December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: (Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Let them know that if they want to censor you, they will have to > censor your 'strong' crypto. Even if you choose to fight by showing > up with your gun on your hip, at high-noon, it still doesn't hurt to > have one tucked in your boot, as well. Certain unnamed people believe that "strong" crypto, like free speech, is only for those who use it "responsibly". Privacy is for the elite; and they wish to join the elite, rather then extend the right to privacy and/or free speech to the "unwashed masses". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Censorship
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> writes: > On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > > > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only > > cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". > > THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY > OBJECT TO. Comversely, some people are willing to give up their own freedom of speech so as to silence others whose views they don't like. They hope that they'll be censored less than their "enemies". But a forum can't be "a little bit censored" just like a woman can't be "a little bit pregnant". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes: > > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method > > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > > > any recognition of this fact. > > > I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study > > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? > > If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, > that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* > in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors). But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them. A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets, would be a good demo. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > How does one country get on top and terrorize the whole world? By > following Tom Wolfe's intimation concerning the pirates: "The people > on the East coast were constantly victimized because they couldn't > comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were" > (quote approximate). Dale, When I read posts like this, I wonder how any rationally thinking person can possibly believe that socio/politico concerns have no place in the discussion of crypto. It is my belief that many of the more atrocious acts being performed against the citizens by various governments are made possible by the fact that there are so few people who recognize a 'pirate' when they see one. While I appreciate that there are those who may be furthering the cause of crypto, privacy and freedom through official channels, the controlled media, and such, there needs to be a forum in which people are free to use what they consider to be the 'correct' terminology to refer to those who have usurped democracy in order to control the citizens for their own personal profit. i.e. 'Pirates' Toto

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes: > Regardless of which side you take on this matter, remember that the issue > was forced by the actions of an extremely small segment of the list > "population." The list "population" (readers) is a couple of thousand people, almost all of whom are lurkers. All posters are an extremely small segment of the readership. It's true on most Internet forums. > The decision of that small segment to excercise its rights "in extreme" > passed the tolerance thresholds of increasing numbers of list members, > and the end result was a "restriction" adopted/elected/forced-on (colour > it however you chose) on the entire "population." > > "Rights" are derived from social responsibility; its either that, or the > "law of the jungle." V.I.Lenin said: "liberty is a recognized necessity". (I'll let Igor correct my translation is it's wrong.) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Xerox is watching you
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You'll find an article worth a visit to the dentist in the January 1997 issue of Popular Science. It tells a story from the 1960's cold war era. It seems that the only American who could get into the Soviet Embassy was the Xerox repairman. So the CIA and Xerox built a camera that took a picture of every copy that could be installed inside the 914 cabinet (where it would be invisble). Once a month, the repairman came by to do the ordinary cleaning and repair (those things broke down a lot). Part of the repair process exchanged the camera for a fresh load. The CIA could then read everything that was copied. The article suggests that other Xerox models had their own cameras. My back of the envelope (literally) computation suggests that one roll of 8-millimeter film would hold about 30,000 images. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

1 0

Assination
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > > > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > > > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? > > > > If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, > > that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* > > in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors). > > But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant > and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them. > > A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like > usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets, > would be a good demo. I have a feeling that you are missing the point. The point of AP is not to bet on whether a certain event will occur or not. The point is that only a person who really makes it happen (assassinates someone) will know enough to get the money. All other betters who do NOT intend to bring the event about will expect to lose money, because they will not be able to make a sufficiently good prediction. It is not a bookie system, it is a collective anonymous hire-a-hitman scheme. Yuor suggestion about trying a demo about homophobic posts is good, BUT what needs to be added to make it a good demo is a danger for the poster to lose an account. I.e., the requirement to such a homophobic post should be that 1) it should be PGP signed by a real person and 2) it should have a correct return address. Any fool can send an anonymous message, and that would have no educational value and no value for the AP demo. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > > understand what is going on. > > > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > > > Jim Choate > > > CyberTects > > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > > > Jim, > > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > > the part of the net that I have paid for. > > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > > they choose. > > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > > set up to espouse. > > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that > party did not write them is a crime? cite the statute - Igor.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > How does one country get on top and terrorize the whole world? By > > following Tom Wolfe's intimation concerning the pirates: "The people > > on the East coast were constantly victimized because they couldn't > > comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were" > > (quote approximate). > > Dale, > When I read posts like this, I wonder how any rationally thinking > person can possibly believe that socio/politico concerns have no > place in the discussion of crypto. > It is my belief that many of the more atrocious acts being performed > against the citizens by various governments are made possible by the > fact that there are so few people who recognize a 'pirate' when they > see one. > While I appreciate that there are those who may be furthering the > cause of crypto, privacy and freedom through official channels, the > controlled media, and such, there needs to be a forum in which > people are free to use what they consider to be the 'correct' > terminology to refer to those who have usurped democracy in order > to control the citizens for their own personal profit. > i.e. 'Pirates' Right now, you can still say anything you like in "cypherpunks-unedited". Anyone subscribed to the moderated cypherpunks list is free to resubscribe. If the masses of lurkers choose not to do it, it's their loss, and not your or my responsibility. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > Jim Choate wrote: > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > understand what is going on. > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > Jim Choate > > CyberTects > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > Jim, > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > the part of the net that I have paid for. > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > they choose. > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > set up to espouse. Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that party did not write them is a crime? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0