December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:47 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Rush Limbaugh reports: >> >> That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". >> >> The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) >> were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > >"I hope you die." Doesn't sound much like a "threat" to me. > And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by >Chicago police. It sounds to me like the Chicops were just showing their "loyalty" by sitting on somebody, not that they believed any real crime had been committed. > Any possible federal charges for threatening a president >in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the >seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by >prosecutors. I predict no action. But it isn't even a "threat", regardless of how "serious" it was. The "I hope you die" part is, presumably, a statement of fact: She did, indeed, hope he dies. But I don't see how hoping this can be considered a threat, or even SAYING she's hoping this is, likewise. Makes me wonder whether visiting one of these appearances with a "Clinton Doll" and a bunch of pins, and visibly inserting those pins into the doll (while uttering various strange incantations), would constitute a "threat." Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be protected by thugs. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Ruritania
by Censored Girls Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Legend of Ruritania There was once a far away land called Ruritania, and in this land there was a strange phenomenon -- all the trees that grew there were transparent. In the old days, the people had lived in mud huts. But now, high-tech wood technology had been developed, and in this new age of wood, everyone in Ruritania found that their homes were all 100% see through. Now, until this point, no one ever thought of allowing the police to spy on someone's home. But the new technology made this tempting. This being a civilized country, however, warrants were required to use binoculars and watch someone in their home. The police, taking advantage of this, would get warrants to use binoculars and peer in to see what was going on. Occasionally, they would use binoculars without a warrant, but everyone pretended that this didn't happen. One day, a smart man invented paint -- and the people found that if they painted their houses, suddenly the police couldn't watch all their actions at will. Things would go back to the way they were in the old age -- completely private. Indignant, the state decided to try to require that all homes have video cameras installed into every nook and cranny. "After all", they said, "with this new 'paint' development, crime could run rampant. Installing video cameras doesn't mean that the police get any new capability -- they are just keeping the old one." A wise man pointed out that citizens were not obligated to make the lives of the police easy, that the police had survived all through the mud hut age without being able to watch the citizens at will, and that Ruritania was a civilized country where not everything that was expedient was permitted. For instance, in a neighboring country, it had been discovered that torture was an extremely effective way to solve crimes. Ruritania had banned this practice long ago, in spite of its expedience. Indeed, "why have warrants at all", he asked, "if we are interested only in expedience?" A famous paint technologist, Dorothy Quisling, intervened however. She noted that people might take photographs of children masturbating should this new paint technology be widely deployed without safeguards, and the law was passed. Soon it was discovered that some citizens were covering their mouths while speaking to each other, thus preventing the police from reading their lips through the video cameras. This had to be prevented, the police said. After all, it was preventing them from conducting their lawful surveillance. The wise man pointed out that the police had never before been allowed to listen in on people's homes, but Dorothy Quisling pointed out that people might use this new invention of covering their mouths with veils to discuss the kidnapping and mutilation of children. Now, no one in the legislature wanted to be accused of being in favor of mutilating children, but then again, no one wanted to interfere in people's rights to wear what they liked, so a compromise was reached whereby all homes had to have microphones installed in each room to accompany the video cameras. The wise man lamented few if any child mutilations had ever been solved by the old lip reading technology, but it was too late -- the new law was passed and microphones were installed everywhere. However, soon it was discovered that this was insufficient to prevent citizens from hiding information from the authorities, because some of them would cleverly speak in languages that the police could not understand. So, another new law was proposed to force all citizens to speak at all times only in Ruritanian, and, for good measure, to require that they speak clearly and distinctly near the microphones. "After all", Dorothy Quisling pointed out, "they might be using the opportunity to speak in private to mask terrorist activities!" Terrorism struck terror into everyone's hearts, and they rejoiced at the brilliance of this new law. Meanwhile, the wise man talked one evening to his friends on how all of this was making a sham of the constitution of Ruritania, of which all Ruritanians were proud. "Why", he asked, "are we obligated to sacrifice all our freedom and privacy to make the lives of the police easier? There isn't any real evidence that this makes any big dent in crime, anyway! All it does is make our privacy forfeit to the state!" However, the wise man made the mistake of saying this, as the new law required, in Ruritanian, clearly and distinctly, and near a microphone. Soon, the newly formed Ruritanian Secret Police arrived and took him off, and got him to confess to crimes by torturing him. Torture was, after all, far more efficient than the old methods, and had been recently instituted to stop the recent wave of people thinking obscene thoughts about tomatoes, which Dorothy Quisling noted was one of the major problems of the new age of plenty and joy. Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

2 1

Lesson 2 in cracking (cryptoanalysis 001)
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-08-21 03:14:57 EDT, you write: > Okay wise guy. I'm going to give you a 14300 character string that > starts out Big deal. >How are you going to tell *what* I was talking about? I guarantee with >any message of practical length (i.e. not " ckosuuy") will have multiple >possibilities, particularly when you take things like mispellings, Mispelling are an acknowledge means of screwing up the algorithms I gave you. However, they are usually close to the original spelling. In addition, once most of the cipher has been dealt with, these fall into place quite nicely anyhow. >software artifacts ("----- BEGIN PGP --------" "X-Received ..." etc.) and So tell me what the difference is between a bunch of messages with th, st, ya da ya da and messages with instances of say 27 27 27 27 27 obviously the dashes from your pgp insert. If anything, you've added more ammunition against your self. Think expanded pattern matching if you can something like pa*tern... >deliberate attempts to throw you off. That's why it's unbreakable - by >anyone! Including the user, after all, you show a transformation by setting all vowels to the front, then a transformation into numbers, a shuffle by number order, then a transformation back into letters. During decryption: How do you place the vowels into the correct position? How do you place the numbers into the previous order before ascending sort them? You are a , lets see a good name I was once placed with, a TROLL. The first pot was not to insult you more so than to inform others of attacks. This post can be considered a personal attack, you TROLL.

1 0

Re: telco's vs x-phones
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:19 AM 8/21/96 -0700, Brian D Williams wrote: > > >In a reply to Vipul Ved Prakash, Jim Bell wrote: > >>Assume 30 cents per meter per fiber for cabled fiber, or about $10 >(US) per meter for 36-fiber cable. > >Siecore plain vanilla 36 fiber singlemode list $ 1.82 a foot, $5.46 >a yard In other words, it's a fact of 5+ cheaper than I thought... >>Each fiber pair should be able to handle approximately 1 million >>conversations at current data rates, or a total of 18 million >>conversations for that 18-pair cable, or 9.5 trillion >>conversation-minutes. > >At current data rates (OC-48 Sonet) 32,256 voice channels per >fiber, 580,608 total for the fiber. Well, I think I blew a decimal point, there. Even so, semi-leading edge systems do about twice as well... > >Off by a factor of roughly 36 at this point. However, the errors partially cancel, so I'm actually off by a factor of 2. > >>Multiply this cost by 10 for right of way, trenching, repeaters, >>and other auxiliary hardware, or $100 per meter. This is probably >>just a ballpark estimate, but... > >Off by a factor of at least 10 not counting switching equipment. In which direction? BTW, keep in mind I'm considering long-haul LD links between cities and states, NOT the kind of trenching that requires digging up city streets most of the way. I don't doubt that some portions of a coast-to-coast link are substantially more expensive than $100 per meter, but as a proportion of the total length they are very small. >In a reply to me Jim bell wrote: > >>The long distance companies are not "using local networks," your >>customers are...to connect to those long distance companies. And >>any payments LD companies make to you are, indeed, a subsidy. >>Tell me, how much is this _subsidy_, exactly? > >Who's using who is a matter of perspective. Which is why you're unwilling to call it a "subsidy." >Q) if you call a dog's tail a "leg" how many legs does a dog have? > >A) four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. > >Point? The LD companies pay to use the RBOC's networks, calling it >a subsidy doesn't make it one, except maybe to you. If they don't >like it, they are free (or soon will be) to build their own, or use >someone elses. > >>As an alternative, the phone company would presumably be entitled >>to be served by phone lines, at say $30 per month or so, through >>which their customers reach them. $30 per month is $1 per day or >>4 cents per hour or about 0.07 cents per minute. 3 cents doesn't >>equal 0.07 cents, now does it?!? > >"Presumably be entitled?" The RBOC's currently charge what >regulations allow, if the regs go away, they will charge what the >market will pay. You're full of inconsistencies. First, you stated that the local/LD subsidies "went away with the breakup" (paraphrased) yet NOW you're saying "RBOC's currently charge what regulations allow." I suggest that if those regulations "allow" RBOC's to charge 3 cents per minute to LD companies, _that_is_the_subsidy_ that you claimed had "gone away." It's obvious that you don't want to use the dirty word "subsidy," but that's exactly what this thing is! You need to remember that unless a price is defined by negotiation in the free market, there remains a possibility that it contains an underlying subsidy. Since the whole purpose of the the payment from the LD company to the local co was as a subsidy, unless that payment disappears there is always a question of whether the subsidy remains. Apparently it does. The most obvious alternative, one that doesn't contain an obvious subsidy is a "per line per month" pricing system, where the number of lines counted is the maximum number of simultaneous calls that can be made through a given LD company at one time. (NOT the total number of customers that the LD company has.) >>How has this remaining SUBSIDY dropped over time, assuming it has? >>When is it scheduled to drop to zero? > >The rate has gone down since the regs are changing and competition >is increasing. I would be interested in hearing why you think it >will ever drop to zero. It's because the locals don't NEED a subsidy. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

