December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[GSM] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Derisve Vitriol K[reep]OfTheMoment died of AIDS last night with his faggot lover. __o _ \<_ Dr.Derisve Vitriol K[reep]OfTheMoment (_)/(_)

2 1

Re: Get cybersitter to block your ISP
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: perun!news2.panix.com!news.panix.com!panix!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-feed1.globalnet.co.uk!kew.globalnet.co.uk!usenet From: pevans(a)globalnet.co.uk.removethispart (evans-the-swim) Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.censorship,alt.revenge,news.admin.censorship,alt.html Subject: Get cybersitter to block your ISP Message-ID: <5ckclk$6kl(a)kew.globalnet.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:16:16 GMT Lines: 153 NNTP-Posting-Host: client856c.globalnet.co.uk X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 To all readers: I suggest that you do as I have done. If you have a web page, add a link (or many) dealing with Cybersitter, and email Mr. Milburn. Here's my example... Mr. Milburn: I have been reading the reports of you and your company's unethical, deceptive, bullying, and probably defamatory practices. It appears that your response to critics is to add their ISP to the list of sites blocked by your software. Accordingly, I have added to my home page links to various sites and files which will inform the reader of the true nature of your agenda. I am also suggesting to readers in all the newsgroups that relate to this issue that they do the same. My hope is that they will respond by doing so, and in turn force you to add so many ISP's to your list that you effectively restrict your users from the entire net. If successful, this will lead ultimately to the mass realisation that Cybersitter does not do what it is advertised to do, and that people wishing to "protect" their children from influences with which they disagree should choose other methods, and that you and your company will disappear as yet another burp in the turgid indigestion of the net. Please respond when you have added my ISP to your list of blocked sites. Feel free to email my postmaster as well. A sample of the information available to visitors to my site follows: ============================================= Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:36:55 -0800 From: Jonathan Wallace <jw(a)bway.net> Subject: 1--Solid Oak Blocking Software & Ethical Spectacle FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jonathan Wallace jw(a)bway.net NEW YORK CITY, January 19, 1997--In an apparent act of retaliation against a critic of the company, Solid Oak Sofware has added The Ethical Spectacle (http://www.spectacle.org) to the list of Web sites blocked by its Cybersitter software. The Ethical Spectacle is a monthly Webzine examining the intersection of ethics, law and politics in our society, which recently urged its readers not to buy Cybersitter because of Solid Oak's unethical behavior. The Ethical Spectacle is edited by Jonathan Wallace, a New York- based software executive and attorney who is the co-author, with Mark Mangan, of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996), a book on Internet censorship. "In the book," Wallace said, "we took the position-- naively, I now think--that use of blocking software by parents was a less restrictive alternative to government censorship. We never expected that publishers of blocking software would block sites for their political content alone, as Solid Oak has done." Solid Oak describes its product as blocking sites which contain obscene and indecent material, hate speech, and advocacy of violence and illegal behavior. In late 1996, computer journalists Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) and Brock Meeks (brock(a)well.com) broke the story that Cybersitter blocked the National Organization for Women site (http://www.now.org) along with other political and feminist organizations. In addition, the product blocked entire domains such as well.com, maintained by the venerable Well online service. McCullagh and Meeks implied that they had received an inner look at the Cybersitter database of blocked sites from someone who had reverse engineered the software. Shortly afterwards, Solid Oak asked the FBI to begin a criminal investigation of the two journalists and accused college student Bennett Haselton (bennett(a)peacefire.org) of being their source. Though McCullagh, Meeks and Haselton all denied he was the source (or that anything illegal had occurred), Solid Oak president Brian Milburn called Haselton an "aspiring felon" and threatened to add his Internet service provider to the blocked list if it did not muzzle Haselton. Haselton came to Milburn's attention by founding Peacefire, a student organization opposing censorship. On his Web pages (http://www.peacefire.org) Haselton posted an essay called "Where Do We Not Want You to Go Today?" criticizing Solid Oak. The company promptly added Peacefire to its blocked list, claiming that Haselton had reverse engineered its software, an allegation for which the company has never produced any evidence. "At that point," Wallace said, "I felt Milburn was acting like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla. I added a link to the Spectacle top page called 'Don't Buy Cybersitter' (http://www.spectacle.org/alert/peace.html) Anyone clicking on the link would see a copy of Bennett's 'Where Do We Not Want You to Go' page with some added material, including my thoughts on the inappropriateness of Solid Oak's behavior. I wrote the company, informing them of my actions and telling them that they misrepresent their product when they claim it blocks only indecent material, hate speech and the like." Solid Oak has now responded by blocking The Ethical Spectacle. "I wrote to Milburn and to Solid Oak technical support demanding an explanation," Wallace said. "I pointed out that The Spectacle does not fit any of their published criteria for blocking a site. I received mail in return demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment'--with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." Wallace continued: "With other critics such as Declan, Brock and Bennett, Solid Oak has claimed reverse engineering of its software, in supposed violation of its shrink-wrapped license. I have never downloaded, purchased or used Cybersitter, nor had any access to its database. I believe that Solid Oak's sole reason for blocking my site is the 'Don't Buy Cybersitter' page, criticizing the company's bullying behavior." The Ethical Spectacle includes the internationally respected An Auschwitz Alphabet (http://www.spectacle.org/695/ausch.html) a compilation of resources pertaining to the Holocaust. "Sixty percent of the Spectacle's traffic consists of visitors to the Holocaust materials," Wallace said. "Schoolteachers have used it in their curricula, it was the subject of a lecture at a museum in Poland some weeks ago, and every month, I get letters from schoolchildren thanking me for placing it online. Now, due to Solid Oak's actions, Cybersitter's claimed 900,000 users will no longer have access to it." Solid Oak can be contacted at blocking.problems(a)solidoak.com, or care of its president, Brian Milburn (bmilburn(a)solidoak.com.) ----------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wallace The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/ "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi

