December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Science Generations, II
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:58 PM -0800 2/16/97, Steve Schear wrote: >BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're >in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large >industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the >amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara ><http://www.sb.net/wirehead>. It carries only a limited selection and >prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume). And as part of the "War on (Some) Drugs," many chemical purchases now require licenses of various sorts. As a growing number of chemicals are classified as "precursors" to a growing medicine cabinet full of mind-altering or reality-enhancing recreational substances, this "chemical escrow" is a step in the direction of outlawing all cash commerce. Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, True Names revealed, etc.? (I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I believe "due process" means that a court order, or specific enabling legislation (as for guns) must be produced. If Alice sells something to Bob, having the government as a third party is, I think, a violation of the Fourth. However, the "power to regulate commerce" could be the root password, as national security often is.) I'm thinking about these issues because I'm working on a position paper for Michael Froomkin's session at CFP. (Froomkin is one of the legal scholars aruing that transactions may have no constitutional expectation of privacy.) >Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a >plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may >investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. >173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. Nor can you play with knives, by the way. I read rec.knives, and the explosion of laws about how and where knives may be carried, used, owned, bought, etc., and what blade shapes are allowed, what lengths are felonies to possess, etc., is truly mind-numbing. I concluded that I'm committing misdemeanors in nearly all counties I enter in California, and felonies in some. All for possessing and/or carrying what I bought legally just a few years ago. This is the morass of laws into which we have sunk. I suspect similar laws--regulating commerce, protecting children, disarming bad guys, etc.--will be used soon enough on crypto. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

7 12

Re: The Offending Stronghold posts...
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> writes: > Would someone (besides <spit!> Dr. Vulis of course, or my kill-file eat > it...) please forward me the Stronghold article by Dimitri and all replies > thereto, so I can at least see what the fuss was all about? I might as well > include them in the e$pam feed for posterity. My archive is patchy at the time, as I subscribed to cp and cp-flames, and only switched to cp-unedited when it became apparent that I would be missing some posts by not being on cp-unedited. However, these are the posts that I have obtained from list members, the posts from Tim were forwarded to me by Tim himself (on request -- he offered in a post to do so), Dimitri's post was forwarded to me by Peter Hendrickson and confirmed by Toto, and Igor. Tim declined to confirm or deny when I forwarded him Dimitri's post due to the legal threats. I do think that this is Dimitri's original post. You will observe that the post it isn't flamish. There are many, many other posts which go to confirm the list of events. There may be other replies, but this should keep you going. [0] Dimitri [1, 2, 3, 4] Tim's followups (forwarded to me by Tim) [5] Tim on the legal threats I would appreciate confirmations of which of the lists cypherpunks(a)toad.com (moderated list) cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com cypherpunks-flames(a)toad.com these 5 posts went to, and confirmations that others on cypherpunks-unedited received them as quoted below. I would also be interested to know which lists my recent potted history went to, this was the posting starting: : Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:49:09 GMT : From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> : To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com : Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability : : : There appears to be a bit of a hush up surrounding the circumstances : of the pause in the moderation experiment and subsequent change of : moderation policy. ... Thanks, Adam [0] ====================================================================== From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Subject: Security alert!!! To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Message-Id: <aw5c2D4w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps [1] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:46:39 -0800 To: Against Moderation <antimod(a)nym.alias.net> From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com At 9:19 AM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: >"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > >> Well, I only subscribe to the Flames list--there is no doubt about this. >> >> In any case, what is the meaning of a message going only to the "Unedited" >> list? A message that goes to the Unedited list but _not_ to the Flames >> list must surely go to the Main