WinSock Remailer Available at Obscura
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Y'all: The WinSock Remailer is now available for download from Lance Cottrell's homepage at: http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ Go to the export controlled section. After you traverse the export control form and get to the ftp site, you will find the remailer in the DOS directory. The filename is WSA12.ZIP. Inside you will find a README.TXT file (that contains information on how to setup the remailer), a PGP signature file WSRMA12.SIG, and the remailer binaries WSRMA12.ZIP. The signature file is used with PGP to check that the the WSRMA12.ZIP file has not been altered. Send me a note if you have any difficulty. A special thanks to Lance for his help and his disk space. Regards, -- Joey Grasty jgrasty(a)gate.net [home -- encryption, privacy, RKBA and other hopeless causes] jgrasty(a)pts.mot.com [work -- designing pagers] "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann PGP = A7 CC 31 E4 7E A3 36 13 93 F4 C9 06 89 51 F5 A7

1 0

[Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti...
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity jbugden(a)alis.com wrote: ! Nota: Quebec recently held a referendum on seperation from Canada. ! Just talk about secession of a state in the U.S., and you'll quickly see ! which country makes political ideas illegal. qut(a)netcom.com (Skip, OBC) >Exactly, we have freedom of speech alright, everone in the world does, >we're allowed to say "we don't believe you should remain in power," but >try to say, and mean, "we're going to try to take your power from you for >ourselves," and your group will very quickly find out the length of your >chains, the extent of our so called freedom. Actually, my comment was exactly the opposite. You may not be aware of what goes on with your neighbour to the north, but the province of Quebec currently has a government whose stated intention is independence from Canada. The recent public referendum for a mandate to seceed was defeated by a very small margin: 51% to 49% with 95% voter turnout. "Her majesty's loyal opposition" in the parliament (the Bloq Quebecois) has the same raison d'etre - Independence of Quebec from Canada. I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government. James

4 3

Any CPs in D.C.?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I will be in D.C. through Saturday. I'd like to meet some Cypherpunks that feel like getting to know what Lucky looks like :-) If you are in D.C., give me a call at my hotel. (202) 682-0111 x440 --Lucky

6 7

www.usdoj.gov http://156.46.199.41/
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

a mirror of the hack is at http://156.46.199.41/

2 1

Re: PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:10 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Skip wrote: >The Subject: line says it all. > >My suggestion number #1: > >No moderation. I'd vote "no" to converting this list into a newsgroup. I think universal access to e-mail is more guaranteed than access to a news-server, especially for those of us hidden away behind our Gestapo-run firewalls. The mailing list flies quite nicely through them. Plus, we have the added benefit of only getting crypto-related spam thrown at us occasionally, instead of the nearly ubiquitous "Call 1-900-HOT-4U" postings that seem to flood every Usenet group. ('Course, I seem to recall a www.slut.com letter from someone a few days ago...) Plus, sci.crypt exists for those who can't get enough here. As an aside, if an RFD should be called, to whom should we forward our discussion? (It's been many years since I really cared about Usenet.) John -- J. Deters "Captain's log, stardate 25970-point-5. I am nailed to the hull." +-------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)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) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +-------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

[rant] Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:49 PM 8/20/96 +0000, Ross Wright wrote: >On Or About 20 Aug 96, 16:23, Jim Gillogly wrote: >> >> Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul(a)pobox.com> writes: >> >I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of >> >spamming here? Is spamming free speech? >> > >> I oppose spamming because it's rude and inefficient, lowering the >> S/N everywhere it happens. Market droids > >Market Droids???? As a salesman I take offence at this slur. It is a mild term compared to some of the things that could be said about sales. I have dealt with far too many sales people. Few of them knew anything about the products that they were selling. (This is especially true of the computer field. "Do you know the difference between a computer salesman and a car salesman? The car salesman knows how to drive.") Many people have a bad view of sales. <rant> Mine is because of the times I have had to create the programs that sales had promised, but had no clue as to what could and could not be done, or was even practical. Getting time lines set by people who have no clue as to how long it will take or even if what they want is possible. (More than once I have received requests based on the pipe dreams of some idiot in sales that contained contradictory requirements and/or absurd time lines.) Most sales people do not care about what it takes to do something, all they care about is making the sale. What they tell the rube in the course of selling it does not matter. (Someone else will take care of it.) But then, rarely does truth enter into the matter of sales... Sales people have a bad reputation for a very good reason. If they actually had a basic understanding of what they were selling, and were not so untrustworthy as to not commit to things that are not deliverable, they would have that reputation. The only people I have more contempt for than salesmen are salesmen for multi-level companies. (Except maybe government officials, but that is on a case by case basis...) </rant> >> favor it because it's >> cheap, and no matter how many people they piss off bigtime, they >> make some sales. > >Even make sales to people who are pissed off at first... "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." The biggest problem I have had with spammers in the last month or so are the ones who insist on forging e-mail reply addresses. Of course, being from a sales background, they were too incompetent to cover up their tracks. (Remember: If you are going to post spam with a forged return address, DON'T do it from your own uucp address. The send path makes a great big arrow pointing back to you.) Spammers are more like the people who call you at home and try to sell you things you do not want over the phone with recorded messages. Sales on the Internet can be done and done without pissing off people. But what it takes is a shred of a clue. By violating netiquite, the spammer has shown that he lacks vital connection to anything resembling a clueserver. Furthermore, much of what is spammed is either illegal (variants on the "make money fast" idea of pyramid scheme) and/or posted to entire hierarchies of groups. (Most mail readers will not allow you to mark a message as read in all of the newsgroups it is posted to. And most of the Windows newsreader do not have killfiles or they are buggy to the point of unusability.) I certainly do not want to read this crap over and over again. It is this repeated abuse that gets spammers mailbombed, feeds killed, etc. (And I will not even go into the type of sales promoted by Canter and Siegal in their book on Internet sales. Of course, considering their background (i.e. lawyers for the Church of Scientology) it does not surprise me a whole lot...) --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Postal service is working on a new postage method, 2 key signature, which will be unique to each "postal unit" ( stamp ) the signature will be logged when you buy the stamps....No more anon. snail mail...... Just thought you'd like to know !

4 3

20 year key ?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there such a thing as a "20 YEAR KEY " would it be a 2048 bit or larger or what ?

