December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

http:--www.cnn.com-TECH-9708-04-internet.spam.reut-
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Tech banner IBM Reinventing Education rule SPAMMING LEADS TO UUNET 'DEATH PENALTY' Spam graphic August 4, 1997 Web posted at: 9:34 p.m. EDT (0134 GMT) SAN FRANCISCO (Reuter) -- A loose coalition of system administrators Friday began issuing a "Usenet Death Penalty" against UUNET, a major Internet service provider, for its alleged failure to curb "spam" emanating from its dialup accounts. The penalty took effect 5 p.m. (PDT) Friday, and according to a release from the coalition, "all traffic coming from these sources is to be canceled until further notice." The penalty entails the use of a program called a cancelbot that travels from site to site, looking for newsgroup messages that originate from a particular person or ISP. When it finds one of the messages, it issues a cancel order, which effectively erases the message. Spamming is the bulk delivery of unwanted electronic messages via e-mail or newsgroups. The action marks the first time a large-scale ISP has been the target of a cancelbot. The penalty's purpose, said Dennis McClain-Furmansky, is to "mobilize the user base and get them to insist on their ISP to give them a clean feed. Right now they are paying $20 a month for trash." McClain-Furmansky, speaking on behalf of the Usenet death penalty issuers, explains that, unlike other ISPs such as EarthLink and Bell Atlantic, UUNET has done little or nothing to curb spammers using its service. "The few responses they've made to our complaints have been excuses," he said. After Bell Atlantic was informed by site administrators several weeks ago that it had been targeted for the Usenet death penalty, the service took immediate action to halt spam, McClain-Furmansky said. "We told them what was being planned, and they are making a clear effort." McClain-Furmansky said that the action was drastic, but it was a last resort to close off a flood of spam that was "knocking servers offline." On Friday, one of the administrators involved said his system processed 1 million messages for the first time ever. Forty percent of that was spam, 40 percent cancel messages, 20 percent legitimate traffic." About half the cancel messages issued are for spam originating from UUNET dialups, said McClain-Furmansky. "In my opinion, this is by far the worst censorship action the Net has seen to date," said Dave Hayes, who represents a group called the Freedom Knights, dedicated to "true free speech" on Usenet. Hayes said those pushing the death decree should be "summarily condemned by all those who are in support of free speech, which unfortunately includes unsolicited advertising." Brian Moore, a system administrator in Britain who oversees the Usenet feed for his site, said he is not surprised that the action was taken against UUNET. "Amongst the 50-some complaints I have sent them in the past week, I have received nothing but form letters back. The spamming customers continue spamming and there is no indication UUNET has acted in any way at all." Moore said he has canceled hundreds of porn spams appearing in alt.sexual.abuse.recovery. "Quite frankly, UUNET is irresponsible in their inability to control their own customers," he said. UUNET declined comment Friday. Copyright 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. rule Related sites: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * UUNET Global Homepage * The Anti-Spam Project * Internet Spam Haiku Contest * Internet Spam Control Center External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. Search for related CNN stories: ________________________________________ ______ [Help] Tip: You can restrict your search to the title of a document. Infoseek grfk Example: title:New Year's Resolutions rule Watch these shows on CNN for more sci-tech stories: CNN Computer Connection | Future Watch | Science & Technology Week rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards Tell us what you think! You said it... [INLINE] IBM Reinventing Education rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