list, right? >> >> That is, >> >> MAIN list + FLAMES list = UNEDITED list > >No, this is not the case. At this point the unedited list does >definitely get everything that gets mailed to cypherpunks. However, >Vulis did apparently send a couple of [obnoxious, flamey and blatantly >untrue] posts about security holes in Stronghold. Sandy deleted that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >message and did not send to the mail or flames lists. > >Could have been an accident, or could be because Vulis and Sandy hate >each other... Whether true or not, it is not the role of Sandy the Censor to decide on the truth of various claims in people's posts. Even by his own (vague and changing) standards, deciding on the _truthfulness_ of articles was never a criterion. This is a serious charge. Can you send to the list, with a copy to me, the articles which cited security holes in Stronghold? Given that Sandy works for a company, Community Connection/C2NET, which _sells_ Stronghold, it would be serious indeed if Sandy is using his role as List.Censor to keep such articles from the main list, and even more serious (much more serious), if Sandy is discarding such articles completely. Given the extremely serious implications of this charge, I would like to see some evidence before believing it. By the way, this again raises the issue of the danger of filtering out posts merely because _somewhere_ in the post insulting words are used. (Recall that my long essay was almost scrapped by Sandy, by his own admission, because one small paragraph said unflattering things about some people. Jeesh. Is this what Cypherpunks has become?) It would be far better, and more honest (in a warped way), if Sandy were to leave in the substantive sections of all posts and merely mark offending sections as "***** C E N S O R E D *****." Then people could read the various claims made in posts and still have the "naughty bits" blacked out, so as not to offend their sensibilities. It's the honest way to censor. --Tim May [2] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:59:23 -0800 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> Subject: More on the Stronghold Charge Cc: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Vulis has sent me private mail, which I won't quote here because of the usual netiquette standards that private mail not be quoted (though it's legal to do so). He asserts that a few weeks ago he sent criticisms of Stronghold out to the Cypherpunks list, and the criticisms did not appear on any of the distributed lists. He claims he then received communications from C2Net of a legal nature, threatening him with legal action. I'll let Vulis elaborate if he wishes, as I don't know the situation. And I encourage him to do so, for more than one reason. As I just replied to "Against Moderation" on, I would like to see these articles which were suppressed. Please repost them to the list, and copy me to ensure that I get them. If this claim is true, that Sandy blocked criticism of Stronghold from reaching either the Main list (bad enough), or from even going out at all on the Flames list (reprehensible), then this is an extremely serious charge. If the claim is true that Sandy used articles sent to the Cypherpunks list, but never distributed to the list, as the basis by the company which employs him of legal threats of any kind, then this is even more than just "extremely serious." I would like to hear more from Vulis, and copies of any such articles, and of course would like to hear Sandy's version of things. This is too serious a charge not to resolve. --Tim May [3] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:03:02 -0800 To: Against Moderation <antimod(a)nym.alias.net> From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com At 10:07 PM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: >Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the >message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that >I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it >probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people >on the various lists confirm this for me? I checked the archive site (http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks) for the "main" (censored) list, and do not see it there, either by title or by author. I only recently subscribed to the Flames list, so I cannot check to see if it went there. Anyone else check the Flames list? As I said in my last messages, if this message went to neither the Main list nor the Flames list, then a very serious problem has been exposed. Further, if the post, while not being sent to either of the nominal lists which filtered stuff is supposed to go to, was used as the basis of legal threats by the employer of Sandy, the list's censor, then dramatically more serious implications seem evident. I await Sandy's views with great anticipation. The message itself does not look flamish to me. It makes charges, but so do a zillion other posts. It cannot be the job of a censor to decide on what is true and what is not true. >Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the It's not "flamey." Nobody is called a cocksucker, nobody is called a faggot, etc. Yes, it claims a product has a trojan horse, but this is a claim comparable to other claims routinely made on list and newsgroups. I'm also neither stupid nor disingenuous. I realize full well that Vulis probably made the claim because he knows