December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill
by Seth Finkelstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>At 2:17 PM -0700 9/9/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>It's time for advocates of crypto-freedom to turn obstructionist and >>oppose all legislation dealing with encryption. > From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org> > And expect to accomplish what? Freedom from embarrassment? I don't consider the Digital Telephony debacle to have been lived down yet. I certainly don't have a lot of faith that the people who brought us that are going to do any better nowadays. I sense another dirty little deal is in the works, where we're told they didn't "support" it, but "it could have been worse". > To stick our heads in the sand now would just make it easier for the FBI to > roll right over us. We still need to fight the expected FBI key recovery OK. How about telling us how that's going to be done. And at what point will you start calling for megaphones and marches (metaphorically). If the answer is "never", well, I think that settles just how much of a factor you'll be. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu

1 0

Did someone say 'dare'?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > I was talking to someone after a law class this evening (we're covering > electronic privacy topics, but unfortunately we're not at crypto yet). He > suggested widespread civil disobedience. > Perhaps it's time to dare the Feds to prosecute you. Any volunteers? I took one step back, while Toto and a Well user to be named later just stood there, so it appears to me that they've volunteered. I am hereby daring Lying Fuck Freeh, Nazi Ratbastard Clinton, Child Murderer Reno, and Lying Nazi Cunt FineSwine to prosecute Toto and a Well user to be named later. Munitions-grade crypto has been sent to prohibited countries through two accounts in the last twenty-four hours, one in Canada, one in the U.S. (Hint: sk.sympatico.ca & well.com) (Double Hint: the one sent through the Sympatico account was sent _*before*_ the account was disabled last night while inept system spooks set up new monitoring processes on it.) (Double Extra Hint: the one sent through the Well account was not sent through the account of the person who warned Well security admins about a system intruder shortly *_after_* their wonderful little "we caught the system intruder and installed a newer, more secure system" intro appeared in their new, more secure login process.) (Triple Extra Hint: this message is being cc:'ed to Defcon McCull'em, as well as sent unencrypted through a single remailer, so that tracing its apparent source should not present a major problem.) (Cheap Shot: The Sympatico account is not now working because the admins fixed the problem. It is now working because _I_ fixed the problem.) (Double Cheap Shot: If Well security admins check the warning about their brand-spanking new intruder, which they wrote such a _rude_ reply to, saying that the writer was an idiot, they might notice that the header of the message contains an anagram for their system root password at the time.) (Triple Cheap Shot: Check the Return To: header being used with this originating message.) Please note that I am providing these hints in order that there may be a snowball's chance in hell that those who choose to do further investigation into my wild-eyed claims may be able to proceed without further fucking up the originating systems so badly that I have to spend my own valuable time fixing them. In order to facilitate the federal prosecution of Toto, I have used his writing style, grammer and syntax, complete with too fucking many commas, his normal margins and carriage returns, as well as his too predictable formatting of the quoted portion of the message being replied to. (Also using clues from his previous 'Anonymous' posts.) In order to hinder the federal prosecution of the Well user to be named later, I chose to illegally export the munitions-grade crypto through the account of someone who has an employer with deep pockets, and whose prosecution would undoubtedly result in a great amount of unwanted publicity. (Unwanted, because the government would fail to convict.) In order to piss on the perfectly polished jackboots itching to break down a few doors, I have placed all details of the illegal export of the munitions-grade encryption from Canada and the U.S. in a file on both computers, encrypted with _my_ public key. In order for the file to be read, once deciphered, it must be diff'ed with the file on Toto's personal computer containing the text of the federalist papers. In order to demonstrate the seriousness of this post, if the government schills (<-- note the spelling) who follow the list are too fucking lazy to check into my claims, or too fucking incomptent to confirm them, then I would be more than happy to, in two weeks time, send two futher illegal communications via the same routes, to the CypherPunks (<--sp?) list, upon request by a verifiable government law enforcement agent or agency in a post to the list. Failure of the federal government to take successful action in investigation and prosecution of the illegal activities herein admitted, will be taken as a sign that the Lying Nazi Ratfuckers who comprise the Government and LEA's are weak, spineless pieces of shit who are capable only of using threats and violence to herd meek sheeple into unconstitutional imprisonment of their freedoms, rights, and liberty. i.e. Gutless fucks. ~~~~~ !Toto ~~~~~ "It's !forgery until *I* say it's forgery!" "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn

1 0

Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: amp(a)pobox.com > Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 09:26:21 -0500 > Subject: Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), > was Democracy is the true enemy... > > > I don't believe there are intrinsic flaws in democracy, so much as > > there are intrinsic flaws in *human*nature* that are coming to light > > after decades. government is a reflection of our human natures. > > one cannot really expect a government to correct the flaws of its > > users, any more than software could do the same. > > No intrinsic flaws in democracy? > > Surely you jest. Please be so kind as to detail your top three flaws... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: The "Vision" Thang, and Tales out of School...
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Tim May :+AD4-Nonetheless, people who didn't share his +ACI-vision+ACI-, like IBM, and DEC, and :+AD4-now Apple, and all the rest of his competition, got their clocks cleaned. : :Utter nonsense. I lack the time to write about the early history of MS, :Seattle Computers, and Gary Kildall, but to make this claim above indicates :Bob is sacrificing objectivity for some sort of cheap shot in favor of MS. : :I used to know Kildall, when he was hanging around Intel in the mid-70s, :and up until two weeks before his death. The situation was a lot more :nuanced than this +ACI-vision of Bill+ACI- argument suggests. .................................................... Sometime when you do have some time for it, I for one would be interested what you mean by this+ADs- what sort of nuances you are referring to. Billg had some skills, some vision, some luck, some advantages of background (his knowledgeable, socially-connected parents), some advantages of circumstance (the developing computer industry), the advantages of intellect (like a photographic memory), and some very good partners (beginning with Paul Allen) who also contributed their business judgments and decisions to the success of the company. He receives most of the attention, but there are many parts to this story. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Stanford on Sept. 19th (Re: Nuclear Hedge Funds)
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Tim May :I can't promise anything, but I plan to be advancing the cause of crypto :anarchy on the Stanford campus on Friday, September 19th. After that I may :be off the list for a while, as I'm heading north. ....................................................... To nuke Toto? (ah-ha-ha-ha-ha) .. Blanc

1 0

Credit Card might-as-well-equal SSN
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:18:47 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: qnx.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Subject: Credit Card might-as-well-equal SSN Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:17:52 -0400 From: glen mccready <glen(a)qnx.com> Resent-From: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org X-Mailing-List: <0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org> archive/latest/2196 X-Loop: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: 0xdeadbeef-request(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Forwarded-by: Nev Dull <nev(a)bostic.com> Forwarded-by: Jon Loeliger <jdl(a)jdl.com> PRIVACY Forum Digest Monday, 8 September 1997 Volume 06 : Issue 12 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren(a)vortex.com) Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A. ===== PRIVACY FORUM ===== ------------------------------------------------------------------- The PRIVACY Forum is supported in part by the ACM (Association for Computing) Committee on Computers and Public Policy, "internetMCI" (a service of the Data Services Division of MCI Telecommunications Corporation), and Cisco Systems, Inc. - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:38:55 -0500 From: MSproul <msproul(a)arnet.arn.net> Subject: U-Haul/Credit Cards/Social Security Numbers Today I went to the local U-Haul to rent a small trailer to move a lawn tractor. In the course of filling out the rental agreement I was asked for my drivers license then asked for my social security number which I refused to give. (Texas does not have SSN on the driver's license) The agent then asked for a credit card, which I was planning to use to charge the rental. During the subsequent discussion the agent told me that since the Oklahoma bombing if they don't get a SSN they are required to to get a credit card number as a second form of identification. They can then get the SSN from the credit card issuer. Questions: Is this for real? How wide spread is this? What does U-Haul do with your SSN? How difficult is it for someone (company) to get your SSN when you use your credit card? M. L. Sproul Amarillo, TX [ Under current law, your SSN is part of what's called "credit header" data, and is (no longer) protected under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act). This means that for all intents and purposes, your SSN is public information. -- MODERATOR ] --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

3 2

Chelsea Clinton's PGP
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stanford Newspaper Promises to Help Chelsea Clinton Keep Low Profile AP 08-SEP-97 STANFORD, Calif. (AP) Don't look for news about Chelsea Clinton in Stanford University's school paper: The editor is promising to treat the first freshman like any other student. Chelsea, accompanied by her parents, is expected on campus Sept. 19, when 1,600 first-year students move into their dormitories and begin several days of orientation. Like the mainstream media, the Stanford Daily plans to cover the Clintons' arrival and their participation that day at a welcoming ceremony for freshmen and their parents. But after that, said Carolyn Sleeth, the Daily's editor in chief, Chelsea "will be treated by us as a student, a regular student." That means her classroom and social life will largely go unreported. "Of course, if she involves herself in a newsworthy event, we'll cover it for example, if she founds a Stanford Democratic Club," Sleeth said. On the other hand, the student editor said if Chelsea were to get a speeding ticket or violate some minor campus rule, it would be ignored. "We wouldn't do a story if another student got a speeding ticket," Sleeth said. Sleeth also said a gag order of sorts will be imposed on Daily employees, barring them from talking or as she put it, "punditing" with the "outsider press" about Chelsea. Anyone who does so will be fired, she said.