2 1

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:47 PM 8/21/96, Brian Davis wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Rush Limbaugh reports: >> >> That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". >> >> The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) >> were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > >"I hope you die." And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by >Chicago police. Any possible federal charges for threatening a president >in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the >seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by >prosecutors. I predict no action. Well, I agree that saying "I hope you die" is a tad bit more serious than "You suck, and those boys died." If these additional words were spoken, why didn't the SS reveal them early on? (Or, if they did, why did the news reports not mention them?) Personally, I would never utter such words, even to Clinton. Or Dole. Tacky, even if one dislikes the Prez. But I agree that "no action" is pretty likely. "I hope you die" has been a time-honored insult at least since I was a kindergartner, and presumably for many decades prior to this. Hardly an active threat. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 3

Re: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:33 PM 8/21/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >> Nota: Quebec recently held a referendum on seperation from Canada.=20 >> Just talk about secession of a state in the U.S., and you'll quickly see wh= >> ich >> country makes political ideas illegal. >> > >OK, so what would happen if I organized a party with the proclaimed goal >of secession of Oklahoma from the United States? > > - Igor. Almost certainly nothing. I believe there is an active secessionist movement in Alaska, and nothing has happened to them. (This does not mean they would ever be allowed to succeed in seceeding, of course.) --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 3

Re: Ruritania
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:18 PM 8/21/96, Censored Girls Anonymous wrote: > The Legend of Ruritania > >There was once a far away land called Ruritania, and in this land there was >a strange phenomenon -- all the trees that grew there were transparent. >In the old days, the people had lived in mud huts. But now, high-tech wood ....... >to stop the recent wave of people thinking obscene thoughts about tomatoes, >which Dorothy Quisling noted was one of the major problems of the new age >of plenty and joy. >Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress >*********************************************************************** >Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 Carol, I see no attribution for this. Did you write it? It looks very familiar, like something that was posted to the Cypherpunks list a couple of years ago. (I seem to recall Perry Metzger writing a similar, or even identical, piece.) If you wrote it, great. But if someone else wrote it, you should definitely mention this, and give a name if you have it. If you know someone besides yourself wrote it, but the name was unattached to the copy you got, this should also be mentioned. Again, if you wrote it, great. And I apologize for even hinting that you did not. But it sure looks familiar. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:55 PM 8/21/96, Asgaard wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> There are technological fixes which I would favor over attempts to ban >> unwanted messages. > >In the meantime, before these technological fixes are easily implemented, >what is the proper way to handle unwanted commercial mail? > >1) delete immediately > >2) reply with 'Fuck off, morons!' > >3) as in 2) plus an attachment of some 1Mb file > >4) as in 3) plus a CC to the postmaster of the sending site Well, this actually just happened to me. I got a long message from the "Computer Currents" folks, for Yet Another Net Newsletter, "Inside Currents," saying they had added my name to their list and that if I wished to be removed I should a) paste a certain reply form into a section at the end of the message, b) readdress the reply to a person handling unsubscribes, c) blah blah blah. Instead, I just hit "Reply" and sent the message back to them. I wasn't sure if the message would go out to the original list or not, nor did I care. I didn't ask to be subscribed to their list, I wasn't interested in learning their indiosyncratic procedure for removing one's name, and they should have set up their distribution list so as not to allow recipients to post to the entire list (it is, after all, not a mailing list intended for postings by recipients). Well, my message and dozens of similar reply messages from others went out to the "Inside Currents" list, provoking an avalanche of even more replies, bounces, etc. "Computer Currents" is now feeling intense heat over this episode. (My latest message, sent two days ago, was entitled "Fuck "Computer Currents,"" and included my "How to Make a Pipe Bomb" sig. It hasn't come back to me, so maybe CC figured out how to turn off their spammish features.) (Hey, "spammish" is a nice word. Hackers can say, "Yeah, I took Spammish in high school.") --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:04 PM 8/21/96, Gary Howland wrote: >I always send a quick one liner - "Please send me more information". >Often I'll ask a stupid question too ("Does your software work in >France?"). If more people did this, then they'd have to choose their >victims a bit more carefully in the future (assuming of course they're >trying to sell something). As I said in my last message, I don't even do this--I just bounce it back to them. I see no need to "ask questions" (such as "Does it work in France?") to, perhaps, "establish legitimacy." If they sent it to me, I can send it back. Simple. And if their software is set up in a brain-damaged way, so that my bouncing it back to them also sends it out to their list, so much the better...at least in terms of helping to anger their potential customers. --Tim May (By the way, some of you younger folks may not remember all the creative ways people used to have to deal with unwanted junk mail. For "return postage provided" replies, they would often attach the return forms to large packages of stuff (sometimes even organic, stinky stuff) and let the junk mailer eat the postage charges at his end. Or they'd fill out the "get free stuff" forms with the addresses of local officials.) We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

RISKS: Microsoft Explorer security hole
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:12:59 -0400 From: felten(a)CS.Princeton.EDU (Ed Felten) Subject: Internet Explorer Security Problem We have discovered a security flaw in the current version (3.0) of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser running under Windows 95. An attacker could exploit the flaw to run any DOS command on the machine of an Explorer user who visits the attacker's page. For example, the attacker could read, modify, or delete the victim's files, or insert a virus or backdoor entrance into the victim's machine. We have verified our discovery by creating a Web page that deletes a file on the machine of any Explorer user who visits the page. The core of the attack is a technique for delivering a document to the victim's browser while bypassing the security checks that would normally be applied to the document. If the document is, for example, a Microsoft Word template, it could contain a macro that executes any DOS command. Normally, before Explorer downloads a dangerous file like a Word document, it displays a dialog box warning that the file might contain a virus or other dangerous content, and asking the user whether to abort the download or to proceed with the download anyway. This gives the user a chance to avoid the risk of a malicious document. However, our technique allows an attacker to deliver a document without triggering the dialog box. Microsoft has been notified and they are working on fixing the problem. Until a remedy is widely available, we will not disclose further details about the flaw. For more information, contact Ed Felten at felten(a)cs.princeton.edu or 609-258-5906. Dirk Balfanz and Ed Felten Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Technology (n): | | A substitute for adulthood. stevenw(a)best.com | Popular with middle-aged men.

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, jim bell wrote: > Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be > protected by thugs. Makes it easier to implement 'Assassination Politics' if you have to. :) William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.net -- William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.net> PGP mail welcome & prefered / KeyID 1024/2C34BCF9 PGP Fingerprint 55 0C 78 3C C9 C4 44 DE 5A 3C B4 60 9C 00 FB BD Finger for public key -- Vote for Harry Browne in November -- http://www.HarryBrowne96.org

1 0

Re: Republican and Democratic party platforms on technology
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:59 PM 8/21/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >While the Republicans certainly are no fast friends of online liberties -- >recall Dole cosponsored an "anti-cyberporn" bill worse than the CDA -- >they've been moving in the right direction on crypto. This plank shows that >as a party, they're starting to take online privacy seriously. I think we all know just how long such a taking online privacy seriously committment would last...about two or three briefings from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DIA. Maybe Dole would get the infamous "If you only knew what we know" briefing, maybe he already has had it (and is just cynically supporting "online privacy" because it's a way to contrast himself with Clinton). Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net" and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography." >(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling >commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at >their convention last month.) I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting only encourages the process. I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned, Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party. Not that it will matter. Ralph Nader will probably get more votes than Browne. The answer lies in technology, not the ballot box. --Tim May -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton SucksHusband/Wife jailed for say
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be > protected by thugs. Well, wouldn't that require a president who had a clear conscience? I don't think we've had one of those since Eisenhower! -jcr

5 4

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >> >> Makes me wonder whether visiting one of these appearances with a "Clinton >> Doll" and a bunch of pins, and visibly inserting those pins into the doll >> (while uttering various strange incantations), would constitute a "threat." >> >> Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be >> protected by thugs. > >That's because you like dead Presidents. > $50's and $100's are great! (I also like old fat dead philosophers, as well.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ON ! ! if it is _robo_moderated, there would not be timing issues. Exactly the same problem of one machine that can recieve and make the posts, one script, one moderator in charge of the whole thing, which experience indicates they eventually abuse their resonsibility by keeping it after they lose interest in managing the group. ! igor ! ! Skip, OBC wrote: ! > ! > ! Jim McCoy wrote: ! > ! > qut(a)netcom.com (Skip) writes: ! > ! > > My suggestion number #1: ! > ! > > No moderation. ! > ! > ! > ! > Suggestion 1 on how to diminish the feeble S/N ratio on cypherpunks: ! > ! > ! > ! > make it a newsgroup ! > ! > Suggestion 2: ! > ! > make it an unmoderated newsgroup ! > ! ! > ! How about making it a robomoderated newsgroup with only one enforced ! > ! rule, forbidding any crossposting? ! > ! > If moderation, then why not moderator(s) who simply send out cancel ! > messages to everthing that is crossposted? Traditional moderated ! > newsgroups are technically inferior because all posts go through netnews ! > chokepoints and then depends on the moderator(s) who's inevitable ! > position has been the irresponsible one of keeping the position long ! > after they lose interest with the high volumes. Even if their was such ! > a person, there is still are chokepoint problem which is stupid to ! > engage in. ! > ! > In any case, creation of comp.org.cypherpunks in no way means gatewaying ! > or shutting down cypherpunks(a)toad.com . ! > ! > ! > -- ! > Love, ! > Skip, OBC ! > ! ! ! ! - Igor. !

