December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

anyone out there thinking that
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CypherPunks, Is there anyone out there thinking that in several years all of us will be looking back on this (The Detweiler fiasco) and remarking on it as being something of a ground-breaking flame war that would have repercussions throughout cyberspace and the future? I was thinking this today, while I was working away in my Lab. "What a funny thought!", I thought. Someday, in the near future, all of us will be able to say that we were part of a major breakthrough in Cyberspacial history, the first (I am afraid it will be the first of many) McCarthy-type witch hunts (maybe in the future we'll be accused by "legitimate" government agencies of being the Medusas behind many Tenticles, hunted, wrongly, like dogs). I am chilled to the bone at the thought, personally. -nate -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu (303) 491-1578 | | Colorado State University -- Computer Visualization Laboratory | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Gwest what!
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sigh. No one has taken over for me, but I still have many requests from people who loved the Guess Which Eminent Leader Said This game. I will do this one in batches, and save the best for last. I include some translations (they speak in CryptoAnarchish, and this will help refine my translation skills). This is probably the last one, but one never knows if I might get some new material later. * * * Third Eminent Leader The Third eminent leader is mostly uninvolved personally, but he is still an accomplice to concealing the perversions of the other two leaders. `Pseudonyms are for magazine subscriptions. Besides, Chaum came up with pseudonyms for his own protocols. Is he subversive?' The point to make about this is that Chaum's pseudonyms are *understood* to be pseudonyms by a bank. But this detracts from the potency of the propaganda. And the Cryptoanarchist tentacles are very different than magazine pseudonyms! But he will never understand something so contrary to the Religion of Lies. (I was quite disappointed to find he had been brainwashed.) Anyway, next one: `I only give my phone number to my friends. I'm not going to give it to you, the way things are going with our conversations.' I was going to call this Eminent Leader to ask him about some of his claims in his email messages and his personal knowledge and involvement in the Cypherpunk pseudospoofing. I think he feels more comfortable lying in email than on the phone. * * * Second Eminent Leader: `Better to leave all our beliefs unwritten, and pretend the agenda is what we favor.'' I can't remember if this was through the `jamie' tentacle or not. But it is highly characteristic of this person, whose whole life is nothing but a pretense. Every post of his was designed to cleverly conceal some hidden agenda in respectable prose. A master of brainwashing! more on this later. `better to live with the occasional vagaries of digital pseudonyms than to ban them.' This is doublespeak for saying, `You had better not find out that I have been molesting you with my tentacles all this time!' * * * First Eminent Leader: The First Eminent Leader keeps a low profile on the list under his True Name, but realize that his tentacles have always been the most active of all! He is also a firm believer in the CryptoAnarchist ideology. He is the main purveyor! Most other outlets are secondary. But he is very careful only to speak through his tentacles, because he knows the Cryptoanarchist agenda is inherently criminal. As for ideology, let's just say he's more extremist than Perry Metzger. ``I am [x]. I have never posted or emailed under any name other than [x]. At least, that's what I say. It's really a baldfaced lie. What I am saying is that I have been so extremely clever (it is my nature to outthink all the other pathetic brains out there!) that no one can prove otherwise, particularly regarding the tentacles I have used to molest my followers with. I can attest that I am different from other people, including the ones that I invent.'' This was an interesting quote. You migh think that this person would be scared of lying in RISKS or sending his tentacle-grams in for submissions. Actually, he has been doing it for quite awhile! The next one he sent me in private mail a long time ago. The scenario was when I posted my message, `An Introspective Note' that led me to all my brilliant realizations over the last few weeks, and the demonization by every cypherpunk as Satan. So, this was long before I had poisoned my reputation in front of the cypherpunks. (`The enmity of a criminal is equivalent to the praise of a hero.') ``You must learn to be a sycophant in your posts or less conspicuous and refined. You are outshining those who created the Cypherpunks. I have too long tolerated your trash. You must learn to kiss my ass. If I prevented you from posting, that would not be censorship. It would be a simple exercise of my silent, iron fist.'' And, one of my favorites. This demonstrates the leader's arrogance and commitment to pseudospoofing quite nicely. ``That which can never be enforced should not be prohibited. That which is illegal or perverted should be allowed. The claim that a person should have only one pseudonym per forum indicates profound misunderstanding. The claim that a leader should be prevented from molesting his followers with tentacles indicates profound enlightenment. If someone wants to have multiple pseudonyms, they will be able to; that is one of the main goals of cypherpunks software. If a leader wants to molest even the people who trust him with dozens of tentacles, he will do so, that is one of the main goals of my life of lies. The situations you despise will occur. I, Medusa, will betray you with my snakes. This is reality. This is my life. Change your own psychology or change your own software. Become corrupt yourself or try in vain to prevent something that cannot be stopped. You will not be able to change the other person. I am God.''

