December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

None Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the DataBasix Gang (was: Re: Remailer hating Nazis)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: > >I'm familiar with the role of Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com> and that > >of his DataBasix associates Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> and Billy > >McClatchie (aka "Wotan") <wmcclatc(a)primenet.com> in getting the Mailmasher > >and Huge Cajones remailers shut down. Jeff Burchell posted a public > >expose' of their harassment to Usenet back in June, apparently catching the > >DataBasix folks off-guard. But what's the story with Paul Pomes? What has > >he done? > > Paul Pomes was complaining about Jeff Burchell's huge cajones remailer to Jeff > Burchell's upstream and employers about the same time the rest of the Databasix > gang was doing it. Paul Pomes appears to be a part of the Databasix gang. It's sort of ironic that these anti-privacy, anti-anonymity Nazi wannabes complain about remailers which give their users privacy, then somehow expect that their own complaints will be kept hidden. I rather syspect that Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and Paul Pomes were rather shocked when Jeff Burchell decided to tell the whole story (unfortunately AFTER shutting down the Huge Cajones remailer). Maybe the next time Gary, Linda, or Paul send a remailer operator a complaint, the operator will know what to expect next. I'm wondering if that's at least part of what's behind the faux spam-baiting that's underway, with messages to varios MMF, MLM, and alt.sex.* NGs whose title and body consist of randomly- chosen words, followed by a list of bogus e-mail addresses in the body. The thing that's not so random is the high percentage of words that are related to DataBasix, such as "DataBasix", "Burnore", and "Wotan". I'm almost waiting for Gary Burnore to give the remailer and mail2news operators a "helpful" suggestion that they could curb most of this "abuse" by simply blocking any anonymous posts containing any of those three keywords. <g> Or perhaps he's done so and politely been turned down. Perhaps the next wave of attacks on remailers will not consist of attempts to shut them down altogether but to progressively cripple them by getting certain features disabled, one by one. This seems to have already started. The strategy seems to be to fabricate a form of "abuse", anonymously through remailers, for which the seemingly "logical" solution is to disable a certain feature. This has already proven successful with header pasting, for example. Now you can't post to Usenet and set the From: address to that of your own 'nym. I'm not even certain that you can set a Reply-To: address any more. If the "camel" can get his nose under the tent and convince operators to start filtering on the *CONTENT* of the Subject: line or body of usenet posts, the anti-privacy nuts will have scored a major victory. In fact, from reading Jeff Burchell's posts, it looks like Gary and his DataBasux-ers had initially convinced Jeff to do exactly that. But, in a symbolic victory for freedom of speech, he removed those filters for a week before he finally shut down Huge Cajones altogether. > >Perhaps the best thing that can be done with people like Burnore is to put > >together an FAQ about their tactics, similar to what his "fans" have done > >for the "Rev." Steve Winter. Then when Burnore tries to stir up trouble by > >first fabricating anonymous "abuse" and then demanding that it either be > >stopped and the culprit(s) identified (knowing in advance that's > >impossible), or else that the remailer be shut down, someone can forward > >that FAQ to the remailer's upstream provider, or whoever is being pressured > >to pull the plug. And if Paul Pomes engages in the same dishonest tactics, > >that needs to be done with him as well. > > Gary Burnore had a mongo page at http://www.netscum.net/burnorg0.html. > So did Paul Pomes, Belinda Bryan, and the rest of the Databasix gang. > Too bad it's down for now, but it'll be back. It's already back, for the time being. The new URL is: http://www.spambusters.dyn.ml.org/www.netscum.net/burnorg0.htm I'll go look for Paul Pomes' page at that site. Thanks for the tip! Let's see how long that site stays in operation before the self-styled "Thought Police" attempt to shut it down. -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

2 1

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >If we as individuals can't make our own decisions about what is best for us, >what makes you think some stranger will do any better? Indeed. Yet in a democracy, any two other members are assumed to know better than me, and any 51% to know better than the other 49%. >Every form of government other than democracy assumes a >priori that noble oblige is prima facia. To paraphrase an old questions of >politics, who governs the governors? Or do you feel we have found angels in >the form of kings? Democracy is merely the scoundrel's last attempt to maintain the divine right of kings by coverting it into the divine right of the elected. >Which means we should have the lowest number of incarcerated individuals >instead of the most. Indeed, thereby proving that democracy *doesn't* work. >Doesn't work what way? Midnight raids, anti-drug laws, all the examples you just gave of the evils of democracy, etc, etc. >Consider, other than democracy, that every form of >government has an implicit assumption that there is some base sets of >activities that citizens should be permitted and they will be happy. Someone (Churchill?) once said that democracy is the best form of goverment. Amusingly he considered this a defence of democracy, not a damning indictment of the entire concept of government. >In a >democracy the people are given the opportunity to make up their mind what to >do with their lives and property without having to obtain permission from >some authority. Medical licensing, drivers licenses, pilots licenses, export restrictions, gun licenses (in various democracies), concealed weapons permits... do I have to go on? This doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the reality of democracy. >Paying a government to keep the park clean and mowed and the lights on at >night or my streets well paved and de-iced in winter And a government does this better than a private corporation because? >is not quite the same >thing as having black-suited ninja wann-be's kicking my door in at 2AM >because I choose to smoke a joint or even grow my own weed; Again, this is a clear example of the failure of democracy. A big difference between democracy and anarcho-capitalism[1] is that in an anarcho-capitalist society the cops will be too busy making money to launch such raids on their customers, and most customers will be too self-interested to pay cops to raid their neighbors. >There is a reason behind the madness of "Congress shall make no law...". Indeed; such a shame they put all those other words into the Constitution. That phrase sounds like a pretty good conception of government to me. Mark [1] See, for example, 'The Machinery of Freedom', by David Friedman: excerpts on the Web at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/