1 0

ALERT: Show Congress you want privacy during Crypto Action Week! (8/20/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=========================================================================== ___ _____ _____ _____ ___ / __| _ \ \ / / _ \_ _/ _ \ JOIN THOUSANDS OF OTHER NET.AMERICANS AS | (__| /\ V /| _/ | || (_) | THEY WORK FOR BETTER PRIVACY AND ENCRYPTION \___|_|_\ |_| |_| |_| \___/ September 3-10, 1996 ___ ___ _____ ___ ___ _ _ __ _____ ___ _ __ / _ \ / __|_ _|_ _/ _ \| \| | \ \ / / __| __| |/ / | _ | (__ | | | | (_) | .` | \ \/\/ /| _|| _|| ' < |_| |_|\___| |_| |___\___/|_|\_| \_/\_/ |___|___|_|\_\ SENATE PRO-CRYPTO PRO-CODE BILL COULD BE VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO PREPARE CONGRESS FOR THE DEBATE! http://www.crypto.com/caw/ Reproduce this where appropriate until September 15, 1996 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents News from the frontlines What you must do Concluding the meeting Tips on how to conduct your visit Angles on encryption Questions about encryption you might be asked Participating Organizations / More Information --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS FROM THE FRONTLINES Congress as a whole is beginning to focus on encryption - bills moving through both House and Senate would improve availability of privacy and security for the Net. With three hearings in the Senate and one scheduled in House Judiciary Committee for early September - pro-encryption bills have a chance of passing, or at least helping to lay the groundwork for the next Congress. Recently in a live chat from the Republican Convention in San Diego, Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) said he believed he had enough votes to pass Pro-CODE out of the Senate Sub-Committee and Committee. This is the farthest encryption activists will have come in the crypto fight in years. We need your help to make the case to Congress that encryption is important to privacy and security online, as well as the future potential of the Internet to create jobs and promote US competitiveness. Here's what you can do: -sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ -make an appointment with your legislator's local office With the directions below, visit your Congressperson - urge them to support the two bills: Pro-CODE "Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era" (S.1726) & SAFE "Security and Freedom Through Encryption" (HR 3011). Now is the time to tell your member of Congress that government restrictions on encryption are unacceptable to the future of the Internet. In recent months, the FBI and the White House have been using local sheriffs to lobby members of Congress on this issue. If you don't tell your member of Congress our side of the story, they won't hear it from anyone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU MUST DO Here's what you need to do: 1. Make an appointment with your Senators'/Representative's local office. It's probably best to make an appointment with the local office manager. It's great if you can get an appointment with your legislator, but don't worry if your legislator cannot be there. If you don't know who your Representative and two Senators are, simply call the local League of Women Voters office and ask! You might also try using the Zipper at http://www.voxpop.org:80/zipper/ 2. Sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ A petition has been setup to help show Congress that encryption policy must be driven by the market's concerns. 3. Setting up the meeting When making the appointment, you should say that the topic is privacy and encryption on the Internet. Ensure they know you are a constituent. If possible, take a friend who owns a small Internet business (web design, ISP, whatever) who also lives in the district. It's crucial that you do not wait to get someone to go before making the appointment. Make the appointment, then go looking for someone to go with you. 4. Carry the following message as a theme through your meeting. Encryption is important to privacy - the Internet is vulnerable and the future of American competitiveness is at stake. Encryption is NOT a terrorist weapon any more than a hammer is a terrorist weapon. While there are difficult national security issues, these should not be the driving force of this debate. The future of the Internet should not be held hostage by a cold-war era world view. 5. Send us mail at vtw(a)vtw.org when you've made your appointment. Check back at http://www.crypto.com/caw/ for progress and tips on Crypto Action Week! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUDING THE MEETING There are a few things you should remember as you finish your meeting. If talking to a member, find out if we can count on his/her support for the PRO-CODE/SAFE bill. If talking to a staffer, make it their mission to find out the answer to this question. As you leave the meeting, run, don't walk, to the nearest card shop and buy a thank you card. Write a thank you and address it immediately. Stick it in the nearest mailbox. Send us mail at vtw(a)vtw.org, letting us know how it went. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPS ON HOW TO CONDUCT YOUR VISIT Always be polite. Never threaten. Never lose your cool. Many staffers have no idea what encryption is. Moreover, they might have never used the Internet. You should view this as an opportunity: you will get the chance to define the debate and educate them. You may even want to bring a laptop with a modem and take the member/staff on a breif Internet tour. (Be careful about what you show them.) Remember we're all taxpayers, so the phrase "I'm a taxpayer" is meaningless. Be brief. If you're going in a group, plan out the topics each person will hit. Appoint someone to act as a spokesperson for the group, so there can be a central contact. Remember the first law of Real Estate: LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION. It's crucial that everyone at the meeting be a potential vote for the legislator. Remind yourself that your legislator probably hasn't yet made a decision on this issue yet; you're there to educate as much as anything. Go as *individuals* or *business owners* who have a stake in the debate on encryption issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANGLES ON ENCRYPTION Internet business angle: When speaking from the point of view of an Internet Service Provider or Web design firm, you have available several arguments, such as: "The popularity of the Net has created a gold rush which has benefitted my business and the local voters I employ. Concerns about security on the net could dampen that excitement, and diminish the potential for industry" "Many types of services that I would like to offer online cannot be done without strong security. The current level of security is too weak to engender public trust, and will diminish the types of business people will put on the net." Clipper angle: If someone brings up the issue of Clipper and the idea that government should be trusted to hold your private encryption key, you have several options available to you: "It's not clear that the Administration can be trusted to hold any information secret, after incidents like the FBI Filegate scandal." "Handing over one's encryption keys to the gov't is just like giving the local police station a copy of your house key, just in case they need to search your apartment. Of course they would promise never to use it unless authorized." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS ABOUT ENCRYPTION YOU MIGHT BE ASKED There are a number of questions you will probably be asked by the staff or member that you should be prepared to answer. Here's a few of them and some answers you should feel comfortable with. WHAT IS ENCRYPTION? Encryption is a method of scrambling information with one or more "keys" so that only the sender and receiver can read it, and an eavesdropper cannot. Your bank card PIN, telephone conversations, love letters, health records, and business correspondence are all things that might need to be encrypted. WON'T TERRORISTS AND CRIMINALS USE ENCRYPTION? Perhaps. But criminals and terrorists already have access to strong encryption from overseas, and are unlikely to use encryption technologies which they know are breakable by the US government. Would you send sensitive information using a code that you knew your adversaries could break? Criminals and terrorists will, for better or worse, have access to strong encryption regardless of U.S. efforts to restrict its availability. Meanwhile, current U.S. policy leaves sensative personal and business communications vulnerable and actually creates opportunities for crimes like industrial espionage. WHAT IS 40 BIT ENCRYPTION? Quite often the strength of an encryption system is measured by the size of the key. Forty bits is about the same as a five or six letter word, such as "apple". The US government has stated that American companies that wish to sell products with encryption can only implement encryption whose keys are forty bits long. At one time it was quite difficult to attack and recover messages that were encrypted with 40 bit encryption. Because of advances in computer power and research, it has become much easier to do this. As recently as last year, a graduate student in France broke 40-bit encryption using University resources he had available in his spare time. DON'T EXPORT RESTRICTIONS PREVENT ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS FROM GOING ABROAD? No. The idea that export restrictions actually keep encryption out of the hands of non-U.S. citizens implies that all encryption products come from the U.S. This is simply untrue, and the plethora of products available from non-U.S. sources now shows how absurd it is to continue to keep such regulations intact. DO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS HURT U.S. COMPANIES IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE? Yes. American hardware and software companies compete globally with products from around the world. For many companies, a majority of their business comes from international sales. In the crowded marketplace of this fast- paced business, developing a product with a single feature that outshines a competitor's product can often be deciding factor in a consumer's mind. Yet, American hardware and software businesses are at a disadvantage, as many competing non-U.S. products can offer stronger encryption than they can. This places American products at a distinct competitive disadvantage. DO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS LIMIT AMERICANS' CHOICE OF SECURITY PRODUCTS? Yes. Although it is possible to sell two versions of a product, one with strong encryption for sale domestically and one with weak encryption for sale abroad, most companies find this schizophrenic product development approach to be too burdensome and risky. The result is that companies that produce hardware and software products that require security tend to omit such features entirely, or weaken them so that the same product can be used for export as for domestic use. The end result of this is that Americans end up with products that are becoming increasingly incapable of protecting their privacy, hampered by regulations that can longer accomplish their goal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS / MORE INFORMATION For more information on the encryption issue, check these important organizations' WWW sites: Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT): http://www.cdt.org Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): http://www.eff.org Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW): http://www.vtw.org Wired Ventures Ltd.: http://www.hotwired.com Also check these great educational sites: Encryption Policy Resource Page (http://www.crypto.com) Internet Privacy Coalition (http://www.privacy.org) ========================================================================