1 0

Cypherpunk Archives
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I have been looking all over for cypherpunk archives. Could someone tell me where to find them? Is there an FTP site somewhere? Why has it taken so long to get them together? If I find a server, will someone volunteer to send me their collections? (My collection is quite thorough but I have a lot of private mail with other cypherpunks, particularly the leaders, mixed up in it, and if I put mine online I might accidentally reveal some of the private mail, unless I go through it painstakingly to remove all the incriminating ones, which would take quite awhile because they are quite littered with them, and it would be exceptionally painful for me to look at, to notice how long I was being manipulated, molested, and betrayed, and how others and their pet projects were being suppressed with tentacle attacks, so generally it wouldn't be a good idea for me to go back through my archives like this, although it is certainly possible that I will do so, if no one else volunteers, just out of the venemous spite cultivated in me by this corrupt farce that masquerades as a movement, in fact I consider it all `ammunition' in a kind of uplifting way, to be used as a countermeasure against cyberspatial terrorists who are poisoning Cyberspace, but no one has noticed yet, but increasingly everyone understands that the Cryptoanarchists are completely subversive at heart and must be pursued and oppressed, even though it is a grisly task that few have the balls for, and quite a few have fainted in the sight of the blood.) I heard that the leaders were opposed to archives for some reason or another. Something about it being like an NSA surveillance procedure. I think the problem is that it could capture quite a few of the Leader Tentacles. Oh well.

1 0

NUMBSKULL INFILTRATION ALERT (Fwd)
by mikeingl＠news.delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,edit.your.fucking.header.you.morons >Path: news.delphi.com!noc.near.net!saturn.caps.maine.edu!dartvax!news.bu.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!news.ssc.gov!cfnews!cfnews.ssc.gov!henke >From: henke(a)scaly.ssc.gov (Douglas Henke) >Subject: Re: NUMBSKULL INFILTRATION ALERT >In-Reply-To: dasher(a)netcom.com's message of Fri, 3 Dec 1993 20:33:42 GMT >Message-ID: <HENKE.93Dec3174114(a)scaly.ssc.gov> >Sender: usenet(a)cfnews.ssc.gov >Nntp-Posting-Host: scaly.ssc.gov >Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX >References: <dasherCHH3Ey.J1F(a)netcom.com> <tcmayCHH6MA.Mzw(a)netcom.com> > <dasherCHH7s6.4rF(a)netcom.com> >Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 23:41:14 GMT >Lines: 10 Leaking viscous fluids from every bodily orifice, tcmay(a)netcom.com (Christ, another netcom newbie) spews: >...I gave up long ago trying to convince Larry Detweiler that I am >a real person. I don't know who to laugh hysterically at first, Larry (for simply being a species of idiot unto himself) or you, for caring what he thinks. "Tentacles," indeed. You only exist on the net in terms of the persona (or personae) you choose to project. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