4 3

Please send me some info
by Chiu Ngan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am a student of the University of New South Wales in Australia, as I am going to do a research about my informayion system assignment, I am mailing to request for some information. My assignment is regarding to the current examples of "use of computers to commit fraud; use of computer to commit sabotage; false advertising/ claims for computer products; degradation of work as a result of computerisation; failures in computerising the workplace" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

No Subject
by MIS Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan, You have a .forward file here at mis that points to toad.com. Do you have a .forward there? I received several compalints from people who are getting your mail at cosmos(a)microserve.net. -Jeremy ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abuse & Security Department MicroServe Information Systems, Inc. security(a)admin.microserve.net 100 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard abuse(a)admin.microserve.net Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 http://www.naISPa.org (717)821-5964 FAX (717)821-5968 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 3

Please Remove
by contest 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please remove setzer(a)wl.net from this mailing list

2 1

Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no b
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:00 PM 9/9/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Michael, you once again fail to note the important political issues here. >Sometimes civil liberties, freedom, and constitutional rights must be >ignored in favor of pragmatism. It is important at all costs to remain a >player in the game. > No, it isn't. You end up being more concerned with being in the game than with achieving your goals. Sometimes, you have to kick the board over. I think it is more important to make the laws unenforceable (and make such workarounds useful to the average netizen), than it is to try to keep the government from passing laws. The work of people like Jim Ray and Phillip Baker is crucial here. The government is unlikely to pass laws to limit its own authority, on any issue -- even those who might not want to use a particular power would still want to keep it around 'just in case'. We cannot count on government to protect our freedoms. Therefore, we must make it irrelevant to the exercise of those freedoms. >Instead of opposing bad crypto legislation, we should instead work inside >the process, to gain a seat at the table. That is why it is highly >significant that both Commerce and FBI want to rid us of our freedom but >would do it in subtly different ways. Not really, know. It's unlikely that a "Let's you and him fight" strategy would prove effective, since this isn't just an interdepartmental turf squabble. They will strip our freedoms first, and argue over who gets the thumbscrews second.