1 0

Re: telco's vs x-phones
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think you both have good points here. I will redo the math. At 09:19 AM 8/21/96 -0700, Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.com> wrote: >In a reply to Vipul Ved Prakash, Jim Bell wrote: >Siecore plain vanilla 36 fiber singlemode list $ 1.82 a foot, $5.46 >a yard. Jim said $10/meter, so about 50% of his estimate. > >>Each fiber pair should be able to handle approximately 1 million >>conversations at current data rates, or a total of 18 million >>conversations for that 18-pair cable, or 9.5 trillion >>conversation-minutes. > >At current data rates (OC-48 Sonet) 32,256 voice channels per >fiber, 580,608 total for the fiber. Ok.. I think we're talking apples and oranges. Jim uses the term conversation, which I assume is a 3 minute duration of time. Your OC-48 handles almost precisely 1 million conversations per day. (32k DS0 x 24 * 60 * 20) So I can see where he could come up with 18 million conversations. I have no idea what a conversation-minute is. Perhaps another measure would be the total number of conversations per year. 18 million/day * 365 = 6.5 billion conversations per year. So I believe he is off by a factor of 1000+ at this point, but then the fiber is half the cost he thought it was, so its really only 500+. >>Multiply this cost by 10 for right of way, trenching, repeaters, >>and other auxiliary hardware, or $100 per meter. This is probably >>just a ballpark estimate, but... > >Off by a factor of at least 10 not counting switching equipment. So, assume that he's a long haul carrier, and doesn't have to buy any switching equipment. Still, based on $500/meter, that means that this network cost about 2.5 billion to build. So if the system was running at full capacity, 24/7/365, the LD will have to charge $0.50/conversation, or $0.15/minute to make 2.5 billion per year. Even reaching 10% of that capacity is unlikely at $5/conversation. Which, clearly, isn't happening. I assume that either I have made a mistake in my calculations, or the costs of laying fiber has been grossly overestimated... Or, that since no-one is going around and buying up 5000km right of ways, Sprint, MCI, AT&T and co. can lay fiber much more cheaply. If we assume $50/meter, it will cost 250 million, and they will have to charge $0.015/minute to break even at 100% capacity, or $0.15/minute at 10% capacity - and we know Sprint charges less than that, but if they can get more than 10% of the capacity --- although it is doubtful. My best assumption at this point is that we don't have to make back the entire cost of the fiber per year to make a profit. if we only have to earn 20% of its value to make a 10% profit, it would bring the price down to $0.075/minute, and if we were to get OC-768 systems invented, we could reduce that to $0.005/minute, which is approaching the values that Jim derived. So, I hate to say it, but it looks like long distance is more expensive than Jim (or I) thought. But, in a few years (say, 5) it will approach ridiculously cheap. We can expect at that point that either a) All (or most) long distance will be over the Internet b) Internet phone will vanish as regular long distance becomes a flat fee like local service. --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

WinSock Remailer Update
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Y'all: I've done some additional testing of the WinSock Remailer with Windows 95. In short, the remailer does not decrypt messages properly in Windows 95. Therefore, it should not be used with that operating system. If you sent messages this evening, then some or all of these may have been lost during testing with Win95. I suspect that the same problems would be present with Windows NT, and indeed, one user reports a similar problem. Don't expect a fix for 95 or NT soon, as I'm a relative neophyte with these operating systems. In fact, I just installed Win95* yesterday. So, please be patient. I will have another alpha release of the remailer next week. Please stay tuned. As always, my homepage is: http://www.c2.net/~winsock/ * What possessed M$ into turning Windows 95 into a Macintosh like interface, I'll never know... (Yes, I have been hiding under a rock for the past two years, why do you ask?) Regards, -- Joey Grasty jgrasty(a)gate.net [home -- encryption, privacy, RKBA and other hopeless causes] jgrasty(a)pts.mot.com [work -- designing pagers] "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann PGP = A7 CC 31 E4 7E A3 36 13 93 F4 C9 06 89 51 F5 A7

1 0

Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: qut(a)netcom.com (Skip) > Subject: Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti... > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:31:38 -0700 (PDT) > > ! > I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively > ! > agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government. > ! > ! The right to discuss revolt or secession or the overthrow of the federal > ! government, it seems to me, is given below: > ! > ! "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created > ! equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable > ! Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of > ! Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted > ! among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the > ! Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of > ! these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, > ! and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such > ! Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall > ! seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... " > ! > ! Now this is the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution, but > ! it seems to me that the right to discuss "agitating for secession or the > ! overthrow of the federal government" is protected. > > Correct, if government is not protecting our rights as a people, we are > responsible for forcing the government to do so, even if that means > changing of the guard, ie, successful radicalism. > Might I add: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 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.

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:28 PM 8/21/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >(By the way, some of you younger folks may not remember all the creative >ways people used to have to deal with unwanted junk mail. For "return >postage provided" replies, they would often attach the return forms to >large packages of stuff (sometimes even organic, stinky stuff) and let the >junk mailer eat the postage charges at his end. Or they'd fill out the "get >free stuff" forms with the addresses of local officials.) Return reply envelopes can be alot of fun. In "A Handful of Zen" by Camden Benares (a book on Discordian Zen) he suggests collecting them. When you have something sufficiently weird for a mass mailing, you just fill a bunch of them and drop them in the local public posting bin. An interesting way to releave the daily stress... --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD. - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com "| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 21 Aug 96, 22:15, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Alaska rightfully belongs to Russia, as do California and Hawaii. > No way. We bought that stuff. Then we spent the USSR into the dark ages, winning the Cold War. Right? Huh? What? Ross (Boy do I Hate Those Pesky Spammers) Wright =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

Today's Dilbert
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can't believe nobody mentioned wednesday's dilbert cartoon.. Simon --- Cause maybe (maybe) | In my mind I'm going to Carolina you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th. And after all | Email address remains unchanged You're my firewall - | ........First in Usenet.........

1 0

usenet not working with Agent now.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Agent keeps reporting bad server. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by Elf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Rich Graves <rich(a)c2.org> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks > Date: Wednesday, August 21, 1996 5:12 AM > > On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Z.B. wrote: > > > Published in Washington, D.C. July 9, 1996 > > Insult to Clinton leads to 2 arrests > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > By Ruth Larson > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I think you should try a more credible paper. Say, Scientology's Freedom > Magazine, rather than the Moonies'. You are of course free to believe > whatever you wish. > > -rich Actually it very well could of happened. I am ex-Navy and for military peronell it is made clear that anyone military or not that slanders, degrades, or in any way threatens or degrades the President (commander in chief) is subject to arrest, imprissionment and/or fines. Of course this usually doesnt happen cause only the real wacked out Clinton rules gov. employees would enforce this. But you never know!

1 0

SSL: The early days
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been trying to find information about the early days of SSL for a paper I'm writing, but I'm finding that someone's comment about the net having a collective memory of about 12 months seems to be true - there doesn't seem to be anything available going back more than a year or so. In particular I'm interested in: - Why/how/when did Netscape decide on SSL? - How long did it take to design the first version? - I've heard a rumour that when it was first presented at a conference, two people independantly broke it before the speaker sat down. Is this true, and what conference was it? The later work on SSL (an open design process, contributions from cryptographers and security experts, IETF standards-track work, etc etc) is well documented, but information on earlier work is hard to find. Does anyone have any pointers to information I could work from? Peter.