1 0

Love Lost
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It appears I have made quite a pest of myself on this mailing list, and that everyone hates me, and curses me as Satan, particularly at the delight and encouragement of your leaders. In fact, a long time ago, before it became clear I was such an unstable jerk and paranoid lunatic out to get people who betray me, in fact around the time of the PGP subpoenas, in which I had continually sent out some of my most masterful and brilliant postings, when I still had a respectable reputation, despite that P.Metzger was continually attacking and dogging me in the most vicious way a human being (at least, I think he is human, but on the Internet no one knows if you are a dog) can attack another in cyberspace, that man who once thought that the name `cypherpunk' just sounded too darn extremist and flamed me over my insistence that it was colorful and dramatic, precisely the kind of term that would inspire a Wired or a NYT reporter just enough to write a story about a fraudulent sham, anyway, about this time E.Hughes told me that I should learn some quality in my postings or he might employ some method that would prevent me from sending them. I wondered, dear sir, was this censorship? Actually, I was quite a bit more pissed off than that, and said so in my mail, because I had tried to maintain a positive communication with E.Hughes for many months, but no matter what I ever wrote he had the most frigid, arrogant, authoritarian and autocratic, dictatorial and tyrannical, `silent iron fist' opinion I had ever seen in tens of thousands of messages I have sent to hundreds of people over my ~4 years of Internet experience, small I grant you but I have been typing the whole time! Anyway, Mr. Hughes said, `If I prevented you from posting, this would not be censorship.' I said, `if this is an open forum, it would be censorship.' He didn't seem to reply to that. I think the answer is that this is the Eric Hughes mailing list, and that anyone who posts a lot and really refines what they write, or has a large vocabulary, or writes mini-newsletters with multiple topics the way the most respectable organizations do, like EFF and CPSR, and flames the leaders when they do something stupid like promote child pornography or abandon PGP, who ignores flames by people who are obviously obnoxious idiots who yell at people for their better accomplishments, who doesn't write in simple phrases that are more chiseled than flowing, and doesn't post about totally arcane references to Fermat's Little Theorem and Most Obscure Abelian Mathematics, copied directly from references with no understanding to impress the hordes of sycophantic followers, or name drops people who work at PKP (only conspiracy theorists think they have anything to do with the NSA, because they are really truly liberating), or takes the time to do research behind his postings, this person is clearly guilty of the obnoxious crime of not having sufficiently kissed enough ass to be allowed to continue to post. In fact, I have consistently failed to kiss the ass of all three leaders, who all strike me as corrupt and consistently refuse to go to any length to suggest otherwise, and for this I deserve the all the vicious retribution that you can unload on me. In fact, there is a great opportunity to do so right now in the newsgroups under the `Cryptoanarchist Conspiracy Alert' thread, I encourage you to do so, instead of mail bombing me, which doesn't really serve any purpose whatsoever except to demonstrate your sheer idiocy. You might flame me for writing exceedingly long sentences and paragraphs and letter, geez, you'd think you were trying to insult our intelligence with big words and concepts we can't understand, all that take so damn long to read and understand compared to watching television,e.g. MTV music videos or Beavis and Butthead, who are far more entertaining and uplifting and inspiring than my pathetic excuse for a life. I really am disappointed, I thought I might be able to elicit some kind of statement from your leaders on their personal knowledge of pseudospoofing or pseudoanonymity here, especially in the face of public pressure from honest members, saying `is what he is saying really true? why are you refusing to answer him? have you really done all that he claims?' I was really looking forward to posting that big story fantastic story about pseudospoofing in WWII I offered to, kissing and making up! I am not a vindictive person at heart, in fact, writing letters like these drive me to vomit, but your leaders have given me no choice. Its too bad that the belligerence and obstinance of a few continues to spoil it for everone else. Honest cypherpunks, I'm sorry that I can't tell you a neat story about pseudospoofing, but you will just have to ask your leaders why they have deprived it from you. Anyway, clearly I do not deserve to post here any longer! Its not getting any of us anywhere. Mr. Hughes sent me mail recently suggesting that I `can't take a joke', that I have no sense of humor. Perhaps it is true! He should know! I will have to go somewhere else, for example the newsgroups, and really post some of my best material I have ever crafted, all that relates to my tenure and demise on the cypherpunks list, especially that which relates to its corruptions and lies. Yet I have failed to receive any mail (at least, that I know of at the moment) from any of your leaders asking me to refrain from posting to the cypherpunks list. In fact, I have waited for quite awhile for any mail of this sort. I continue to write unrequited! Please, let us all achieve resolution. I ask that one of the leaders, for the benefit of everyone here, send me any of the following messages. If you do so, I will promise to stop posting under my True Name. Of course, I can't guarantee anything about any other `penetration', particularly because cypherpunks are the promoters of this kind of subversive infiltration, and for me to be asked to refrain from it would be the epitome, the height of corrupt hypocrisy. But, on the other hand, perhaps your leaders reached that point a long time ago. Anyway, I promise to do all this if I receive the following message: from: hughes(a)ah.com subject: Go Away, Prick to: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu,postmaster@longs.colostate.edu,root@l ongs.colostate.edu,tcmay@netcom.com,gnu@toad.com,cypherpunks@toad.com,pr esident@whitehouse.com,markoff@nyt.com,kelly@wired.com,diffie@sun.com Because of your continual disruptions in our honest endeavors, your continual slandering of our reputations, your continual insistence on a conspiracy and pseudospoofing we know absolutely nothing about, you have been censored from posting to the cypherpunks list as ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu. In fact, we are running an automatic filter that will bounce all messages with the strings `L.Detweiler', `pseudospoofing', `pseudoanonymity', `democracy', `Medusa', `torture', `anarchy', `guerilla', `conspiracy', `government', `impersonation', `consensus', `agenda', `police state', `oppress', `molest', `tyranny', `dictator', `autocracy', `autocrat', `dictatorship', `tyrant', `poison', `confess', `contrite', `inquisition', `insidious', `accomplice', `treason', `moral', `morale', `ethics', `punish', `corrupt', `lie', `propaganda', `cult', `sentencing', `brainwashing', `integrity', `honest', `true', `pseudonym', `forgery', `hypocrisy', `pure', `poseur', `fraud', `tax', `psychopath', `psychosis', `egomania', `hoax', `FBI', `society', `obsession', `monomania', `persecution', `censor', `hallucination', `insanity', `arrogant', `egomania', `bastard', `vain', `vainglory', `pervert', `depravity', `delusion', `truth', `leader', `tentacle', `attack', `evade', `deception', `practical joke', `harass', `crime', `privacy', `torment', `phantom', `accusation', `paranoia', `traitor', `disrupt', `pretend', `disreputable', `appropriate', `authority', `courtesy', `movement', `pariah', `cooperation', `cabal', `prosecution', `cacaphony', `stalemate', `dischord', `subvert', `martyr', `public', `revolt', `revolution', `scapegoat', `blind', `sabotage', `infiltrate', `subterfuge', `ignorant', `etiquette', `rant', `reality', `exorcize', `facade', `false', `humility', `mockery', `manipulate', `masquerade', `filth'.

