December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RADIO SHOW ABOUT CRYPT
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

C'punks, If you are in the Bay Area, tune to 88.5 FM to hear a public radio show on encryption and privacy. I'll be on for the next half hour (till 12:30 pm PDT) S a n d y

1 0

legal rqmt for FAX return phone #
by dat＠ebt.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought I heard somewhere that it was illegal to send anonymous faxes -- namely, that there was some regulation that you had to program your FAX machine with your phone number so it would get sent automagically whenever you faxed anything. Essentially it was ILLEGAL to fax without providing the recipient with a mechanism to find out where it came from. Of course, I suspect enforcement is lax, but still... :-) :-( Can someone please confirm this, or help with a reference? Private e-mail is fine... -- dat(a)ebt.com (David Taffs)

1 0

MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi folks, I just started a MBone cypherpunks session and the discription is: session: cypherpunks descript: We're here to stay... Just say *no* to the clipper... It'll just clip your wings so you can't fly... -lile :) -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 4

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, if any of you cypherpunks have MBone access, could you see if my session is showing up in sd? I also started a bisex channel. :) -lile

1 0

Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn writes > >I took it upon myself to poke around a bit and this is what I came up with: > >The phone number and address are indeed belonging to one Jim Nalbandian >in Tempe, AZ. They are listed, published, and publicly available. I >guess the bottom line question is when is privacy the burden of the >user? Is it Mr. Nalbandian's obligation to take steps for privacy? How >much at fault can "nobody" be at for publishing information that Mr. >Nalbandian could have shielded for pennies? Would it be your position then, that, say, any woman who doesn't happen to have an unlisted phone number is fair game to have her name and number written in a toilet stall in Grand Central Station with the notation "For a Good Time, call..."? You wouldn't feel that to be an invasion of privacy? (If indeed it is the same >Jim Nalbandian) Mr. N's signature held his state and city of residence. >It is no great accomplishment for anyone to look up his published >information. Posting it to the net might have been "sleazy" in the eyes >of some, but no worse than circumventing copyright laws with the "Information >Liberation Front." In fact one could argue that "nobody"'s actions were above >this sort of criticism. (I should note that I do not express any >personal opinion on the ILF one way or the other). Sorry, but we clearly disagree here. I view it as a clear incitement to harassment, and, in my opinion, _that_ constitutes an invasion of privacy. >In short Lefty: Privacy comes to those who seek it. No. Privacy is, or should be, the right of all. I don't have to do anything special to enjoy my rights to free speech or free assembly. I should not have to take special measures to enjoy my right to privacy, either. If I don't lock my front door, that doesn't imply that anyone can walk into my house. To do so would _still_ be an invasion of privacy. >Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for: None. This misses the point entirely. Even the indigent have a right to privacy. >"nobody" saved us all the $0.75 a long distance information call costs. >Multiply that in the aggregate and you have some nice money. > >I think it worth noting that Mr. Nalbandian hasn't posted since "nobody"'s >letter. A considerable social gain in my view. Perhaps Mr. Nalbandian will >take an interest in privacy now, another considerable social gain. "Hey! The ends _do_ justify the means!" -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

2 1

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What is the point here? The MBONE isn't like usenet. Sessions aren't >free. Personaly, I'd say that frivolous use of the mbone will alienate >people. > >Perry I disagree. The MBone is here for us to use. Sessions do cost traffic but not actual dollors to individuals who actually bring it up. You may be limited by the connection you have to the Internet or by the router you have that interconnects you to the Internet though, which will determine what you can see and do on the MBone.. I also feel that such a message that I sent will be well received on the net. I doubt it's going to alienate folks. People are human and like alittle humor with the salt. :) Sad news though. I just found out that the MBone sessions I brought up are not seen outside of my site due to router setups. But I will be able to do such things in the future and you can bet I will. :) Prehaps you would feel better if I didn't actually use the term cypherpunks as you feel it might represent the cypherpunks on this mailing list. I think this is not so. Isn't that term a general one for folks who like to work with encryption and are hackers? -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- lefty(a)apple.com (Lefty) says, lef> and then treats us to what he purports to be Mr. Nalbandian's phone number lef> and address. ... lef> Whoever you are, nobody, you're a hypocrite and a coward. Well, it wasn't me, but in any event I dispute this. The use of anonymous remailers does not make one a coward, any more than the use of a pseudonym does (or is your given name "Lefty")? As for the privacy aspect, I believe it may serve the interests of those who desire privacy to point out privacy lapses. Not all the time, but sometimes you have to say, "the emperor has no clothes". For example, would you object to this: an4544(a)anon.penet.fi = Eric Robison <ericr(a)Solbourne.com> an68863(a)anon.penet.fi = Derek M. Harkins <harkinsd(a)solix.fiu.edu> * an51751(a)anon.penet.fi = Joe Baptista <baptista(a)planet.org> The anonymous remailer is not so anonymous, is it? Should I have kept the information to myself, or am I right to publicize it? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCdAgUBLcqgALhnz857T+PFAQFiMgQ5ATgHyKZbvMvmj0eAgrK2skL+on77UpU0 dT9w8s70bELL7xThquMMk8HwYrj0LbMEFCwntYstN91x+uiA511qdtjP+lS/OEEN 7sHr3M8JOOeVJlv/KZjX5Whck6ETvdxzjWdrcO6AORltNe1SnI/bOI6GnrHZ7TKW 0HZ8pRak/KpxVsCTRB1kgQ== =35GC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Clipper on Science Friday
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's NPR Science Friday show was on Clipper. Flatow's gFrom owner-cypherpunks Fri May 6 14:28:41 1994 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks> Received: by toad.com id AA13801; Fri, 6 May 94 14:28:41 PDT Received: from research.att.com (ninet.research.att.com) by toad.com id AA13790; Fri, 6 May 94 14:28:34 PDT Message-Id: <9405062128.AA13790(a)toad.com> From: smb(a)research.att.com Received: by gryphon; Fri May 6 17:27:20 EDT 1994 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: MBone cypherpunks session... Date: Fri, 06 May 94 17:27:19 EDT Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk I disagree with Perry, at least in the abstract. The mbone is not expensive, if no one is transmitting. First of all, there's no bandwidth reservation; if you're not sending anything, you don't consume anything. Second, the bits are sent only to the networks used by the recipients; a tree is constructed by the mbone routers based on IGMP (sic) packets emitted by the participants. So if IdiotS and IdiotD are having an mbone session, no one else is likely to see any impact... There are two exceptions: the IGMP packets themselves, and the sd announcements. But those are both sent once per minute or less, so they're not much of an issue. For technical information, see http://www.eit.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html; Rich Stevens' book ``TCP/IP Illustrated'' has a good discussion of IGMP, though I don't think he talks about mrouted, the mbone routing and tunneling protocol. Besides -- two of the important mbone tools, vat and wb, support encryption. What could be more ideal? That said, an open party line is probably a bad idea. The email load is bad enough on cypherpunks -- there's a *lot* of noise -- without having to listen to Cypherpunk Talk Radio (more likely Cypherpunk Shout Radio...) all day. But a semi-organized conference format, of a given duration, might work. It would be an interesting experiment to try. --Steve Bellovin