1 0

Re: cryptoanalysis 002
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Scottauge(a)aol.com > Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 18:36:45 -0400 > Subject: cryptoanalysis 002 > For example, if the crypto-alphabet for e is 23, 45, 190, 200, etc, one can > remove some of the frequency for a letter. This definately makes it harder > to attack with the frequency analysis method because the "resolution" of the > distribution for the letter is lessened to a near randomness. (So it looks, > there are still clues, eh?) I think (from memory) this is called "homoalphabetic". Encyclopaedia Brittanica (Cryptology - article by Gus Simmons) says that it is still vulnerable to frequencies of digraphs, trigraphs etc. But even Gauss was keen on it once. I guess it might have value as a part of another system, making a known plaintext into one of many. Whether it's worth the increased cyphertext size in a system you'd hope to be immune to known plaintext attacks anyway is another question. PA

1 0

Anonymous password changed.
by daemon＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have requested the replacement or assignment of your anonymous password. Your password is now x4anarchy.

1 0

SpamBot
by blane＠aa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, with all the other noise in the list lately, I'll add a little of my own. I woke up today to find my mailbox filled with 20 messages from a 'careernetonline.com' offering to spread my resume across the net for $60. It was one of those terrorist spams where they apologize for wasting your time and tell you that you can stop getting spammed by replying to the message. Well, I really hate giving in to terrorists, no matter what form they take. And I'm sick and tired of spam. So, I'm starting a project called SpamBot. You feed it a message and a list of addresses and the bot send the message to those addresses until they reply with an appropriate message indicating that they are at least looking into the problem. Some people may say that this is sinking to their level. So it is, but I think its time that system administrators realized that there are people who don't appreciate being the target for shotgun marketing schemes (none of which have been of any use to me). Watch my webpage for more info on this helpful little bot. Brian ------- <blane(a)aa.net> -------------------- <http://www.aa.net/~blane> ------- "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice" - B. Goldwater ============== 11 99 3D DB 63 4D 0B 22 15 DC 5A 12 71 DE EE 36 ============

1 0

Asia seen having appetite for Internet banking
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> NEW DELHI, Aug 21 (Reuter) - Asian nations are eager to make >use of the Internet in the field of banking and finance to meet >individual country's needs, a senior official of computer group >Hewlett-Packard Co said on Wednesday. > ``The response through the region is quite phenomenal,'' Jeff >Ayton, the region's director of marketing in the financial >services division of Hewlett-Packard, told Reuters in an >interview. > He said a Hewlett-Packard roadshow he held across the region >revealed a keen interest in the use of Internet in banking and >insurance. Internet experts say customers can use the network to >transact business and banks can improve communications and >customer service with its help. > ``I don't think any Asian country wants to be left behind,'' >he said, but added that the exact level of sophistication in the >demand generated would depend on customer needs and >infrastructure facilities in each nation. > With even rural areas now linked via satellites, there is a >big potential for Internet-linked business in huge emerging >markets, he said. > ``Satellite technology is what will help in countries like >China and India,'' he said, referring to their own satellite >launch programmes. > Ayton said he had found interest in using the Internet in >banking in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, >Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. > Hewlett-Packard officials say that countries like India >could leapfrog in computer networking technology because they >have not yet invested huge amounts in computer infrastructure. > Ayton said he was scheduled to meet Indian banking officials >next week to discuss Internet-related possibilities in the >field. > Kapi Attawar, a senior Hewlett-Packard official dealing with >emerging markets, said his company saw particular potential for >the ``Intranet''. The latter enables local networks within >companies to be linked to the worldwide information highway. > Many Indian companies already had local computing networks >using basic data transmission facilities which may be used to >hook on to Internet, Attawar said. > > > _______________________ Regards, Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. -Ralph Waldo Emerson Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Republican and Democratic party platforms on technology
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dole's cosponsorship of Pro-CODE was a way to land some California votes and a way to differentiate himself from Clinton, nothing more. A statement he released on May 2 bashed the White House: "The administration apparently thinks very little of the right to privacy -- it presumes the government is entitled to all the so-called 'keys' or secret passwords which protect computer generate [sic] information from prying yes..." I predict that if he were to win, we'd see the fastest policy turnaround ever. The moment he was inaugurated, Dole would pick up where Clinton left off. Clipper IV, here we come... But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party candidates for any office, not just the presidency. I'm told that the a Dem convention speaker may talk about privacy issues, however. -Declan Tim writes, quoting me: >Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The >focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net" >and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography." > >>(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling >>commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at >>their convention last month.) > >I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting >only encourages the process. > >I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his >wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an >Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned, >Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party.

3 3

Court rules faxes are not binding
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> CINCINNATI, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- A federal appellate court in Cincinnati >ruled this week that faxes are not necessarily legally binding if the >receiving party does not know the communication is coming. > The case stemmed from a 1991-92 strike by 200 Clow Water System Co. >workers who were represented by the United Steelworkers. > The court ruled the Coshocton company, a division of McWane Inc., did >not violate federal labor law when it hired replacement workers after >the union transmitted an unconditional fax offer to return to work in >February 1992. > The union sent its offer by fax at 4:35 p.m. on a Friday, 25 minutes >before the plant closed for the day. The intended recipient claimed he >checked for any communications at 4:30, and when he saw there weren't >any, went home. > On Saturday, Clow hired 80 replacement workers. > The National Labor Relations Board later held that actual knowledge >of the fax was not required. The board said the parties had communicated >by facsimile during their negotiations, and that the facsimile was sent >and received. > But the appellate court said the union had sent only four facsimile >transmissions during 13 months of negotiations. > ``All of these facsimiles contained contract proposals -- a >communication intended to be examined and considered, not a >communication having legal import in and of itself,'' the court said, >ordering the NLRB ruling against Clow must be re-evaluated. > The court said facsimile and electronic mail are becoming >increasingly common forms of business communication, however, both >parties must agree to the use of such media and must be notified when >messages are sent. > ``The critical part of this case is that (the fax) was sent only 25 >minutes before the plant closed,'' David Peck, a lawyer with Taft, >Stettinius & Hollister, the law firm that represented Clow, told United >Press International Wednesday. ``Normal courtesy is to call first and >again after to confirm that a fax has been received.'' > The union claimed Clow committed an unfair labor practice by >permanently replacing economic strikers after the union made an >unconditional offer, as required by federal law, to return to work. > But the court said the fax transmission itself wasn't the issue. > ``The key to this case is simply fair notice,'' the court said in its >decision. ``If the parties did not agree to the method of communication >utilized, and if there is no pattern of conduct reflecting acquiescence >to the method of communication utilized, we will not impute notice of >the communication to the recipient. > ``Communication by facsimile has simplified and streamlined the way >in which business in conducted in this country,'' the court added. >``This technological advance provides a valuable service and benefit, >and our holding should not be taken as an indication that parties should >not use facsimiles to conduct their affairs.'' >-- > C O P Y R I G H T * R E M I N D E R > > This article is Copyright 1996 by United Press International. > All articles in the clari.* news hierarchy are Copyrighted and licenced >to ClariNet Communications Corp. for distribution. Except for articles >in the biz.clarinet.sample newsgroup, only paid subscribers may access >these articles. Any unauthorized access, reproduction or transmission >is strictly prohibited. > We offer a reward to the person who first provides us with >information that helps stop those who distribute or receive our news >feeds without authorization. Please send reports to reward(a)clari.net. >[Use info(a)clari.net for sales or other inquiries.] > > Details on use of ClariNet material and other info can be found in >the user documentation section of our web page: <http://www.clari.net>. >You can also read ClariNet news from your Web browser. > > > _______________________ Regards, Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. -Ralph Waldo Emerson Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity
by koontz＠netapp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>OK, so what would happen if I organized a party with the proclaimed goal >of secession of Oklahoma from the United States? You'd be overwhelmed with contributions?