Sandy works for the seller of Stronghold. Be that as it may, it is not proper for a censor employed by the seller of a product to decide that criticisms of his product are flamish. Would the list have countenanced censorship of criticisms of an RSADSI product if the list were being censored by an employee of RSADSI? And by letting Vulis make such a claim, and then having it quickly rebutted by other employees of C2Net, for example, Vulis would be shown to be spreading disinformation and his reputation capital would decline still further. If in fact the Vulis claim never made it either of the two lists to which all filtered messages are supposed to be sorted, then deception has occurred. And a conflict of interest. Again, I await Sandy's response. >A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames >and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets >rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, >it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but >dishonesty. Indeed. --Tim May [4] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:46:10 -0800 To: Against Moderation <antimod(a)nym.alias.net>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> Subject: Re: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Cc: hugh(a)toad.com At 4:31 AM +0000 2/8/97, Against Moderation wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of >moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what >has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from >these incidents. (long account of getting legal threats for quoting a message about CENSORED elided) This is indeed an important incident. I hope we can discuss it. Many issues central to Cypherpunks are involved. To name a few: * the moderation/censorship issue itself (though we have probably beaten this one to death in the last few weeks). * the "libel" issue, especially as it involves Sandy, his company, and the machine the list is hosted from. The introduction of a censor has, as many of us predicted, raised serious libel and liability issues. (This is the best reason I can think of it to move to an "alt.cypherpunks" system, where bypassing of liability, libel, copyright violation, etc., laws is naturally handled by the globally decentralized and uncontrolled nature of Usenet.) * conflicts of interest issues. Apparently Sandy feels information deleterious to C2Net, having to do with a claimed CENSORED in the software product CENSORED, cannot be passed by him to _either_ of the two lists to which articles are supposed to be sent. (Sadly, he did not tell us of this meta-censorship when it happened. This made what he did deceptive as well as wrong.) * chilling of discussion. As "Against Moderation" notes, merely _quoting_ the article of another caused Sandy to not only reject his article, but also to contact him and raise the threat of legal action. (This even though Against Moderation added all sorts of "obviously false" comments to what Vulis had written.) * even more threats. At the request of CENSORED today, I called CENSORED and had a verbal communication with him (a nice guy, by the way) about this situation. He averred that "you don't want to be pulled into this," and suggested that if I post certain things, even quoting the reports that a CENSORED exists in CENSORED, I could well be sued by the lawyers of his company! These are issues which remailers, decentralized servers, anonymity, data havens, and other Cypherpunks technologies make important issues for us to discuss. When did Cypherpunks start thinking about libel? (Obvious answer: when _their_ companies were the targets of criticism, lies, libel, whatever.) It's not as if insulting or even "libelous" (I'm not a lawyer) comments have not been made routinely on the list. Insulting companies and other institutions has been standard Cypherpunks fare since the beginning. Mykotronx has been accused of high crimes, RSADSI has been declared to be placing backdoors in code, Phil Zimmermann has been declared to be an NSA plant ("only trust the versions of PGP before he cut the deal to get his freedom"), and so on. Think about it. Just about any company with any product related to crypto has at one time or another had their motives questioned, their products slammed, etc. Unfortunately, our Late Censor is an employee of one of the companies so slammed, and he has reacted by rejecting one or more of these slams without bothering to tell the list that he has to do so. (Were it me, I would have "recused" myself from the decision, or at least told the list in general terms what was going on, or, more likely, resigned as censor. But then I would never have been a list.censor in the first place.) I understand that Sandy is stepping down as our Moderator. The Censor is Dead, Long Live Sandy! I expect to harbor no continuing resentment toward Sandy (though I expect things will be strained for a while, as might be expected). The issues raised are ugly ones. Here's what scares me: the "precedent" may irretrievably be established that companies offended by words on the list will threaten legal action to recover their good name. I can imagine Mykotronx or even First Virtual citing the actions of C2Net as a precedent (a cultural precedent, to the extent there is such a thing) for their own legal letters. As with the terrible precedent set by the "even Cypherpunks had to censor themselves" experiment, these companies may be able to say "But even a