December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

HRoller Anonymous Remailer Shut Down
by Wink Junior 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This bit of unverified news from alt.privacy: > From: hroller(a)infinity.c2.org (hroller) > Date: 13 Feb 1996 16:47:06 GMT > > This is to announce that hroller remailer is shutting down for good. Due > to the fact of the current issues and my ISP raising costs, I can no > longer support this remailer. I guess you could say THEY Won! What I mean > by this is not only Sen. Exxon, but the users also. The Abuse that goes > through the remailers is something you would not believe. And until the > people on the internet wake up and start acting like adults, this problem > is not going to change. > > It's been fun, up until lately. > > hroller Between irresponsible online behavior and media-spins, such as the example posted by Mr. Young, will probably make '96 the year of the remailer wars. If they're not out-and-out banned in the U.S. by '98 I'll be surprised (but damned happy.) Hats off to HRoller and Broiles who've fought the good fight. Wink

1 0

Anonymous Posting FAQ'S Using Private Idaho
by wussery＠slip.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have created several FAQ'S that I hope will streamline the creation and subsequent sending of postings or email using Private Idaho. I would like any feedback, pro or con on the usefulness of these documents. My goal throughout the writing process was to make it as EASY as possible to set up an account on alpha.c2.org. As most people know, subsequent to setting up your account on the alpha server, one can post anonymously to newsgroups and send anonymous email. This by NO MEANS is the ONLY way to send anonymous mail, but is a popular way of doing so. I was prompted to write these FAQ's because of the amount of frustration that I experienced while trying to setup my anonymous account. Hopefully others will have an easier path, subsequent to reading my FAQ's. I have sent a copy of these FAQ's to the author of Private Idaho and hope to be hearing from him soon about any glaring omissions or errors. Should you find any errors, please point them out. It is most important that easy to use, step by step documents be made available for the public. The consequence of enabling individuals to easily set up an anonymous presence, is the free flow of information and to be able to challenge a "fact" or individual without hesitation or possible repercussions. I hope my FAQ's will help in this regard. The FAQ's can be found at: http://www.slip.net/~wussery/pgp.html While you're there, check out some of the other spots that have caught my attention. Hope you enjoy, and don't forget to give me your feedback, pro or con. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMSNJDl4zaQ9yYVwNAQFCdAP/aKIOArRdihXpK9Q8wfILzxLXivTJ92Vy Y6yXaDQtt/SF8NYc5FgkQ8qB/5qqFRUYIm/mEPWDWWhs68EapX2YjwZi5acFjbTT kt905IHcsleDxxz2aL5NWH+2daKdOc0I7JNIioPg4YYlZ+2sr+/lnvWs9d6BClDV +gHZZn4bLEY= =zmAr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- There's No Elevator To Success. You Have To Take The Stairs. Remember:"You Can't Fake The Harvest", Stephen Covey PGP ID 0x72615C0D url:http://www.slip.net/~wussery Compuserve:72567,2213

1 0

China -- the fragile glimmer of freedom
by Bryce 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have seen two articles-- one each from two prominent cypherpunks who shall remain unnamed-- which said something to the effect that China's censorship of the Chinese part of the Internet will only "hurt themselves". The apparent degree of unconcern, or at least the callous way that it was presented, saddened me. One of the messages even ended with a sardonic "Oh well.". For people who spewed forth hundreds of articles of rants when the toothless CDA outlawed lewdity and advice about abortion, and for people who bravely and promptly took action to protect the free speech of a <contempt>Holocaust denier</contempt>, the cpunks have been noticeably silent about this much more cruel and widespread repression. Perhaps you think that the compliant Chinese person is satisfied with his or her role as lackey of his government? Or is it that we and the Asians inhabit such different worlds that we will have to make do without each other's help? I think the cpunks are better than that, and I think that as information technology permeates China, that the cpunks will also be there, creating tools, smuggling them to the Chinese people, and teaching them how to use these tools to assert sovereign control over their own words and thoughts. And pausing, on occasion, to engage in the cyberspace equivalent of displaying a certain Western obscene gesture towards the totalitarian government. ObCrypto: The RSA signature on this message can be used by the Chinese police if they would like to verify its authorship. I might come to regret this someday... ObE$: Probably the most powerful of said tools is currency. Bryce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01 iQCVAwUBMSPLb/WZSllhfG25AQGKBwP7BFjWue3axSz2NH0vKjMhYI3EK5IQQb96 ApuLvyOyQgTHGNW0BWgESvT1Xm8zkWf7QoVM7qdnF5Q5FPi2TmaxNKx4TJi4+2cp 7lnxbOO/eXMIMutrKcBxMMJW8MiBi6le5FoJ98t/OeHLZQ32c7hljeE3YKSMSt5G 9kqKqfaPiu8= =aZ3k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

