December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:30 AM 1/26/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: >> The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the >> vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as >> someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not >> be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes >> out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come >> from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. >> >> It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens >> of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or >> "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of >> us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those >> who would take it away". > >However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should >not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians >in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. "I have a solution to that problem." Seriously! 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. For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps. Simple. Economical. And, dare I say it, fair. I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war, and they didn't even get rid of Saddam. I'm sure AP would have done the task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes. Much of that money would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.) There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused among the people. Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected, except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded. Reminds me of the punchline to that joke. "He sent two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want?!?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 9

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > i think it's good also to exercise outdoors as well as your > indoor nordictrack machines..sun and air is esp. necessary; but remember, tanning will kill ya. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, > 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that > they've just left things as is. > Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold > the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will > hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between). In case of 2, they are probably not worthy of your help. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Cellular location...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >I wonder how expensive it would be to put a GPS receiver in a cell phone and >have the option to transmit the coordinates on a separate channel. There >would be little difference between this and forcing cell phone companies to >triangulate every call. The primary motivation for this is almost certainly >"location escrow" to make it easier for the feds to track drug dealers. It would only be marginally reliable. GPS signals are so weak (coming from satellites in 11,000 mile orbits) that reception outdoors is sometimes iffy if the signals have to go through foliage. Reception indoors is probably only rarely do-able. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jim Choate blanc has put forth an interesting assertion relating to nationalism and the Internet. If he is correct then we will have a one world government (ie technocracy) whether we like it or not. ................................................................... When your little company grows up to become a big World Leader in robotics, will you then be a member of this technocracy, participating in a one-world government, whether we like it or not? Will you sit on the Board of Honchos making important decisions about net access for all, perhaps active in the Chamber of Borgs? :>) .. Blanc p.s. I be femme

1 0

Text files
by satan_is_a_hacker＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ho was the one who wanted a list of my texts? I deleted the message accidentally