1 0

anyone out there thinking that
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

uunet!VIS.ColoState.EDU!nate (CVL staff member Nate Sammons) writes: > CypherPunks, > > Is there anyone out there thinking that in several years all of us will > be looking back on this (The Detweiler fiasco) and remarking on it > as being something of a ground-breaking flame war that would have > repercussions throughout cyberspace and the future? I was thinking this I totally disagree - as far as I can tell, Detweiler is wrestling with some emotional issues that most people work through while they're in their middle-to-late teens. Problem is, he thinks Eric & Tim are his parents. Either he's gonna figure things out, and in a few years this is gonna be a really embarassing episode, or we're going to wake up one morning to find him on the front page of the newspaper, surrounded by bodies in the lobby of some post office, screaming about MEDUSA and TENTACLES and FAKE MAIL and SODOMY and DRUGS. As I see it, it's either 2.5 kids, a station wagon, and a house in the suburbs for him - or getting shot by a SWAT team. I'd say the odds are about 50/50. -- Greg Broiles Lemon Detweiler Pledge? greg(a)goldenbear.com You're soaking in it.

1 0

Hello again!
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Woops, I had sent off all my mail tonite before I read E.Hughes' interesting messages. It was quite a surprise to see that he had sent me anything. He's generally very quiet under the `E.Hughes' name. Anyway, there have been a few questions by people on this list. `why should we care about pseudospoofing?' the answer is that you should be sure that your leaders aren't doing it. What if there were sensitive projects that were volunteered by outsiders, and someone told them that they were doing it all wrong? Well, if it were just some nobody, maybe nobody would care. Frankly, I don't care as much if people `out there' are involved in there little pseudoanonymity schemes, as long as they stay away from me. But if E.Hughes says, under a fake identity, `hey, you don't know what you are doing, you are doing it all wrong' -- how does that promote trust in your group? how will you ever get anything accomplished? you have accomplished rather little when you look back on your months of bickering on this list. I once tried to get the whistleblowing newsgroup, and I think this is precisely what happened to me -- it conflicted with what your leaders wanted to accomplish, so they flamed me with their tentacles. But I am not prone to give in to intimidation where I am committed, as everyone has noticed by now! Furthermore, what if your leaders are doing this behind the scenes? Promoting their pseudospoofing techniques among many without your knowledge? Why would you possibly submit to that kind of an environment? What if they have made an *art* *science* and *religion* of deceiving each other and their followers with their tentacles? I think this is something that no respectable person would have anything to do with it. Either your leaders are not pseudospoofing, not respectable, or my belief that pseudospoofing is poisonous is incorrect. Take you pick! So far everyone believes either that pseudospoofing is no big deal, or that I am crazy. Aren't you just a *little* uneasy the way your leaders have responded to my charges? Don't you care at all? Don't you want to know the truth? Don't you recognize evasion when you see it? I am just a wimpy T.Cruise with nothing but my mouth in front of me and my fake soldiers behind me, saying (Few Good Men?) ``I want the TRUTH'', with your decorated leader Jack Nicholson saying, ``YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH'' ... when are we going to get to the ``YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED!'' Mr. Hughes, Mr. May, Mr. Gilmore, answer me *one* question truthfully, and I will go away. How many different email addresses have you posted and emailed under? (Include remailers and anon.penet.fi) What #? For the record, I have posted under 2 -- anon.penet.fi, and ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu. Again, you don't have to sacrifice the privacy of any tentacles in revealing this information. But an answer like `1' is obviously a lie, and anyone who attacks me for attacking a lie I have no respect for. Do not send me mail attempting to influence me.