Cypherpunk-oriented company realized that the antidote for damaging speech was not rebutting speech. No, these Cypherpunks realized that some threatening letters and pulling the plug on the speaker was a better approach." And we won't be able to easily argue that Mykotronx has no right to do this while C2Net does. Sandy, in his message a few hours ago to Against Moderation, even made the claim (and Sandy _is_ a lawyer, or at least once was) that John Gilmore could be held liable for speech on the Cypherpunks list. (I don't doubt the "could," but I hate like hell to see a Cypherpunkish company leading the charge.) Perhaps this is true. But the Censorship experiment, and the resulting threats of legal action by C2Net to stop mention of the alleged CENSORED in their product CENSORED, fuel the fire. Instead of denigrating such legal moves--as I'm sure most Cypherpunks would have done a few years ago if RSADSI were to try to sue people for making outrageous claims--we have a major company consisting of several leading Cypherpunks making just such threats. I'm not a legal scholar, but is it really the case that merely _alluding_ to the allegedly libelous comments of another is itself a libel? Is a reporter who writes that "Person X has alleged that Product Y has a Flaw Z" thus committing a libel? (I don't think so, as reporters frequently report such things. If merely quoting an alleged libel is also libel, then presumably a lot of reporters, and even court clerks reporting on cases, are libelers.) (ObLisp reference: quoting an expression ought to have a different return value than evaluating an expression! That's what quotes are for.) My comments this past week have not been motivated by animosity toward Sandy, and certainly my comments today are not motivated by any animosity about C2Net or any of its employees (including CENSORED, whom I spoke with today). My comments started out as being a summary of why I had left Cypherpunks when the Great Hijacking was announced. Since last Sunday, when I issued my "Moderation" post, I've only responded to messages I was CC:ed on, or to messages on the Flames list, which I subscribed to temporarily to better see what Sandy was calling flames. The discovery that certain posts were not appearing on either the Main list or the Flames list triggered today's comments about Sandy and the alleged CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORED (blah blah blah). I hope we can declare this Censorship experiment a failure and move on. However, it is almost certain that as a result of attempts to suppress certain views, that the move back to an unfiltered state will mean that some will use anonymous remailers and nym servers to post even _more_ claims, however outrageous. This is a predictable effect. Cf. Psychology 101 for an explanation. Kicking Vulis off the list predictably produced a flood of Vulis workarounds, and a surge in insults via anonymous remailers. Instituting censorship of the list triggered a flood of comments critical of the experiment, and a predictable "testing" of the censorship limits. And, finally, now that C2Net is threatening legal action to stop discussion--even in quotes!!--of alleged CENSORED in CENSORED, expect a lot of repetition of these claims via remailers. And, I predict, claims about CENSORED will even be spread more widely, e.g., on the Usenet. (Sadly, I half expect a letter from some lawyers or lawyer larvae saying I am "suborning libel," or somesuch nonsense. As Sandy would say, "piffle." Lawyers, take your best shot.) ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:14:04 -0800 From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk References: <tcmay-ya023180001202971203130001(a)news.znet.net> <5e2qqm$ahi$1(a)news.sas.ab.ca> <E5nqty.4rD(a)world.std.com> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks, alt.privacy, comp.org.eff.talk) At 6:07 PM -0800 2/16/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May >proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of >moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go >figure. The only phone conversation I had was with Doug Barnes, at the request of Doug that I urgently phone either him or Sameer. I called Doug as soon as I got the message. (Doug also said he was the only one in the room at the time, and that the call was *not* being recorded, so I have to surmise that Sandy got his version of things via a recap by Doug.) >> 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not >> desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising >> a C2Net product that he would be sued! > >Absolutely false. > What Doug told me was that Dimitri Vulis had already been served with a legal notice about his warnings about a security flaw in Stronghold, and that any repetition of Dimitri's claims by me or anyone else would result in similar legal action. Doug said that any repetition of the claims, even as part of a quote, would be seen as actionable by C2Net. "We'll vigorously defend our rights." (as best I can recall) He said he thought my messages, to the extent they merely _alluded_ to the claims were probably OK and that they would certainly go through to the list, as Sandy has already resigned from his role as moderator. (For the record, these messages DID NOT GO THROUGH, and have not gone through as of tonight, 8-9 days later. However, I have forwarded them to several people who requested them.) (I also did not have a recorder