2 1

Re: David Kahn advocates GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:03 AM 1/27/97 GMT, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: >On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:32:56 GMT, John Savard <seward(a)netcom.ca> wrote: > >>This is surprising, given that (in Kahn on Codes) Mr. Kahn expressed >>forceful opinions > >>- against certain aspects of export controls, > >>- questioning the value of the NSA's mission, in contrast to social >>demands on government revenues. > >I didn't find his opinions forceful in Codebreakers, 2nd. ed. > >Questioning the NSA's purpose vs. advoctating GAK are not incompatible. > >>However, while I oppose making key escrow mandatory in general, and >>share the general suspicion of a voluntary Clipper, if Mr. Kahn's >>support for Clipper is limited to cellular telephones, then I have no >>quarrel with such a position. > >>Encryption is illegal, without special permission, for use over the >>airwaves, particularly where mobile radio is involved. This is a >>long-standing restriction, and not unreasonable. Private communication >>between people at home is one thing, but allowing criminals to closely >>coordinate their activities on the move is another. It's odd that I can't seem to find the original message here. Contrary to the original claim, encryption over radio is generally legal. (One noted exception to this is ham radio...) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: it aint successful until someone loses his temper <g>
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Penrod <ppenrod(a)earthlink.net> writes: > Well, I see that you could'nt leave well enough alone... :-) > > Since Snow decided to jump into your face on this one, I might as well > throw my $0.02 on the table as well. Funny how my trashcan stays very empty > these days now that cypherpunks is in my bit bucket... I suggest you subscribe to cypherpunks-unedited. It may go away, but for now it's much more interesting than the censored version. > Frankly, it does not surprise me that homosexuality is yet another > pointless off-topic to be discussed on the list. Thanks to the moderation, only one side of the issue gets aired anyway. > >> +Thank God for AIDS. Amen. > >> when AIDS was relatively obscure, I always dismissed AIDS as > >> God's response to homosexuality (and other crimes against nature); > >> i.e. -settlement by a just God. > > > > I almost threw a dumb ass redneck of a ship in the middle of the ocean > >for a comment like this. ... > This politically correct bullshit response is just symptomatic of someone > who is uncomfortable with the position taken for expediency's sake and is > trying to justify to himself the course taken. The "politically correct" homosexuals, like snow and gilmore and sandfart consider (violent) action to be a reasonable response to speech they don't like (e.g. "homophobic") - not "more speech". Someone says something you disagree with on a mailing list? Unsubscribe him! Ban him from the list! Institute moderation to auto-discard everything he says! Curiously, African-American children are taught that violence is a correct response to "racist" speech. ObEbonics: "Dot's right, judge, I shot da mothafucka cuz he call me a nigga!" > > I've read a lot of your rantings on this list, and I agree with some of > >them, but statements like this prove that you are a bigoted idiot. You may > >have some areas where you know what you are talking about, and I wouldn't > want > >to be on the sharp end of a gun you were holding, but your head is > definately > >stuck firmly up your ass. > > Ok, we throw down the gauntlet here in true USENET style, and in keeping > with that, have nothing of value to say (just name calling). When they run out of things to say, they start pulling plugs, unsubscribing people, and "moderating"... > > 1) If homosexuality is a "choice", why would anyone choose that > lifestyle > >where the averge life expectancy is in the 40's, that causes so much pain > >among ones family, and so much conflict with the rest of society. I can answer this one, having worked for Jesuits: having deviant sexual desires may not be a choice, but willingly committing unnatural acts to satisfy your deviant desires is a choice. > > The answer is you can't. You adopt a knee-jerk position that reinforces > >your deliberate isolationism. Anything that may cause you to question your > >worldview gets sorted to /dev/evil and you plow ahead like some pig ignorant > >dough boy killing as ordered for king and country. > > Who's the ignorant one here? The name caller or the recipient. My vote goes > to the name caller, as he assumes this to be a debate of fact, when in > essence he's expressed only his opinion on the matter and not bothered to > show teacher his homework (the dog ate it - so give me an "A" anyway 'cause > I deserve it). ;-> And when the namecalling doesn't work, they respond with violence. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > > > > My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks > > > > on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous > > > > remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames > > > > mailing list. > > > > > > I don`t think I read the article (even though I subscribe to the > > > unmoderated list), can you forward me a copy. > > > As I understand it though, from other comentaries, it was junked > > > because it was in response to a message by Dimitri who, given that it > > > is Sandy that is moderating the list, is no doubt filtered by > > > different criteria than anyone else on the list, in my opinion a > > > censorous and fascist restraint as Dimitri has recently been posting > > > more crypto relevant material, besides which whatever the content of > > > his posts they should be open to review before a decision is made on > > > if they are to be junked or not. > > > > Has Paul reversed his previous pro-censorship stand and decided to > > learn something about crypto from people who actually know some? > > There is no change of stance needed, I happen to believe you are > knowledgable about cryptography and sometimes post worthwhile > commentary and information, however, you also post a lot of dreck and > flammable material which means I respond in kind. That does not mean > I believe you, or anyone else, should be censored. I distinctly recall how Paul used to call for censoring me. If he's changed his mind and really doesn't think that anyone should be censored, it's a welcome development - even if it was brought on by the sandfart censoring Paul. > > > > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the > > > > criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy. > > > > > > Yes Sandy, please enlighten us, what is the criterion you use to > > > moderate the list if not crypto-relevancy. I suspect an element of > > > self preservation and protection of the list fuhrer and diktat maker > > > John Gilmore (who, until the disgraceful incident with Dimitri > > > commanded some respect on this list). > > > > I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing > > me, turning list moderated). Now I only have disdain for him. > > I agree entirely, Gilmore was a respected man (despite the EFF being > a corporate whore) who threw any respect and admiration others had > for him away. I wonder what he thinks he got in exchange... > > > > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy > > > > the current readership. > > > > > > I don`t think this is the point, John Gilmore is free to appoint > > > whoever he wants to moderate his list, he is free to censor all > > > messages which criticise him and his censorship, however, subscribers > > > to the list should be told they are being censored on these grounds > > > and not on some facade of "crypto relevancy" or another thin veil > > > drawn weakly over content based censorship to protect a certain class > > > of list members. > > > > Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated > > cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his > > "moderation experiment". > > I notice and appreciate the quotes around "moderation experiment", > this is, without doubt, a permenant measure to silence members of the > list who dare to offer criticism of anyone an element of {x: x a > friend or co-censor of John Gilmore} Yes - clearly the personality of the submitter is the most important factor in moderator's rejections, not even the content. > I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I > hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a > list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was. I notice that the sandfart has been challenging his enemies to create an alternative mailing list. I wonder what their contingency plan is. Without a doubt, such a competing list would be mailbombed and flooded with garbage by Gilmore and his entourage. What else? > Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames > even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to > criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an > opportunity to prove me wrong). The sandfart has proven me right already. As I said, I think we're paying too much attention to him and his censorship, and he's just a front for Gilmore anyway. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Text files
by Lou Zer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ho was the one who wanted a list of my texts? I deleted the message accidentally

1 0