Not-News Gorilla NutWork Rocket-Launched
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Not-News NetWork-- Mohave Desert] Aug 4/97 WHAT DOES A FIVE HUNDRED POUND GORILLA READ AT THE BREAKFAST TABLE? ------------------------------------------------------------------- - sog The "Not-News Gorilla NutWork" was rocket-launched in the Mohave Desert early yesterday morning by a rag-tag bunch of paramilitarist computer gurus who unveiled an InterNet Bill of Bytes that included the words, "MicroSoft shall make no laws..." Angered by a self-appointed council of computer industry magnates who have announced their intention to seize fascist control of the quickly burdgeoning Information Highway by controlling the definition of all information, the rebels set up a shooting range which contained a wide variety of targets ranging from copies of the Wall Street Journal to life-sized cardboard cut-outs of a hooded figure referred to only as, "a billionaire to be named later." A Che Guerva look-alike named Lefty (a nickname changed from "Lucky" after a laboratory accident took three of the fingers on his right hand) spoke openly about the group's loose-knit plans to impose their own ratings system on corporations who have "taken it upon themselves to decide what is news and what is not--what is information and what is obscenity." "We have decided on two classes of ratings." explained a tassle- haired young woman as she slid shells into a Winchester Defender sitting on her lap. "On..." she said, lifting the shotgun with one hand, then liberating the hooded head from a nearby cardboard cut-out, before turning back to say, with a Cheshire grin, "...and _off_." The wide array of luxury automobiles and high-end computer gear on display at the gathering lent credence to the claim of a quiet older man whose only comment during my presence was, "The people here probably have a combined access to more soft targets than the NSA." He turned to punctuate his statement, as many others did that day, with a volley of fire that penetrated targets carrying the corporate logos of a variety of big-name players in the computer industry. Surprisingly, the conversation consisted almost totally of issues surrounding privacy, self-determination and freedom from censorship, with hardly a word being spoken about potential plans of action of individuals or the group. As the quiet man's equally quiet wife spoke in what seemed to be a deathly whisper, telling me, "Everyone here knows what they have to do.", a man with a crude, homemade rocket-launcher sent a flaming projectile into the side of a small propane tank several hundred feet away, as if punctuating the last and most meaningful statement of the day. After quietly dispersing a few minutes later, the group packed up their weapons and climbed into their vehicles without a word between them, each seemingly going their own separate ways. I stayed on after the last of the others had left, reflecting on the fact that I had arrived at this gathering by virtue of a late-night phone call to my unlisted number, and found that I knew none of the participants in the activities. I had the strangest feeling that the others there had arrived by the same anonymous process as I had, and I wondered if they were equally mystified as to who had arranged this impromptu assembly of apparent strangers joined in a common cause. Immediately, one of the pickup trucks driving away backfired, and I thought of synchronicity, knowing that the truck would backfire once again, which it immediately did, before disappearing quietly out of sight. Climbing into my own vehicle, I took a last look at the site, which had been cleaned and left exactly the way it was when I had first arrived on the scene. I experienced a moment of deja-vue, as if I had just arrived and none of what I had experienced that day had truly transpired. Somewhere in the distance, a vehicle backfired... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Disclaimer - I am not a reporter, I am not a paramilitarist, and I am not a computer expert. I have no idea what I was doing there and I am not even certain that I should be speaking about the event...but I am. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Clinton's threat of line-item veto affect crypto bill?
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

shit - the SJ Merc. reported he'll just veto the legislation, plain and simple. At 04:36 PM 8/4/97 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote: > >Does anyone have any idea whether Clinton's threat of using the >line-item veto against portions of the big spending bill could >be leverage against some pro-SAFE legislators? > >Ern > > >

1 0

Re: Tim 1 - Joichi 0 - DreamMonger NULL / Re: Joichi gives up (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 13:25:48 +0900 > From: Joichi Ito <jito(a)eccosys.com> > Subject: Re: Tim 1 - Joichi 0 - DreamMonger NULL / Re: Joichi gives up > (fwd) > At 07:44 97/08/04 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > If all it takes to take over the citizens of Japan is to bash them a little > > then you folks are Doomed. Perhaps you have spent one too many days > > hammering nails that stick up... > > I meant get bashed here... and I don't hammer nails. Hammers nail me. > And it seems like there are US hammers too. "To a hammer everything > looks like a nail." Which puts just about everything at an advantage over the hammer. At least its actions are consistent and predictable. A hammer can't hurt that which it can't hit. (hint: nails don't move) Ta ta... Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Ponzi Schemes (was Re: non-censorous spam control)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vulis wrote: >A similar scheme in Russia by an organizaton called "MMM", run >by the Mavrodi bothers, left a large number of "investors" >holding the bag. Interestingly, one of the Mavrodi brothers >is now in Russian jail (awaiting trial), and the other one is >still running a pyramid scheme: he accepts "voluntary donations" >from an investor, in return for a "voluntary donation" at a later >date whose amount and time are not guaranteed and depend on >the "donations" collected from others. The Russian government >does not shut down Mavrodi's latest operation so far, claiming >it's not "fraud" since he doesn't misrepresent the source of >his returns nor the risks involved. Reportedly so far he's >getting oodles of investors and pretty good returns. Eventually >of course his scheme will collapse, but the "investors" who >got in and out early enough will have made good money. Can you say "Wall Street?" Because that's exactly how it operates right now. The money being thrown at the stock market today is not "investing," it's simply a pyramid scheme. >A similar scheme recently brought down the government of Albania. >Reportedly the investors who got in late in the game and didn't >get the returns they expected (or actually lost their investments) >demanded that the gubmint reimburse them for their losses (by >taxing the money from the more intelligent Albanians). When >the idiots want the gubmint to protect them from their own >idiocy, the gubmint happily uses this excuse to screw not only >those who would fleece the idiots, but everyone. This is what happened when the US Savings & Loans Banks in the Southwest failed in the 80's. All of the people who lost money were bailed out by the FDIC, which of course is funded by taxpayer money. The final figure was approximately $500 billion, depending on whose estimates you believe. So the idiots who didn't do their homework and put money into a bogus S&L were bailed out by everyone else who was smart enough to know better. And, of course, the fraudsters (one of whom was the son of then Vice-President George Bush) got away with a slap on the wrist. Go figure. MoneyMonger