running, so I can't claim this is a verbatim summary of what was said. As to what I said about how the moderation thing might have been done differently, Doug and I chatted for a while about various alternatives. I raised the point I've made before, that having a "members only" policy, with some special provision for some amount of remailed messages, would probably best suit the notion of keeping the "community" running. What I told Doug was that my main objection was having Sandy sit in judgement to essays folks might have spent a long time composing, and I cited physical parties, where a host invites those he wants in attendance, but does not micromanage or screen conversations being held at the party. My sense was that Doug agreed, and agreed that the whole thing had been handled in a bad way...but Doug should comment to tell his view of things.) The next day, at the physical Cyperpunks meeting at Stanford, I briefly talked to Greg Broiles, working as a legal aide at C2Net. I told Greg he could "take his best shot," in terms of filing suit against me about my messages, as I'm prepared to fight C2Net in court on this matter, and have the financial resources to hire some pretty good lawyers. (I don't recall if Greg replied, or what his reply was.) In a message to Cypherpunks, I outlined my understanding of the Vulis report on security flaws in Stronghold, and put the claims in the context of messages not appearing on either of the two main lists, but none of my messages were sent to either the Main list or the Flames list. (I also had communication with several members of the list, some known to me and some only pseudonyms. I have taken the precaution of erasing these messages and copying files to the disk on which they resided to head off any attempts by C2Net seize my computer and disks as part of some "discovery" process.) I find it unfortunate that C2Net is behaving in such a manner, and their actions are generating far more publicity about the claimed security flaws in Stronghold than the original Vulis message ever would have generated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as a Supreme Court justice averred. And suppression is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria, fungi, and ugly growth, as a less articulate person said. Reporters interested in this story have already contacted me. They're interested in the situation surrounding the claims of a flaw. I told one reporter I had no expertise in Stronghold, SSL, etc., and could not say, but that I suspected strongly that the claim was made just as a "tweak" of C2Net. "Truth is an absolute defence against libel claims." (P.S. To repeat, I doubt there is a flaw in Stronghold, either introduced by RSA (Republic of South Africa, of course) or by the NSA, or by C2Net, or by anyone else. I said as much in my messages which never made it to the list.) --Tim May

1 0

Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Everyone and his/her cousin has jumped into the void created when John Gilmore decided to pull the plug on toad.com. However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far as the newsgroups go.) Has anyone composed a concise summary of just what the options are? Time is running out, I guess. Thanks in advance. =Bill=

5 5

Another test
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another test

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg Broiles writes: > At 01:13 PM 2/16/97 -0800, Dave Hayes wrote: > >I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if > >that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. > I think it would be more accurate to say that this is what it takes to get > cypherpunks into the hands of different control interests. Ok. If the legends about this list are true, then this is the ideal place to determine the feasability of removing -any- control interests. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The only person who needs a contract is one who cannot be trusted.

1 0

FC97 lookalike: Stock Trading over the Internet Conference
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know about *lookalike*... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Ian Grigg <iang(a)systemics.com> Precedence: Bulk Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:30:32 +0100 (MET) From: Ian Grigg <iang(a)systemics.com> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: FC97 lookalike: Stock Trading over the Internet Conference http://www.iqpc.com/0397stoc.htm STOCK TRADING OVER THE INTERNET Exploiting the power of Electronic Commerce March 19-20, 1997 * The Pan Pacific Hotel * San Francisco, CA Hear first hand tips from the true pioneers in Internet stock trading and electronic commerce on: Conquering the process of going public Raising capital in your company via the Internet Using the Web to build your business and partnering with co-opitition Forming permanent syndicates to foster the creation of new offerings Creating effective and complete marketing plans for IPO's and DPO's Attracting customers and delivering services through the exploding electronic commerce market The audience for this event will include companies looking to offer shares via the Internet and drastically cut costs including; Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers, Managing Directors, General Managers, Investor Relations Managers, Underwriters, Stock Exchange Executives, Venture Capitalists, Investment Bankers, Private