tools which can empower the individual are readily available, but the individual is quickly becoming an automaton, a shell of the man he used to be. "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death." -- Patrick Henry What is life without liberty? Abject slavery. Any sane man would rather die than be a slave. But what is this slavery? It is the state in which we live our lives. More often than not, our oppressors are our own selves: our fears, our imaginings, our hatred. Everyone does this: the "right-wing-gun-nut" who detests the actions of the BATF, the Christian zealot who detests the pro-abortion crusaders/ Zoroastrians/creationists/NWO types, the IRS agent who detests the "tax protestors", the treehugger who detests the corporate greed/profit machine that is destroying the planet... I could go on but I think you get my point. Injustice happens everyday. The next time you find yourself at Burger King stuffing yourself with greasy slop, think of the millions of people in Africa who are slowly starving to death. Injustice, yes, but what are you going to do about it? Anything? The fact is you can't do anything, even if you wanted to. And because of that we all become reactionary, angered, resentful, violent. We perpetuate the disintegration of mankind, of ourselves. No people in their right mind should bow down and lick the boots of their oppressors. But neither should they kill them either. The intelligent action is to show the oppressors the errors in their ways. Every human being, even our "enemies" have a mind that is not completely devoid of reason. The sooner we show them a better way of living, the sooner we can move toward it. Then the possibility for an end to the injustices that surround us becomes more available. I leave you with a quote to ponder: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Any idea who the pinko-liberal, NWO cocksucker was that said this? It was Thomas Paine in his book "Rights of Man". Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNGpu6eFWwZe05jcJAQGd5Qf/bvcqrugd+FFqBiM89nZeWmUhgAkT0Blq 3IXIkxDNp3+rPYX8dsqp0cD+nHEf7fDrgmxS6+/oHFMnN+p2fC0m1UdD1bl3AgiD lbyjTXtg688ezf4km/MXRNFKtRxbqaOewdf4TVgReLnVkB3ITPzKZb81N4PQHnR8 W0esKslh6AQSDVPlR0r+UIdMawXzNKR75KVaLRhTw7GXV0GvoZh5Ckz1xd2ZDvz+ q/MjTXDTZI5u5Ta2EKcfh0Vcs8Yy7tYv8yRY0zKS0NhorsBhIGrXA5aF5aaxrDTX rWRHaZPRSd5Fm9rKKTJM+D/KVa2wxszP+bWrqusRryY0MN8AW/qZ3w== =NPUD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Cyclic codes
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. o_, o <\__, v|> Timothy May | < \

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Blanc wrote: >By jove, I think I've "got" it - there *is* something deeper going on >here: > >Tim is really an undercover 'narc' - through his provocative remarks >he's actually encouraging all the violent terrorists on the list to >come out of their lurking holes and reveal themselves. Then he's >going to turn them all in for a cash reward, which he'll use to buy >more high-tech stock. > >Yeah, that's it! While Blanc is only joking, I want to take this opportunity to comment on the Find The Mole game. Moles look just like everyone else. Speculation on who is actually a provocateur or an informant or a saboteur or whatever only has the purpose of creating unhappiness and undermining anything worthwhile that is going on. It is likely that there are informants lurking amongst the cypherpunks. The secret police watch and infiltrate far less interesting groups, and this one has received more than its share of publicity. (In a couple of decades we'll probably learn who they were. Hopefully things will work out in such a way that this will be worth a good laugh.) The right thing to do is to assume there are a certain number of moles around and engineer your activities accordingly. If you really think you can Find The Mole, then I would think your first step is to keep quiet about what you are doing. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGoqdpaWtjSmRH/5AQHNhQf9Gc8d8gK/7tiYhMe9eo4BQt5QpW93xfR6 x1Ti+XIZcpQ4Y0YZvklghLHBHJcIywYrf0vM+fYtxfUrG+FWMzD8QPKE/w8x/SI9 eoHIr8GWAnuKEBKnv3aUpHnV9jqTKtcU5/0APQ/nGCAnxzl3Y9/ZAKDwoSVFS9vI gjw0YihR6FKg+Qv7J0lPBgrBWWvQla5sM8kkaWdv8lKIqMtbXu9XeXiIZd8/FlIC WNj8R5WEOXF333A10cWiRhPqRJP9YevXH7NMFSnv9BpUfyeTlD1dKklTfjumSqwq eY+RSmsTzM1OlBzw2NbxmXbahg3mFVYBu8QDPPcu8kwHcMldAsmx+Q== =Eoqh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1