1 0

Re: A comment on the censorship policy
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 12:19 AM 1/30/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > It is extremely easy to understand. Just read your own words. > The key word here is 'accurate' criticisms. This makes them 'flames', >in Sandy's mind, because the purpose of the 'censorship experiment' >was to place total control of the list in the hands of a man who >rarely posts and doesn't seem to participate in the list discussions, >as well as for the purpose of suppressing any real dissent that may >arise from list members. Interesting interpretation. Mind you, I'm obliged to disagree. My understanding was that the moderator is supposed to ONLY filter out ads and utterly-content-free messages. (Mind you, I took the smart out and subbed to cp-unedited, so I'm in no place to judge.) If the idea was to place control in the hands of someone who rarely posts, why not give it to me? There are probably a few hundred of the real addresses on this list (not the mail-echoers) that have never posted. > Also, one of the reasons that the moderation process is so >haphazard, is that posts from some individuals are automatically >routed to the 'flames' list at some times, and viewed/censored >at other times, so that a few can be posted to the censored >list to give some half-hearted illusion of fairness in the >censorship process. (which remains a bad joke, nonetheless). Aha, a good point to be brought up: Sandy, are you autofiltering anyone based on user name, or on certain keywords? Seems to defeat the purpose of having a _human_ moderator. dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvFJl3EZTZHwCEpFAQHGiQf/QjEj9QJ+9viADYdfSQJumpXhb8BF+MHQ zbAYVGxLyt/WYA96cykFHYk2hCzkcfph/XDksSB6lmaStHFHfPCOAOHReu6xfHg2 3+3RyOI/eBJS8RS6z5dQBWTnKiu35sk5J2wMcnOWfMQXTWz8jYVAHnyBh9x39huP +Iwj4jOE0Qelu4/FZhgVgo3tktw5sBGjmaZgOvu/24DoT2YPsG9EQ74i6suX0B15 eE1uPaP+2zumwYpV2ywYNbfFyExY2K9XM6k7M/ZNwpplMyf+plYigVUkNRP6KJWK Gvp3bN6mAa2BF/bnoyCGTulC3By785Fk3s+EV2hUVknoZwH3SGF53w== =Sl5a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: uae_1.html
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > I wonder what these people will think when organizations like Teledesic and > Iridium start operating (low-earth-orbit satellites) to allow > totally-wireless connectivity. It seems to me that there will be a market > for services that allow anonymous browsing, perhaps with encrypted requests > that return otherwise-unidentified data on a publicly-accessible airwaves. Think of the possibility of satellite-fed 'roving' InterNet sites. What will be the 'export' implications of sending crypto to a place such as site.nowhere, site.somewhere, and site.intheUS-hee-hee. Toto