Company Executives, Business Development Executives, Technology and Business Press and all those seeking to explore opportunities on the emerging Internet marketplace DAY ONE March 19, 1997 Chairman: Brad W. Smith, President, WBS & A, Ltd. 8:30 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ON INTERNET PUBLIC OFFERINGS This session will review the many regulatory and legislative issues involved in the development of Internet public offerings. In particular, how and why the regulatory bodies of the NASD, NASDAQ and the SEC are making a commitment to the Internet as a vehicle that serves the investor. Proper surveillance procedures have been created and executed to protect all parties. Internet initiatives have been developed to bridge the market side and regulatory side of these complex issues. Al Dandridge, Associate Director of Corporate Finance U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Charles Bennett, Associate Director of Corporate Finance NASD 9:30 INTERNET TRADING MARKET PROJECTIONS Internet trading is an emerging market wave that is poised for explosive growth. More than 60 million investors have brokerage accounts. The media reports that Internet brokerage accounts will jump from 1.5 million today to 9.3 million by the year 2001; Every bank will use the Internet to attract customers and deliver services in the next five years and electronic commerce will grow to $600 billion annually within the next 10 years. Visionaries believe that one of the most profound effects of these phenomena's will be to changehow small businesses get capitalized. They predict that small business public offerings will become routine for nano-cap companies. This session will present a strategic overview of the emergence of internet capabilities that make it possible for investors to invest in and trade nano-cap company stocks. Brad Smith, President WBS & A, Ltd. bradwsmith(a)aol.com 11:00 GOING PUBLIC: HOW TO RAISE CAPITAL THROUGH A DIRECT PUBLIC OFFERING (DPO) This session will explore from concept to completion, how to perform all of the necessary functions to prepare and market a DPO and/or an Internet DPO. A case study will be shared of a DPO that will be presented to the investment community world-wide in early 1997. Learn from the experts the specifics on how to take your company where you want to go and ensure success including: Marketing through an investor relations firm Choosing an appropriate analyst Utilizing a transfer agent The link between broker and internet commerce David A. Levonian, President INTERNATIONAL INVESTOR RELATIONS http://iirwebtv.net 1:00 OVERCOMING THE PITFALLS AND CHALLENGES OF GOING PUBLIC The advantages of "going public" appear straight forward. The company accesses the capital it needs to expand or refine its product. (In a purely coincidental occurrence, the current shareholder [including investment bankers, SEC lawyers and stock brokers] get rich.) There are numerous challenges in conquering the process of "going public" including: There are problems with the lawyers, accountants and the bankers and they are on YOUR SIDE There are pounds of paper forms which must be submitted to every group, not to mention the SEC. However, an approved offering does not make a successful offering. It still must be marketed, either by stock brokers OR MAYBE directly over the Internet. And not just to the U.S., but to the entire world. That may be the wave of the future. Direct access to securities and their offering companies over the Internet. Michael J. Waddell, President PROMARKETING, INC. Developer of the (http://www.freemarket.org) selected by PC Novice Guide to the Web as one of the Internet "Greatest Sites" 2:00 IPONET: SELLING & ADVERTISING IPO'S ON THE INTERNET: THE CREATION OF THE FIRST PERMANENT SYNDICATE IPOnet is currently the only site on the Internet with clearance from the SEC to advertise and sell new security offerings online. IPOnet intends to have multiple Broker/Dealers listed on it's site. This will create the first permanent syndicate of Broker/Dealers. These Broker/Dealers will act as selected dealers for each others offerings and act as underwriters of their own offerings. This session will examine the following topics: Why the broker can not be eliminated from the offerings What really happens when an IPO is put on the Internet Why DPO's will never be a major threat to brokers Why a permanent syndicate will foster the creation of new offerings Leo J. Feldman, President IPONET http://www.e-iponet.com lfeldman(a)e-iponet.com 3:30 THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITIONAL EXCHANGES AS A SECONDARY MARKET Taking your company public via the Internet, rather than the traditional exchange, has become a very viable alternative for small business owners. However, unless the offering is backed by a complete marketing plan, it is unlikely that the offering will reap huge financial rewards and achieve success. Incorporating a traditional exchange as a secondary market into the plan can solidify, stabilize and extend the offering beyond the Internet marketplace and create longevity and security and financial return on your offering. This session will explore secondary markets and how traditional exchanges are advocating the collaborative efforts of traditional and web offerings. Iris Golden Brackett, Manager Listing Sales CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE 4:30 Panel Discussion: PUBLIC OFFERINGS AND THE