1 0

U.S. Army Private Faces Spying Charges
by Thomas C. Allard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

source: http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/960821/news/stories/spy_1.html U.S. Army Private Faces Spying Charges WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The U.S. Army said Wednesday it had charged a 20-year-old computer specialist with espionage and computer crimes in a case that the soldier's parents said involved a Chinese national. Pfc. Eric Jenott of the 50th Signal Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was formally charged June 28 and is in a Marine Corps jail in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, awaiting court-martial, the army said. ``The case involves classified information and matters pertaining to national security,'' a three-paragraph statement from Fort Bragg, home of the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said. It said many of the case's details were too sensitive to disclose. Jenott has been charged with giving ``secret computer passwords relating to the national defense'' to a Mr. Lee, ``a citizen of a foreign nation,'' his lawyer said, reading from the charge sheet. He also faces charges of destruction of government property and larceny. The charge sheet alleged Jenott disclosed the passwords between April and June ``with the intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.'' It said the passwords ``directly concerned communications intelligence,'' among the most closely guarded U.S. secrets. Jenott is facing a general court-martial, the most serious kind, and a possible life sentence if convicted, his lawyer, Timothy Dunn, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, said in a telephone interview. He said his client was ``not a criminal'' but had broken into a supposedly impenetrable system after advising his superiors of defects in the security system. Dunn declined to discuss the system because of what he called the case's sensitive nature and national security implications. John Jenott said his son, a fluent Chinese speaker whom he described as a ``computer genius'' with a longstanding interest in China, had given a young Chinese friend what the son described as an unclassified computer code. He said his son knew the person to whom he gave the code from one of several trips he had made to China. His son, ``not your average kid-out-on-a-skateboard-type guy,'' could read and write Chinese and lived with a Chinese family in Vancouver, Canada, for about a year when he was in high school, the father added. He said his son told him that before giving away the code, he had been trying to show his superiors a security flaw in a sensitive communication system and eventually demonstrated he could get secret data without authorization. ``He was trying to say we have a weakness,'' John Jenott said in a telephone interview from his home in Graham, Washington. ``This stuff about being a spy -- it's ridiculous.'' His stepmother, Kelly Jenott, said, ``They're blowing this way out of proportion.'' His father said an Army major at Fort Bragg, whom he declined to name, had urged him to persuade his son to sign a confession, so prosecutors would not seek the death penalty. Jenott said his son had told him, ``Dad, I'd rather die than sign that.'' ``He said it's not true. He said, 'I'm not a spy. I didn't commit espionage. And I'm not going to sign something that says I did,''' Jenott said. -30- rgds-- TA (tallard(a)frb.gov) I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me. pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6 DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

2 1

"Freedom on Trial," from October 1996 Playboy
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Some excerpts follow. Pick up the October issue for the full article. --Declan] Playboy, October 1996 "Freedom on Trial: how the communications decency act played in court" By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Day 1 (March 21) In the shadow of the Liberty Bell in downtown Philadelphia, the future of online liberty is being decided. A panel of federal judges has gathered to hear a challenge to the Communications Decency Act, which bans "indecent" or "patently offensive" material from being transmitted or displayed online where minors might access it. That means just about anywhere online. [...] Day 2 (March 22) A key witness today is Robert Croneberger of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. The judges are pleased with his description of the Internet as a library -- finally, someone who isn't using technobabble. Croneberger testifies about the difficulties and expense of implementing the CDA, noting that his library would have to hire 180 people to review and censor the 2 million listings in its catalog. Russotto, the government lawyer, is skeptical. During her cross-exam, she tries to make the case that the job wouldn't be so difficult as Croneberger portrays it. Q: Can you do a keyword search through your catalog for words related to sex or for the seven dirty words [to find material to restrict]? A: It depends. Q: But a keyword search on sex wouldn't turn up books about physics, would it? A: I doubt it. Q: And a search on sex isn't going to turn up books about gardening? A: Obviously plants proliferate and flowers grow, but it depends on the words you're using. Q: Would a search on sex turn up a biography of Abraham Lincoln? A: I've read many articles about his supposed sex life, or lack thereof. Q: Would a search on sex turn up any books about geology? A: Only if "rock" is put together with "roll." Croneberger's point is subtle but clear. Sex can't be taken out of a library any more easily than it can be separated from life. [...] Day 4 (April 12) The government witnesses take the stand. First up is Howard Schmidt, an Air Force special agent who says he has conducted 30 to 50 investigations of online porn. The judges are growing weary of demonstrations and sex, so when Schmidt offers to download provocative images from Usenet groups, the panel asks for G-rated animals instead. After the second or third waterfowl image, Judge Sloviter rules, "I think we've seen enough ducks." [...] Beyond its sheer stupidity, [Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist Dan Olsen's -L18 self-labelling scheme] seems to be built with prudery rather than technology. During cross-examination, the judges didn't appear to take him seriously: Q: If you thought about posting a centerfold from Playboy, would you think the image might be indecent or patently offensive for persons under 18? A; If we consider the local community that consists of Dan, Dan would be offended. Q: And how about the seven dirty words. A: Dan would be offended. Judge Buckwalter: Who's Dan? Judge Sloviter: Yes, who's Dan? A: That's me. I'm sorry. Judge Dalzell: Oh, he's the community. He is an expert on what would offend him. A: It's a relatively small community, but it's the one I know best. Buckwalter: I thought Dan was an acronym. A moment later, our lawyers show Olsen a list of Internet addresses and ask if they appear to be porn sites deserving of unsuitable-for-children tags. He hesitates, then says, "I don't know, but I wouldn't go there." Looking over the list, Judge Dalzell adds the punch line. "Chick of the Day could be poultry," he suggests. "You really are in for ducks and poultry," says Judge Sloviter. "It's a leitmotif." Bruce Ennis, counsel for the ALA, asks Olsen how content providers would verify the ages of those who visit their sites. Olsen stammers a bit and then hits on an idea. Ask the Social Security Administration! It keeps records of such things. Big Brother couldn't have said it better. Day 5 (April 15) The government has a tough road ahead. It has to convince three skeptical judges that enforcing the CDA would not become a boondoggle. Olsen, at least, believes it can be done. When asked if his rating system would slow the growth of the Net, he quickly responds, "Absolutely not!" But everyone in the courtroom seems to feel Olsen is being a weasel. Judge Dalzell, the most Net-savvy judge and the only one with young kids (I'm guessing the two are related), helps pin the inventor down. "Assume a chat group -- say, students from 13 to 18 -- is talking about the CDA. In the course of the chat, an 18-year-old is exasperated and types in 'Fuck the CDA.' Is it your proposal that before he types the message, he should tag it -L18?" Dalzell is paraphrasing Cohen v. California, a First Amendment case in which the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a teenager who wore a jacket that read "Fuck The Draft." Some of Dalzell's other questions were equally astute. "If in one issue of The Economist the word 'fuck' appears," he asks Olsen, "the library putting it online would have to go through the entire issue?" "Somebody would have to make that judgement," Olsen replies. He suggests that librarians band together to censor material. He insists his plan is "flexible." To that, Bruce Ennis reponds testily, "Is it flexible if you, the librarian, risk going to jail for two years if you make the wrong judgment and put material online that is found to be patently offensive for a minor?" [...] Sloviter isn't finished. After Olsen claims that a voluntary rating system developed at MIT is unfeasible because it will "slow the flow" online, she asks how an adult could show -L18 tagged materials to a mature teenager. Olsen replies that a "teacher or parent could log on." "Wouldn't that slow the flow?" the judge asks. Flustered, Olsen suddenly discharges a series of staccato high-pitched giggles. It's the damnedest thing that I have ever heard -- it sounds like a rabbit being tortured to death. The galley stares in horror. Thus ends the testimony of our best witness -- and we didn't even call him to the stand. Day 6 (May 10) During closing arguments, Justice attorney Tony Coppolino dances around providing a legal definition for indecency. He hints that it would include only hard-core porn but concedes the government can't guarantee that an ambitious prosecutor somewhere wouldn't take on an absurd case. Judge Sloviter is growing impatient: "I've been taking the position for 17 years that people should know what they can be prosecuted for," she says "I still don't understand" what indecency means under the CDA. "We've been trying to get at this for 40 minutes," grumbles Judge Dalzell. [...] EPILOGUE We have won -- for now. The government's appeal will reach the Supreme Court during the next few months. If the Court upholds the lower court decision, outraged right-wing groups will demand action. Congress will spring to attention. Bills will be drawn up, campaign funds raised, and porn once again waved in the Senate chamber. Censorship is often championed by adults who want to protect children from a world the adults do not understand. During the hearing, Judge Buckwalter raised this issue while discussing the computer gap between parents and children that helps fuel fears of online dangers. "In another generation that will fade from the picture, don't you think?" he asked. Archaic restrictions over what we can share online, however, may not. ###

1 0

Re: RC4 RC2 & MD5???
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:58 PM 8/21/96 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >I assume then that the Netscape encryption is Symetric Key, so how do >RC4 RC2 and MD5 compare and contast? TIA RC2 and RC4 are both both variable key length cyphers developed by Ron Rivest for RSA Data Security Inc. They were both protected by trade secret, but both have been reverse engineered and posted to the net. Both of them have fast-path export approval if their key length is 40 bits or less. MD5 (Message Digest 5) is not a cypher but a secure hash. If takes an input of variable length and computes a 128 bit hash. Recently some weaknesses have been found in MD5 leading to the recomendation that new applications be coded to use SHA1 instead. As a note: Any good secure hash can be used as a symetric key cypher. Usually doing so involves considerably more computation than a symetric cypher of equal strength. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