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 01:03 AM 1/28/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >jim bell wrote: > >> > >> At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >> >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >> >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >> >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >> >any recognition of this fact. > >> >........................................................ > >> > > >> >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > >> > >> Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > >> concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > >> encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > >> using encryption. > > > >Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there > >is a clear need for an AP bot. > > > >Do you feel like writing it? > > Desire? Yes. Ability? Maybe. Time? No. > You can hire someone to write it. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > fascinating reading sandy, but > > > > >The better metaphor for crypto is that the genie is out of the > >bottle. Alternatively, that the crypto bell cannot be unrung. > > these have the same conceptual limitations I was flaming. to > use the analogy: > > 1. it is unconstitutional to put a crypto genie in a bottle > in the first place. > 2. it is unconstitutional to make laws against ringing crypto bells. We do not disagree except neither of the metaphors I gave suggest anything about the "putting in the bag" part of the deal. In no way does either suggest a right, power or even ability of anyone to limit any freedom. They are mute on the subject. Their sole meaning is that one CAN'T undo what is already done. In the instant case, that means the wide-spread availability of strong crypto. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: Complying with the EAR [was: More Circumventing the ITAR]
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 AM 1/29/97 -0700, Michael Paul Johnson wrote: >On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Mark Rosen wrote: > >> I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically >> about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for > >You should check the exact text yourself, but the way I read the EAR, you >are not "exporting" strong cryptographic software without a license (exept >to Canada, which needs no license) if you do things "such as" >(1) have the guests to your site acknowledge that the EAR restricts >export, (2) have the guests affirm that they can legally get the software >(proper citizenship or residency & location), and (3) "check the address >of the destination computer to see if it is in the USA" or Canada. The >last one, I interpret rather loosely to mean that if the guest's email >address domain isn't one commonly used in the USA or Canada, then I deny >access. We all know that not all .com addresses are North American, but >chances are really good that if the address ends in .ru, then the >destination machine is probably not in North America. This is not a >perfect way to prevent export, of course, but it is what the regulations >say, as I read them. For a pointer to the regulations and to my access >request form and crypto site, see http://www.sni.net/~mpj/crypto.htm ... An easy crack to that would be to request access from a hotmail, or similair, account. This account would show up as being on US soil while the account holder would not necessarily be so. In this way, someone with an account ending in your .ru would get through because h[is/er] e-mail request originated from inside the U.S.

1 0

Re: Workaround for filtering/cybersitter
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:43 PM 1/29/97 -0500, Mark Rogaski wrote: >If I had experience with Netscape plugins and spare time, I'd >try it myself. But here's my proposed solution. > >A plugin in Netscape intercepts all requests, encrypt the URL >with a pubkey algorithm, encode the string base64, send it as GET input to >a proxy server. > >The proxy server decodes and decrypts the URL, gets the requested page, >and returns it. This beats out URL-based filtering. > >Still need to figure out the specifics of key-exchange. If we use >40-bit encryption, it's exportable, and it still works in our threat >model (ie. we don't care if the watchers figure out the URL a few hours >later). > >To beat out dropping packets with unacceptable pattern in them, we >could use an SSL-based server as the proxy. > >The plugin could even have a nice little on/off switch and a list >list of available proxies. ... The above paragraph would be a problem, unless you wanted to update the program with a great regualrity. Each time the offending government got the software and blocked all of those sites, the software would be worthless. This would be no big deal if you could guarantee some means of someone getting the software, which would certainly be illegal, again and again. Better to have the user key in the proxy that h[is/er] cousin/uncle/best friend/boss/client/guest told h[im/er] about. Here is a similar idea. Have your plug-in replace the part of Netscape that checks the URL with INTERNIC or similar. Have the system accept your address for the proxy and send the requested URL to it, the server then FTP's the contents of the page (and if server time is readily available, its sub-pages), places them in a temporary directory on itself and allows your computer to see it there thinking that it is on a totally different machine. This way the proxy owner would not have to stay on top of the latest restricted material. The main problem would be that the system would absorb twice as much time, once for the download to itself, and once to show it to you. This is not terribly different to Netscape's caching of recently visited pages in memory on the off-chance that you will return. If you changed passwords at the same time that you changed addresses, and reported them together, the government wouldn't be able to keep up. When the government did its sweep of objectionable words, it would come to this site that would have no such data. Only by having the access password, would they be able to reveal that site as a proxy. If they knew the password then they would already know that that was a proxy site because they would have been given both the password and the address at the same time. You then try to maintain several different addressess at a time, each with a different password. As the Government blocks one, change its password and its address. The software would be either two-piece, assuming a dedicated client plug-in, or one-piece. The pieces would be as follows. The proxy, this software would be as small as possible and would only be a front end. Ideally this software should fit on one 3.5" disk. The address to this machine would be the address handed out. In the one-part scenario, this would be implemented as a web-page with a CGI script for the address. The user types in the request and this bot fetches it, placing it in a special directory for the use of this script, this directory would probably be erased after the allotted space was filled, though not before, (you don't stay logged in to the remote machine when using Netscape so erasing on hang-up would mean continually reloading the data.) The proxy would then refresh your client with the requested information. In the two piece scenario, this proxy would interact with the plug-in in much the same way, forgoing the CGI script. The client, the plug-in, if present, would take over the Location field and have a set up menu to type in the proxy's URL and password. In that way the user would see h[im/er]self as accessing the web page directly. Certainly more user friendly, once the client were configured, though not quite as flexible. In this system the government could make both accessing the proxy and possession of the client illegal. It would also be a problem for persons who use a machine to which they have no control. If the setup were un changeable or reset after power-down, this system would require the user to continually re set up the client. The proxy could be as simple as an opening screen with a field for the password and the URL. The proxy should re-link all external links into its own system so that the system can be transparent after the initial page. In other words, the links should be replaced with a second HTML document with the password and search-criteria inside in much the same way that search-engines relay your request to itself, in the URL. This would be a simple script that changed all occurances of "A HREF="HTTP://This.is.the/real/site.html"" to "A HREF="internal/directory.html Query?=HTTP://This.is.the/real/site.html+password""