INTERNET: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Join three of the most influential Internet finance and securities attorneys for this highly interactive session. They will discuss the legal aspects associated with buying and selling securities on the Internet, including private placement, Regulation A offerings and independent public offerings. Come prepared to share your challenges and solutions! William D. Evers, Esq. MILLER, MAILLIARD & CULVER M. Greg Allio, Esq. SHARTSIS, FRIESE & GINSBERG John Perkins, Chairman THE SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL ACCESS ASSOCIATION Charles Bennett, Associate Director of Corporate Finance NASD 5:45 CLOSE OF DAY ONE DAY TWO March 20, 1997 8:15 ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARDS FOR BID AND ASK OFFERS: THE EMERGENCE OF DIRECT STOCK MARKET The secondary market is the key to successful initial and direct public offerings. The traditional brokerage community has their hands tied when it comes to underwriting and making markets in small company issues. A new strata of corporate finance is being created by technological advances which marry capital requirements of entrepreneurs with risk/return and information demands of investors. This presentation will explore: Using the internet to raise capital for your company Secondary market trading on the Internet Virtual roadshows online Building your own public venture capital portfolio Investing in public venture funds Clay Womack, President DIRECT STOCK MARKET http://www.direct-stock-market.com 9:15 EXPLOITING INTERNET TECHNOLOGY TO REACH A GLOBAL AUDIENCE The power of the Internet has unleashed the potential for new business expansion and financial opportunity in a global market. Foreign businesses can now join forces quickly to create products and services and offer them to a larger population than before. This session will examine how to cultivate these partnerships, foster growth and secure positive financial outcomes by: Using the Web to build your business and partnering with co-opitition Attracting "qualified" people to your site Exploring value-added opportunities in the financial market on the Internet Michael Withrow, Director POWERTRADER, INC. http://www.powertrader.axionet.com 10:45 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPONENTS OF A STOCK TRANSFER Choosing a transfer agent with diversity of services allows your company to do more and retain extra added-value components and services. This session will take you step-by-step through the IPO process from working with attorneys through to the transfer work. Learn how to: How to judicate a stock transfer Outline the processes needed Develop the steps involved Anticipate the role of the Internet in stock transfers Sherri Herman, President THE HERMAN GROUP, INC. SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL ACCESS ASSOCIATION 1:00 INTERNET TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER This session will feature case studies and the future outlook on internet transactions for portfolio managers including: What is the Electronic/Internet Information System? -Office based and wireless -Text and video How is it used? -The two way information flows -Routine and custom information Specific needs and requirements for the portfolio manager and ways of customizing the information What are the advantages of the new system? Costs and tools of the system -Dollars -Technology -Savvy and advertising John Palicka, CFA, CMT Portfolio Manager GLOBAL EMERGING GROWTH 2:30 INTERNET OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES This session will focus on opportunities available on the Internet to companies that are publicly traded. A presentation no senior executive should miss! This presentation will examine why public companies should consider the added profitability of the Internet and offer specific Internet strategies and risks including: Using the Internet to improve liquidity Build a stock analyst following using the Internet Dealing with Motley Fool's and other potential risks M. Greg Allio, Partner SHARTSIS FRIESE & GINSBERG 3:30 CREATING AN ELECTRONIC STOCK EXCHANGE Exploiting IP-Understanding Internet Protocol (IP) - How to make your business grow ON-LINE by using the "best of" all available software Order Driven Systems- Understanding why market makers & specialists are a "necessary evil" we live with, and look at the functionality of SuperDot-type automation as opposed to Drop Copy A Virtual Branch Office- The growth of the independent brokerage industry, and a look at what will happen to the traditional registered representative Compliance/Supervision- How a small brokerage firm will supervise their representatives in the Internet age Ken Gruneisen, President & CEO, BEST EX, INC. THE BOCA RATON ELECTRONIC STOCK EXCHANGE 5:30 END OF CONFERENCE Post Conference Workshops ------------------------- 9:00am - 12:00pm The Impact of the World Wide Web on Individual Investors and Electronic Stock Trading 1pm - 4pm Building the partnership between Electronic Commerce and Raising Capital1pm - 4pm ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit <http://www.intertrader.com/> for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! See <http://www.shipwright.com/rah.html> Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, see <http://www.shipwright.com/rah/> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: The Offending Stronghold posts...