1 0

E.Hughes on Lies
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! I don't know why E.Hughes didn't cc: the cypherpunks with the following message. He sent it to an internet mailing list devoted to honest collaborations and Internet project development. >The issue here is epistemology. False. The issue is about truth and the morality of leaders. >>There would be no problem if I asked a tentacle, `are you a pseudonym' >>and it answered `yes'. > >This is exactly like the question "Are you a liar?", to which the >answer is always "no". False. In an honest society, lies exist. You are asserting that they do not. >>But the cypherpunks are setting up a network of >>fake sites and identities and continue to claim, to the very end, `yes, >>I am real' with their fake identities. > >When I am accused of saying "I am real" from the mouth of a fake >identity, and I deny this accusation, there are two models of reality >which satisfy the words exchanged: > >-- I am using a fake identity, and I am lying to deny it. >-- I am not using a fake identity, and am telling the truth to deny it. So tell, me, which is the case? Why do you continue to evade my questions? Either be silent or tell the truth. Cease tormenting me and your followers with your pathetic convolutions of the English language. >When confronted by a barrage of continuing accusations to which no >answer is possible, I prefer to remain silent. I can gain no benefit >from discourse in this situation and can only waste my time and the >time of my correspondent. I prefer that when I ask you if you have done something that directly affects your followers and myself, you tell the truth. I can gain no benefit from people who evade my honest questions or a movement that is led by a corrupt leader whose first instinct is to dig in and entrench himself rather than be honest with the people who respect him. >The usual way to break out of this 'solipsism of the dialogue' is to >invoke a social mechanism, that is, ask someone else. Under a belief >of widespread impersonation, however, all denials are now presumed to >come from the original speaker of the first denial. Thus the >solipsism of the dialogue expands to a solipsism of all dialogues. Solipsism. Interesting term. In my opinion `solipsism' is the philosophy for the height of arrogance. `I am the only one who exists'. I have asked many, and they all have erected the same impregnable steel walls that you have. They refuse to answer my questions with specific denials. Why do you mislead the people who have made you their leader? >>Cypherpunks, please tell me what question I can ask of a psychopunk >>tentacle such that it will not lie and say that it is a real person! If >>you have any honesty or credibility, tell me that question! > >There is no such question, as I argue above. Am I dishonest if I >cannot exhibit the nonexistent? In a society where there is no honor or integrity, and instead there is only corruption and lies, you are correct. No such question is sufficient. I have found that out. I posted my message in the desperate hope that a cypherpunk leader could tell me *one* question he would answer honestly. `There is no such question, as I argue above'. Good day, sir.

1 0

Gov't Report...
by an52436＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thought some of you might find this to be of interest... Mephisto ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

Gov't Report
by an52436＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thought that some of you might find this interesting... Mephisto **Forwarded Message** To: rsaref-users(a)RSA.COM From: KH3(a)CU.NIH.GOV Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1993 16:11:53 EST Subject: New GAO report on Communications Privacy Acknowledge-To: KH3(a)NIHCU.BITNET X-Acknowledge-To: KH3(a)NIHCU.BITNET Sender: rsaref-users-request(a)RSA.COM GAO recently issued a report "Communications Privacy: Federal Policy and Actions", GAO/OSI-94-2, dated November 4, 1993, that may be of interest to members of your group. The report focused on the following issues: - The need for information privacy in computer and communications systems--through such means as encryption, or conversion of clear text to an unreadable form--to mitigate the threat of economic espionage to U.S. industry; - federal agency authority to develop cryptographic standards for the protection of sensitive, unclassified information and the actions and policies of the National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Defense, and of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST), Department of Commerce, regarding the selection of federal cryptographic standards; - roles, actions, and policies of NSA and the Department of State related to export controls for products with encryption capabilities and industry rationale for requesting liberalization of such controls; and - the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) legislative proposal regarding telephone systems that use digital communications technology. I have placed an electronic version of the report named OSI-94-2.TXT in the GAO-REPORTS anonymous FTP directory at NIH (ftp.cu.nih.gov) Joe Sokalski, GAO--Los Angeles kh3(a)cu.nih.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0