2 1

Crypto Legislation Page - docs and links
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've collected all the stuff I've had laying around since Feb. or so regarding the Senate and House Bills on crypto, including comment papers and links thereto, Congressional Record dumps, and so forth. I intend to keep this up to date as things 'move forward' --- Thanks to these lists for a lot of pointers to valuable information; my hope is that my page provides a central location for monitoring, as much of the information has been scattered about among the .org's who are watching, JYA, etc. etc. Any comments appreciated, thx. see www.best.com/~geeman

1 0

European Union Bank
by axlotl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- axlotl(a)cyberpass.net

1 0

Oz
by Grant Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any Australian cypherpunks ? Contact me & we'll get together a local chapter, Grant Sparks grant(a)sparks.to Finger me for PGP and WWW information.

1 0

"A new battle over keeping the Net clean," by J.Weber/LATimes
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: "A new battle over keeping the Net clean," by J.Weber/LATimes ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:23:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jonathan Weber <Jonathan.Weber(a)latimes.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: ratings story Innovation/ Jonathan Weber A New Battle Over Keeping the Web Clean WASHINGTON When Congress passed the Internet censorship law known as the Communications Decency Act early last year, the many companies, advocacy groups and individuals with a stake in the Internet rose up as one to challenge the measure in court. But now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the CDA unconstitutional, the victorious coalition is fracturing, and a bitter battle is being joined over the Clinton-backed effort to develop a rating and labeling system for the Internet. On one side are the big, mainstream Internet and computer companies, led by America Online and Microsoft, which proclaim their eagerness to make cyberspace "safe for families.'' Lining up against them are free-speech advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Assn., which see ratings systems as censorship tools. It's not exactly a fair fight: Ratings proponents have popular opinion, the economic interests of the industry and the power of the presidency on their side. But here's a prediction: The free-speech forces will lose the battle, but they'll ultimately win the war. And with a little luck there won't be too much damage done in the interim. The debate over ratings begins with a technology called PICS, which stands for "platform for Internet content selection.'' PICS is a mechanism for labeling Web pages according to their content. The labels can then be read by a software program, which in turn can block access to sites that have specific types of content. PICS itself is not a ratings system, but rather a method for implementing a ratings system. The theory is that once PICS is in place throughout the Internet, a multiplicity of ratings systems would emerge. A Christian Coalition ratings system might block access to anything with any sexual content as well as certain political sites, for example, while another system might block only hard-core porn. Parents and others could easily choose. So far, so good. There would be no law requiring Web sites to use PICS labels; the Clinton administration has stressed that any ratings plan would be voluntary. But parents and others would get a new toolone more robust and effective than existing software programs, such as CyberPatrol, that block out sites deemed unsuitable for kids. The free speech purists have a philosophical objection even to this. ""Ratings systems are developed to enable one individual to exercise control over what another person sees,'' says Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. That might be OK for parents and their children, he allows, but such a tool will inevitably be used by public institutions and governmentsif not here then abroadto restrict speech. An even bigger worry is that what's being sold as a voluntary system that will include a multiplicity of ratings systems is actually going to be an all-but-mandatory system that offers very few choices. Consider, first of all, what happens to Web sites that decline to rate their pages. Any PICS-based filter would have to block all unrated pages. Already, ratings proponents are calling on the major search services, such as Yahoo, not to index unrated sites. Overseas Web services would face the choice of adopting a U.S. labeling system or forgoing access to any U.S. readers. Web publishers that didn't want to participate might suddenly find themselves in a deserted backwater of the network. There's also the question of how disputes over ratings would be arbitrated. Sites would be self-rated, and in fact the vast majority of sites would have no incentive to misrepresent themselves. But what happens when some do anyway? Would it be a crime for a porn site to proclaim itself suitable for children? At the moment, moreover, it doesn't appear that there are a variety of ratings systems under development representing different