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here're wee additions to your archive: I subbed to cp-unedited from the first, so could compare the unedited messages with the edited. Some of mine(*) were edited, including a few on the Stronghold topic. But to me that's not as big a deal as some want to make of it. For example, in response to Tim's request to repost DV's Stronghold ploy, I did so, and it was edited. Sandy sent me a courteous email stating that he was not forwarding the message. I answered that that was okay with me because I thought that DV was using the issue as a ploy to undermine Sandy. Hey, there were no legal or other threats made to me, darn it! Another of my edited messages stated that there had been good discussion on the unedited list about DV's Denial of Service attack on Cypherpunks. Another noted that DV had been admirably successful in drawing others into his fight -- in support and in opposition -- as part of his DoS. Another questioned "Who's Censoring Who?" and offered the opinion that "censorship" rhetorically exaggerated Sandy's moderation. (I still believe that's the case.) For what it's worth, I oppose moderation, but favor experimentation, in the recognition that humans are near-endlessly adaptable and near- uncontrollable no matter what control mechanisms are employed -- anarchy is the norm whether advocated or not. So, I think the moderation experiment was a success, in that it has led to an unexpectedly constructive reconfiguration of Cypherpunks -- and not the last, that's for sure -- and showed that any archy is wishful dreaming of tortured hearts and minds and loins. A one hand applause to Dr. V and archy-demolishers for vibrating the c'punks house the way SATAN did bigger shoddy piles. Two hands to TCM for more memorable quaking of structure-bunkered c'punks and others. ----- * I'll supply copies of messages cited if you like.

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this?
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Now that cypherpunks is moving, to both a newsgroup and one or more > mailing lists, there's still a need for cypherpunks-announce or > something like it. So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. > > Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, > or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and > Hugh.) I newsgrouped several sub groups along with alt.cypherpunks. alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.technical but they do not appear to have taken effect (my local news server refuses to see them). Can anyone else see them? - If not I`ll have a word with my newsadmin. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

RAM CHIP SALE!
by Rhode Island Business Net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RIBN appologizes for any inconvenience this e-mail may have cause. In no way does RIBN mean to offend or upset any persons, please delete the e-mail if you are not interested. Thank you. 16 Megs EDO - $76.99!! 8 Megs EDO - $36.99!! 4 Megs EDO - $19.99!! Rhode Island Business Nets Ram Blow-out SALE!! Why pay $10-15 per meg at major computer stores? Rhode Island Business Net Inc can upgrade your RAM for as low as $4.81 per meg EDO, NON EDO, or Parity. Includes installation instructions and 1 year warranty. All order shipped US Postal Priority Mail Call toll free 1-800-785-3799 10-6 EST Mon - Sat Visa, Mastercard, Discover Card and American Express accepted. Quanities limited call now! Offer expires Feb. 28, 1997 32 Megs EDO - $149.99 32 Megs non-edo - $149.99 32 Megs Parity - $157.99 16 Megs EDO - $76.99 16 Megs non-edo - $76.99 16 Megs Parity - $ SOLD OUT 8 Megs EDO - $36.99 8 Megs non-edo - $36.99 8 Megs Parity - $54.99 4 Megs EDO - $19.99 4 Megs non-edo - $19.99 4 Megs Parity - $25.99 30 pin available call for prices Call 1-800-785-3799 to order CALL NOW!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 23:19:40.35 >> From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> >> Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just >> starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving >> at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check >> what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only >> applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address >> noted. >Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array >that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It >would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my >motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid >address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't >see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that >they can't. Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid addresses. The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a copy around for a human to look at. [re: bi-directional news-mail gateways] >> >Want to volunteer? >> >> Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera >> is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other >> computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level >> programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of >> is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with >> other stuff. In other words, it depends. >Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. >I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the >majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody >who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a >short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to >reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in the realm of keeping the thing up and running. >I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really >thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the >spice in life... Understood; my busy-ness with other stuff comes from being a grad student. >Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat >me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Looks OK. I'll also take a look around for what information I can find. -Allen

2 1