2 1

New GAK Bill
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5 September 1997, MSNBC: FBI Director Louis Freeh floats a new proposal at a congressional hearing to outlaw non-breakable crypto products. A radical shift in crypto debate Proposed bill outlaws non-crackable crypto products, restrict imports By Brock N. Meeks, MSNBC WASHINGTON -- The White House would likely be very sympathetic to a controversial new bill that would outlaw all encryption software that doesn't allow law enforcement agencies to immediately decode scrambled messages, an administration official told MSNBC. The new bill, still in draft form, is quietly circulating among members of the House and Senate. Although the administration hasn't formally endorsed any provisions of the bill, MSNBC has learned that the White House has been providing what is called technical drafting assistance to members of Congress writing the bill. William Reinsch, the Commerce Department undersecretary for export administration, confirmed the White House involvement for MSNBC on Thursday night. The draft bill was already in the hands of some members of the Senate's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Regulation when FBI Director Louis Freeh outlined its basic provisions while testifying before the panel Wednesday. Freeh said "we would recommend" that legislation be written requiring all encryption software or services made in or imported to the United States to have a feature "which would allow for the immediate, lawful decryption" of any scrambled messages used for illegal purposes or in a national security matter. NATION AT RISK? The White House, FBI and intelligence agencies claim that the proliferation of unbreakable encryption products puts the nation at risk. Criminals and terrorists are increasingly using unbreakable encryption products, Freeh testified Wednesday. U.S. makers of encryption software claim that any government-mandated decoding features would make their products unacceptable to clients in the global marketplace. The new proposals outlined by Freeh also drew the ire of civil liberties groups, which fear that any government controls on encryption products raise serious First Amendment and privacy concerns. Placing such government-mandated controls on the domestic use and manufacture of encryption software, as well as on the import of encryption products, stands in marked contrast to current White House crypto policies. Currently, the United States places strict regulations on the export of any encryption products that do make decoding keys available to law enforcement agencies. However, the administration has steadfastly maintained throughout the often contentious public debate over encryption policies that it would not place any restrictions on the domestic use of encryption software, nor would it restrict the import of encryption products. Despite Freeh's testimony and the draft legislation written with White House assistance, Reinsch said the administration's policy on encryption hasn't changed. "I want to emphasize that [in providing drafting assistance] we are responding to committee requests," he said. "And those requests have been fairly directive, such as: 'Give us some examples of how we can better accommodate law enforcement needs.' " Currently, the White House is backing an encryption bill in the Senate called the Secure Public Networks Act, also known as S. 909. This bill would encourage the use of and set up guidelines for encryption software products with decoding keys. Under this plan, all coded messages would spin off a decoding key that would be stored with a government-approved third party. Law enforcement agencies, foreign or domestic, would be allowed access to those keys if they obtained a court-ordered warrant. The bill would not restrict or require any encryption software used in the United States, or restrict the import of any foreign crypto products. However, MSNBC has learned that the draft bill now circulating among members of the House and Senate specifically outlaws the "manufacture, distribution or import" of any encryption software product or communication device that does not "allow the immediate decryption" of all scrambled messages or communications "if used for illegal purposes." The bill also targets "network services," such as Internet Service Providers, that provide encryption capabilities to their clients. BAN WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IN 1999 Under this proposed bill, if such encryption services are offered by a company like ISP, the service provider must build in a provision to allow for immediate decryption of any scrambled messages, according to several sources that have seen the draft language. The software ban would go into effect in January 1999. Reinsch told MSNBC he wasn't sure that Freeh's testimony "accurately reflected" the language the White House offered in its technica drafting for congressional committees. However, he indicated the administration was interested in Freeh's proposal. "I'll be blunt about it," Reinsch said. If such a bill were approved by a congressional committee, the administration "would look very seriously at it and I imagine we would be very sympathetic to it," he said. Opponents of proposals to require key for all encryption software blanched at Freeh's statements. "This proposal crosses a line that hasn't been crossed before in the area of domestic controls on crypto," said Alan Davidson, policy analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology. Davidson said a government mandate to provide immediate decryption capabilities would be like "forcing everyone to live in a glass house." It also "trashes the Fourth Amendment," which guarantees a right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure, Davidson said. Freeh told the Senate panel Wednesday that he isn't looking to expand law enforcement's investigative powers. Rather, he said, he is only looking for a "Fourth Amendment that works in the Information Age." ------

4 5

Re: FBI calls for mandatory key escrow; Denning on export ctrls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The on-line NYT's claim today that everyone except the administration is opposed to its crypto policy is daring hyperbole. What's your take on that? http://jya.com/crypto-tops.htm

6 5

Finally... a One-Time-Pad implementation that works!!!
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TriStrata has announced that is has a product that provides OTP without the pad distribution problem. The product also has a unique key-recovery system. Check out: http://www.tristrata.com for details. **************************************************************************** ************* PGP 5.5.3 Fingerprint: 15B3 DDC1 93BB 4BDF 4DFD 1B27 12A1 E0C4 **************************************************************************** ************* -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com> iQEVAwUBNZVo5dc2wHb8nZI1AQFqngf/bCJVbMQX/5sYb181CLONmqWjPzhQ66Ef HoyPqxRzEyq4FSWnIuQODH/YTeyyQROUqCZGhC19v8PCiZpI1ynSvn4i+Zcjv9I0 OZBThzKayNoMne7TkNr49Ah9BwDK6XuwS9bns1xM65zfKLpvKP2gboWkADD52K4w eUuJx/cTaR7PgdO/q6nrVRNq1jlaJsFBKGt2q5E1S12ZK1nA+mpKAS95XMgr2IMx 5/wJ+jsOIUTn2gWR64nhluOgmcACeIVsiRlsGqfUdL8gJHAl0gaQ7E1+HSOBx60K Ur5x5MzQKBKlWcoDaEXB1AsICW2enwdGVOxPBklq1CbcQxFXdBj1DQ== =vZmi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

What's up in SASEBO, or Don't Tug The Beard
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "George Martin" <gmartin(a)usonet.ne.jp> >To: "honig(a)otc.net" <honig(a)otc.net> >Date: Sat, 04 Apr 98 22:25:07 +0900 >Reply-To: "George D. Martin" <gmartin(a)usonet.ne.jp> >Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: PMMail 1.95a For OS/2 >Subject: > >>4)From: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net> >>Subject: Illegal export of pgp.zip by .mil > >>http://braggbbs.bragg.army.mil/libs/utils.htm >>has a link to ftp://bbs.bragg.army.mil/library/utils/pgp262.zip > >>Someone (from Europe, ideally) should clue these people >>in. Maybe cc the media. > >Maybe you should've checked out the url to see if it was >valid before you shot your mouth off in public... The file >was removed quite a few months ago and was never download >by anyone outside of the .mil domain. Take your >troublemaking somewhere else. I of course informed him that he was mininformed or uninformed. honig(a)alum.mit.edu ------------------ "Are we going after their tax returns? I can only hope that we are, frankly, doing a little persecuting" ---Nixon to Erlichman, on tax audits of wealthy Jewish contributors to the Democrats. -LA Times 1.4.98

2 1