3 2

[NOISE] Re: Suitcase for sale
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:32 PM 9/9/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote: > >Weight of suitcase: 80 lbs. > >Scheduled to check in; check the weight. > >For details contact: toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca > SWAPSHOP: Interested in one luggage carrier capable of holding 80 pound suitcase to underside of wing of unmarked private plane that can be jettosoned remotely. Looking for good offer as 1,000,000 already spent on suitcase.

2 1

Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:02:37 -0700 > From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> > Subject: Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd) > >> No intrinsic flaws in democracy? > >> > >> Surely you jest. > > > >Please be so kind as to detail your top three flaws... > > I think my Parts II and III detailed a number of shortcomings of democracy, > at least when the franchise goes to 'employees' as opposed to 'customers' > of government. I have read 'The Sovereign Individual' as well so am somewhat familiar with the thesis they propose. I will ask you the same question I would ask of Davidson & Rees-Mogg... Assume that we accept this thesis that the best way to run a government is to structure it such that customers set policies and procedures. What inherent protections does that give me regarding abuse by the system? How do you propose to keep the majority from deciding that it is uneconomical to protect my rights as some minority group? A careful study of business practices versus race or socio-economic group (as expressed by dress) will quickly show that persons of the wrong 'type' receive less service than those of more acceptable groups. The sort of service the customer receives is after all in the hands of the salesperson, not the customer. Let's look at an admittedly contrived example but I believe it will suffice. There are two fires at opposite ends of the coverage area for a fire house. On Saturday they receive a call to go to one end, where the wealthy live. Would you have the owner pay prior to the firemen putting the fire out? Would they pay some premium beforehand? Now on Sunday a fire occurs on the other end where the poor are. Assuming they can't pay the bill would the firemen drive away? If so, wouldn't this in fact pose a threat not only to the other poor but also the wealthy since the fire might spread if it got large enough. Would the wealthy then be asked to pay for that run of the fire truck? What if they refused, how would the firemen pay for the food to feed their family? Perhaps go out and burn down more rich houses... If there are not some inherent or explicit checks in place then such a econo-government would reduce to mob-rule just as happens with democracy without explicit bills of rights. Neither you or Davidson/Rees-Mogg address this issue sufficiently. Furthermore, neither you or the authors address exactly why such a government would abandon the use of force totaly. Exactly why would this form of government reduce say burglary, thereby eliminating the need for police. Is this form of government going to do away with bomb weilding weenies, I doubt it, so we clearly have a need for federal or national level law enforcement fully armed. Since it is clear that all 200+ world governments would not abandon their current forms of government there is a clear and present danger from outside our borders. How do we protect ourselves from this threat? You can't pay them not to attack you, otherwise you are doing exacly what the system was supposed to avoid doing - paying tributes. You want a government with minimal intervention, the issue is not whether it is a democracy or a econo-government or even a communism. What measures that is the rights of the people recognized by the government and how the government respects those rights. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Comdemnation of 'The Sovereign Individual'... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 97 01:07:15 -0400 > Subject: Re: Comdemnation of 'The Sovereign Individual'... > You sense of "morality" does not give you the right to steal from me to > support it. In a free society you are more then welcome to spend as much First it isn't morality in the sense of personal decisions of right and wrong but rather a question of professional ethics akin to a doctor or engineer. It is basic questions about the limits and responsibilities involved in specific activities. Your 'free society' is a euphamism for anarchy. You are promoting a system where all activity is voluntary. In such a system nothing higher than unshaven naked peole with a rock and the rabbit they just killed exists. There is no motivation in such an environment to build higher infrastructures because there is no mechanism to provide environmental stability. In such a system individuals don't have time to do anything but protect what they have and take as much of their neighbors environ as possible. They don't have time for anything else, if they go off and spend 8 hours building that nice pretty public road for that new auto plant their neighbors take what they have and tomorrow they discover they don't have time for that public road after all. You might say, well let your wife and kids watch it. To that I say, isn't that the same as letting elected officials build a infrastructure - there is an implied taxation taking place. Furthermore you have about the same amount of security in both systems - I doubt you would be brash enough to propose that all husbands can trust all wives and kids. > you want on the children of others. You *DO NOT* have the right to spend > my money on them. That is a decision that I and I alone have the right to > make. Not if you are a citizen and abiding by the contractual agreement between you and the n-1 citizens of your nation. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0