2 1

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Evil Pete says: >> > >> >What is the point here? The MBONE isn't like usenet. Sessions aren't >> >free. Personaly, I'd say that frivolous use of the mbone will alienate >> >people. >> >> just cause everyone does not have phone does not mean we shalt not >> use telephones. >> >> just cause everyone does not have email does not mean we shalt not use email > >You completely misunderstand. The MBONE is a very scarce resource at >the moment. Setting up teleconferencing sessions that aren't, say, >multicasting a conference (like, say, a Cypherpunks meeting) but are >just being used to let people do what they do on mailing lists at >500,000 times the cost in network bandwidth isn't social. > >Perry > Perry, I think you are not quite clear on how the MBone works. It uses the bases of broadcasting a session once which can be received by the many. Only a few of those many will get involved with the session in the since of retransmitting... There are some WWW sites that have alot of MBone info which you might check out. Urls: http://www.research.att.com/mbone-faq.html http://eitech.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html http://www.eit.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html http://info.arl.army.mil/ACIS/ACD/MBONE/index.html http://info.brl.mil/ACIS/ACD/MBONE/index.html http://www.gatech.edu/aimosaic/faculty/catrambone.html enjoy! -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re:
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >lefty(a)apple.com (Lefty) says, > >lef> and then treats us to what he purports to be Mr. Nalbandian's phone number >lef> and address. >... >lef> Whoever you are, nobody, you're a hypocrite and a coward. > >Well, it wasn't me, but in any event I dispute this. The use of anonymous >remailers does not make one a coward, any more than the use of a pseudonym >does (or is your given name "Lefty")? Certainly the use of an anonymous remailer in and of itself it doesn't make one either a coward or a hypocrite. However, invading someone's privacy by posting their telephone number and home address is a hypocritical act for anyone who expects others to respect their own privacy. Moreover, doing so anonymously is cowardly. And, yes, my using my long-standing nickname, "Lefty", is _quite_ different from posting anonymously. You can reply directly to me using my email address, <lefty(a)apple.com>, which appears in the header of everything I post; moreover, I am responsible for what I post using that ID. See it up there? You can easily determine who I am from that information. <lefty(a)apple.com> is, in effect, a True Name. <nowhere(a)bsu-cs.toad.com> is not. <nobody(a)jarthur.cs.hmc.edu> is not. >As for the privacy aspect, I believe it may serve the interests of those >who desire privacy to point out privacy lapses. Not all the time, but >sometimes you have to say, "the emperor has no clothes". It is not the case that anybody "pointed out a privacy lapse" here. On the contrary, someone _committed_ a privacy lapse by obtaining and posting Mr. Nalbandian's phone number and address _specifically_ as an incitement for people to harass him. This _is_ an invasion of privacy. Are you somehow failing to see that? >For example, would you object to this: > >an4544(a)anon.penet.fi = Eric Robison <ericr(a)Solbourne.com> >an68863(a)anon.penet.fi = Derek M. Harkins <harkinsd(a)solix.fiu.edu> > * >an51751(a)anon.penet.fi = Joe Baptista <baptista(a)planet.org> > >The anonymous remailer is not so anonymous, is it? Should I have kept >the information to myself, or am I right to publicize it? What you have supplied represents an invasion of privacy as well, in my opinion. If you were to explain how you came by this information, _that_ might be worth sharing, but simply presenting a mapping of anonyms to truenyms is not. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0