DOJ Scam!
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vipul wrote : > >I think its a DOJ's doing. They prolly want to show the courts how > >bad hackers can get so they can conjure up some support in forthcomming > >trials. C'mon the sysadmins aren't fools, they surely see their own site. Dungeon Master wrote: > this is a very highly possible conclusion... and I wouldn't go against it. > I the traditional since.. r00ts know there shit... and if the operator(s) of > DOJ didn't know how firewall down the country's own Justice web page.. then > we have some serious measures to be taken on lack of education in there > part.. and furthermore they would have portrayed it as lack of security > there and point the theoretical finger at the site admin.. but no, it > didn't happen. folks, I think its a scam... not only for these reasons... > but just look at the material that was altered... I am sorry.. but speaking > from some exp. here... if I had access to some place like that.. I wouldn't > have bothered de-facing what the public sees... I would rather have gone to > a more effective means of sabotage.. to the root of the system.. to data > storage and records.. the real hackers out there are the ones who don't > make themselves known. And particular thing to note is that *indecency*. - Vipul vipul(a)pobox.com

1 0

RFC1984 on Cryptographic Technology (fwd)
by Mark Rogaski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An entity claiming to be RFC Editor wrote: >From majordom(a)ISI.EDU Thu Aug 22 13:27 EDT 1996 Message-Id: <199608201538.AA03394(a)zephyr.isi.edu> To: rfc-dist(a)ISI.EDU Subject: RFC1984 on Cryptographic Technology Cc: rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 08:40:50 PDT From: RFC Editor <rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU> Sender: owner-rfc-dist(a)ISI.EDU Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=NextPart Content-Length: 3011 --NextPart A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 1984: Title: IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet Author: IAB & IESG Date: August 1996 Mailbox: brian(a)dxcoms.cern.ch, fred(a)cisco.com Pages: 5 Characters: 10,738 Updates/Obsoletes: none URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1984.txt The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of privacy. Security mechanisms being developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force to meet these needs require and depend on the international use of adequate cryptographic technology. Ready access to such technology is therefore a key factor in the future growth of the Internet as a motor for international commerce and communication. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST(a)CNRI.RESTON.VA.US. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST(a)ISI.EDU. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info(a)ISI.EDU with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info(a)ISI.EDU Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to admin(a)DS.INTERNIC.NET. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR(a)ISI.EDU. Please consult RFC 1543, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the RFCs. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv(a)ds.internic.net" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <960820082910.RFC(a)ISI.EDU> SEND /rfc/rfc1984.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="rfc1984.txt"; site="ds.internic.net"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="rfc" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <960820082910.RFC(a)ISI.EDU> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -- Mark Rogaski | Why read when you can just sit and | Member GTI System Admin | stare at things? | Programmers Local wendigo(a)gti.net | Any expressed opinions are my own | # 0xfffe wendigo(a)pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. | APL-CPIO

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jimmy carter proved that we anyone could be president, and it looks like clinton is proving that we don't really need a president. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Aug 22 03:09:20 1996 > X-Sender: jimbell(a)mail.pacifier.com > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:36:23 -0800 > To: Brian Davis <bdavis(a)thepoint.net> > From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > Subject: Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1492 > > At 02:47 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: > >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Rush Limbaugh reports: > >> > >> That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". > >> > >> The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of > us) > >> were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > > > > >"I hope you die." > > Doesn't sound much like a "threat" to me. > > > And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by > >Chicago police. > > It sounds to me like the Chicops were just showing their "loyalty" by > sitting on somebody, not that they believed any real crime had been committed. > > > Any possible federal charges for threatening a president > >in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the > >seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by > >prosecutors. I predict no action. > > But it isn't even a "threat", regardless of how "serious" it was. The "I > hope you die" part is, presumably, a statement of fact: She did, indeed, > hope he dies. But I don't see how hoping this can be considered a threat, > or even SAYING she's hoping this is, likewise. > > > Makes me wonder whether visiting one of these appearances with a "Clinton > Doll" and a bunch of pins, and visibly inserting those pins into the doll > (while uttering various strange incantations), would constitute a "threat." > > Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be > protected by thugs. > > Jim Bell > jimbell(a)pacifier.com >

1 0

Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti...
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

as i recall, you are free to advocate almost anything, as long as you don't advocate it by violent means. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Aug 22 03:09:01 1996 > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:58:32 -0700 (PDT) > From: Michelle KC5KYO <mthompso(a)qualcomm.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti... > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1141 > > > I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively > > agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government. > > The right to discuss revolt or secession or the overthrow of the federal > government, it seems to me, is given below: > > "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable > Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of > Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted > among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the > Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of > these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, > and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such > Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall > seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... " > > Now this is the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution, but > it seems to me that the right to discuss "agitating for secession or the > overthrow of the federal government" is protected. > > Michelle > >

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

perhaps we should all add a line to our sigs to the effect that we hope he dies, and soon, natural causes, of course. Hmmm, what exactly does 'natural death' include? -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Aug 21 18:31:29 1996 > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:47:57 -0400 (EDT) > From: Brian Davis <bdavis(a)thepoint.net> > To: Scottauge(a)aol.com > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 661 > > On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Rush Limbaugh reports: > > > > That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". > > > > The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) > > were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > > "I hope you die." And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by > Chicago police. Any possible federal charges for threatening a president > in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the > seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by > prosecutors. I predict no action. > > EBD > > > > > Ahhh, good to live in a free country.... > > >

3 2

Re: HP supporting GAK, export controls
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HP seems to have outlived their usefulness. sad, isn't it, when a really first class operation has to die. and to go out in such a ignoble way. the `ole boys' must not be resting well in their graves. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Aug 21 18:31:33 1996 > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> > Subject: HP supporting GAK, export controls > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1394 > > [Sorry, the last one went out without a subject] > > HP is in the process of ramroding a pro-GAK, pro-export control > resolution through CommerceNet's public policy working group. > > Here are the details. > > HP is marketing several DES products that currently can not be sold > abroad. In order to be allowed to sell these products, HP is willing to > give the USG the following in return: > > > 1. Support by CommerceNet to have GAK built into the (inevitable) > domestic PKI. [Their presentation included the word "voluntary". When I > asked what was meant by that, I got the reply "There are many > interpretations of the word "voluntary"." Suffice to say there are > fundamental differences in what I mean by "voluntary" and what their > proposal would require the definition of "voluntary" to be.] > > 2. Support by CommerceNet for export restrictions on stronger forms of > crypto than DES as well as restrictions on export of crypto for products > not directly related (in HP's opinion) to ecommerce, such as email. > > This ill conceived attempt to use CommerceNet's clout as industry > organization to liberalize export rules on HP's products, and those of a > few other companies supporting HP in this effort, at a heavy cost to > everybody else, must be stopped. Please let HP know how you feel about > their initiative and encourage CommerceNet to adopt an anti-GAK, > anti-export control position. > > --Lucky > > > >

1 0

[NOISE] Mysterious Numbers in Hacked DOJ Pages
by Mark O. Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This should be good for a conspiracy thread or two: I've noticed that nobody seems to be taking credit for the DOJ hack. In studying the hacked page (I thought maybe they'd leave a clue as to who they were), I noticed that on the top right corner of the page, there are two sets of numbers. The first says "1020" and the second says "757." The are stored in the same .JPG file, 1020757.jpg. In poking around the HTML source, the following appears in the source code, but not on the actual page when it's in a browser (HTML source comments): <! Why did you betray us? Why are you taking our rights? What ever happened > <! to the law of the land? 757 1020 > Note that this time, the numbers are in the reverse order. (Also note that 202.757.1020 does not appear to be the DOJ phone number - I tried). For all I know, these numbers are relevant to the CDA or some other legal/legislative source. Or maybe I'm missing something really obvious. Anyone have any insight into what the numbers actually mean? Could there be some crypto (key?) relevance here that we're missing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Just as the strength of the Internet is |Mark Aldrich | |chaos, so the strength of our liberty |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |depends upon the chaos and cacophony of |maldrich(a)grci.com | |the unfettered speech the First Amendment|MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |protects - District Judge Stewart Dalzell| | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1