1 0

Re: Shave the Whales
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What a joy to make a public mockery of Dogfucker L"amprey" Vulis K"adaver" Of The Moment! __[I]__ o-o' __oOo__(-)_oOo__ Dogfucker L"amprey" Vulis K"adaver" Of The Moment V

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:46:57 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > > * The 1st Amendment does protect some lies. No, it protects speech. The Constitution is meant to protect citizens from a priori constraints on their speech, not the results of the content ex post facto. It is clearly not in the best interest of society to limit opinions or fiction. > If I say "Jim Choate is a > Venusian albatross," the statement is probably (?) a lie, No, for it to be a lie there must be a potentiality of its truth. A nonsense statement which happens to fit the syntactical rules of a language wouldn't qualify. A more apt situation would be, "Hey, <some person>, I saw <your name> in a public restroom blowing the President's pink torpedoe and <your name> was begging for more!". The statement should have to be transmitted to <some person> without the permission of <your name>. The legal standard should be that if you make statements purported to be true about a third party without their prior consent you should be held to a minimum standard of evidence demonstrating the actuality of your statement. A democratic society should have no tolerence for libel, slander, or other forms of lies. > but I doubt > you'll prevail in a libel suit. What damages do you have? That's the key, > I believe -- the statement has to lower you in the opinion of others. Which is exactly one aspect of the problem. Wrongs should not be based on quantity or opinion. By focusing on what others think trivializes the issue at hand, a untruth about a person has been passed off as a truth. > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > It is, they say, a rich man's game Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. > -- if I'm libeled by the NYT, I'm > probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump can. Moreover, > if I don't have the resources to sue but the statement is libelous, it > creates a *presumption* in the minds of the readers that the article is > certainly true. (If it were not, I would have sued, right?) Another good example of why our system is broke. > * The concept you may be searching for is consensual speech, which I > believe a society should tolerate. Libelous speech isn't consensual, > though obscenity is. There is no such thing as 'obscenity' just as there is no such thing as 'community standard'. These are the results of mental masturbation to justify some power freaks alterior motives. No, what I should be permitted to say should not rest on what others may permit. If so then I should have a say in what they can say, which means I have a say in what they can say about what I can say, ... (got it yet?) What we need is a fundamental change in the legal system which focuses on first principles and results, not social status or wealth or the potential for gain. Perhaps what we need is a legal system where both the defence and prosecuting attornies are selected by lot. We already have such a system applied to the defence. If it is considered sufficient for a defence it should qualify as sufficient for prosecution. Each practicing attorney would receive a stipend allocated by the appropriate legislative body. The court and police (who should represent the people in general) would provide both parties the results of any tests and equal and simultaneous access to all evidence. If a person wants additional legal council they can buy it from their own pocket but the attorney is limited to act only as a adjunct to the appointed attorney (ie they would not be allowed to speak in court). In civil cases the plaintiff should place a bond, set at some percentage of the maximum permissible award, at the time the case is filed. This would at least cover the general costs of the court and limit nuisance cases. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1