values. In fact, a system being created by the Recreational Software Advisory Council, a Microsoft-led industry group, is quickly emerging as a de facto standard. The battles over how RSAC handles certain kinds of sites have only just begun, but to see the inevitable problems one need look no further than the ongoing discussion about news. N ews sites, reasonably enough, don't want to rate themselves. At the very least it would be impractical to label every page of a big news site every day to warn of violent or tasteless or otherwise disturbing content. And labeling news just doesn't seem very consistent with freedom of the press. So the news organizations want to have a special news rating. Who qualifies for a news rating? Well, a committeeoperating under the auspices of the Internet Content Coalition, which represents a number of major publishers (including The Times)would decide. News organizations get together to decide who is and who isn't a news organization. Hmm. In the face of these objections, the Clinton administration and the companies backing the ratings effort say that, first of all, something has to be done to stave off new legislation. If industry doesn't act, Congress will come up with "son of CDA,'' and this time it might hold up in court. There are other motives too, though, namely a desire to expand the market. "Nothing is as important as making this medium family-friendly,'' America Online Chairman Steve Case declared here last week. That's funny coming from him, because AOL owes much of its success to its decidedly un-family-friendly sex-chat rooms, but he's obviously decided that a clean image is important to further growth. The online giant is spearheading a two-day meeting here in October, where the ratings battle is likely to come to a head. The administration and the big companies both want to bring the Internet into the mainstream. If some of its wilder and woollier aspects are marginalized in the process, well, good. And that is the nightmare of free-speech advocates: that a medium that the Supreme Court declared ought to be treated at least as liberally as print (ever heard of ratings for books?) will nonetheless be driven into TV-like conformity. This is a legitimate fear. Personally, though, I don't think the worst will happen. The Internet is simply too big, too diverse and too fast-changing to be tamed by even a semi-voluntary ratings mechanism. The business interests, moreover, cut both ways: Family-friendly might look like a way to expand the market today, but pornography and gambling and even radical politics are sure to remain a big part of the online landscape. AOL's Case says that online service providers competing on the basis of who is more family-friendly would be akin to airlines competing based on their safety records. That's a ridiculous analogy: Everyone thinks plane crashes are bad, but not everyone feels the same way about controls on Internet content. In my ideal world, Internet providers should be competing based on values, not trying to impose some kind of bogus consensus. Esther Dyson, one of the industry's most respected thinkers, favors the development of PICS as a tool but stresses the importance of choicesand of people taking responsibility for their actions. In the wired world, she says, power is constantly shifting and devolving away from central authorities, and that requires individuals to be less passive: "I want local control,'' she says. "I don't want no control.'' PICS and RSAC have powerful forces behind them and stand a good chance of establishing themselves as part of the mainstream Internet. But there's a natural tendency toward diversity in cyberspace, and it's hard to see how they would become ubiquitous. If individuals and organizations are vigilant about how ratings are usedi.e., not by governments and not by public institutions such as librariesthere's a chance that they'll remain what they were originally intended to be: one of many means for people to manage the often unmanageable Internet. Jonathan Weber (Jonathan.Weber(a)latimes.com) is editor of The Cutting Edge. ********************************************************************** Jonathan Weber Jonathan.Weber(a)latimes.com Technology Editor Los Angeles Times

2 1

Re: "A new battle over keeping the Net clean," by J.Weber/LATimes
by bpettigrew＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At the moment, moreover, it doesn't appear that there are a variety of >ratings systems under development representing different values. In fact, >a system being created by the Recreational Software Advisory Council, a >Microsoft-led industry group, is quickly emerging as a de facto >standard. The problem isn't with PICS, or with ratings, or even with RSAC. The problem is that nobody else is making the effort to set up alternative rating systems. This leaves RSAC as the only option, by default. Let the free speech organizations demonstrate their commitment to their cause by creating their own ratings. Rank sites on the basis of their support of freedom, or on how privacy-friendly their policies are. Even formalize the geek code. Do something, anyway. The solution to bad speech is more speech. Don't suppress, ban, or oppose RSAC. Provide alternatives. Bubba

2 1