(fwd) ALERT! Govt thought police online, to be debated on PBS 2/15
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 13:26:25 -0800 To: GovAccess(a)well.com From: jwarren(a)well.com (Jim Warren) Subject: ALERT! Govt thought police online, to be debated on PBS 2/15 Cc: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu Sender: owner-govaccess(a)well.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 15:05:21 -0500 To: policy-posts(a)cdt_list.cdt.org From: editor(a)cdt.org (CDT Editor) Subject: TONIGHT (2/15) on PBS - CDT Dir. Jerry Berman vs. Family Research Council Resent-From: policy-posts(a)cdt_list.cdt.org X-Mailing-List: <policy-posts(a)cdt_list.cdt.org> archive/latest/14 X-Loop: policy-posts(a)cdt_list.cdt.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: policy-posts-request(a)cdt_list.cdt.org Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, will debate Cathleen Cleaver of the Family Research Council TONIGHT (Thurs 2/15) on PBS's 'News Hour with Jim Lerher'. (Formerly the MacNeill/Lerher News Hour). Check your local listings for time and channel. Cleaver and the Family Research Council were strong supporters of the Exon "Communications Decency Act." Topics to be discussed include the CDA, court challenges, the recent announcement by Compuserve to un-block Usenet access and provide parental control technologies to CIS subscribers, and other issues relating to Internet Censorship. == I just god it, so now you just got it (as quick as my listserv can shovel it out the pipe). --jim Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren(a)well.com) Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> Mo' as it Is. --jim Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren(a)well.com) Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> To add or drop GovAccess, email to Majordomo(a)well.com ('Subject' ignored) with message: [un]subscribe GovAccess YourEmailAddress (insert your eaddr) For brief description of GovAccess, send the message: info GovAccess Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org: /cpsr/states/california/govaccess and by WWW at http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/states/california/govaccess . Also forwarded to USENET's comp.org.cpsr.talk by CPSR's Al Whaley. May be copied & reposted except for any items that explicitly prohibit it. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

No Subject
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A federal judge in Philadelphia has issued a partial temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the "indecency" provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The judge declined to enjoin those provisions of the Act dealing with "patently offensive" communications. The court agreed with the plaintiffs' claim that the CDA will have a chilling effect on free speech on the Internet and found that the CDA raises "serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful questions." The court further agreed that the CDA is "unconstitutionally vague" as to the prosecution for indecency. But the court left open the possibility that the government could prosecute under the "patently offensive" provisions The court has recognized the critical problem with the CDA, which is the attempt to apply the indecency standard to on-line communications. Nonetheless, online speech remains at risk because of the sweeping nature of the CDA. The entry of the court order is a strong indication that the "indecency" provision of the legislation that went into effect on February 8 will not survive constitutional scrutiny by a three- judge panel that has been impaneled in Philadelphia. The panel will fully evaluate the constitutional validity of the legislation and consider entry of a permanent injunction against enforcement of the new law. The temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued in a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the American Civil Liberties Union and a broad coalition of organizations. EPIC is also participating as co-counsel in the litigation. The court ruling comes in the wake of widespread denunciation of the CDA, which was included in the telecommunications reform bill signed into law last week. According to EPIC Legal Counsel David Sobel, one of the attorneys representing the coalition, "The court's decision is a partial victory for free speech, but expression on the Internet remains at risk. This is destined to become a landmark case that will determine the future of the Internet." Looking ahead to proceedings before the three-judge panel, Sobel said "we are optimistic that further litigation of this case will demonstrate to the court that the CDA, in its entirety, does not pass constitutional muster." EPIC has maintained since its introduction in Congress that the ban on "indecent" and "patently offensive" electronic speech is a clear violation of the free speech and privacy rights of millions of Internet users. Comprehensive information on the CDA lawsuit, including plaintiffs' brief in support of the TRO, is available at: http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/lawsuit/ =============================================================== David L. Sobel Legal Counsel Electronic Privacy Information Center sobel(a)epic.org http://www.epic.org =============================================================== _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Decency Act
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 15, 1996 21:43:49, 'jdoe-agamemnon(a)alpha.c2.org' wrote: >Bill Frantz wrote: >>Perry sent me a polite note asking why I had posted the original post, and >>He suggested that in the future I make it clear why I think my posts are >>relevent to the subject of the list. > >Is this what we call the chilling effect? > No, certainly not in the *meaning* of the term. One: P.E. Metzger is an individual, not a state. To put it in context, "how many [Army] divisions does Perry have?" Two: People publish a variety of opinions to the cypherpunk list. These have included murder for hire and the mass destruction of civilians via nuclear weapons. Surely P.E. Metzger is entitled to post his opinions, far more topical to CP-List than the others. Three: The mathemetician Heri Poncaire once wrote that a properly prepared scientific proof had the effect of "compelling" belief whether the person vewing the proof wanted to believe in it or not. Put another way, any proof in the HP sense has a chilling effect on all belief structures opposed to the proof. This "chilling effect" is not what is meant by the same words used to refer to government action. It is, perhaps, a type of "chilling effect" that scientifically-oriented people would support. Now obviously, P.E. Metzger's post and request is not a scientific proof. It might lead some individuals to refrain from posting clearly off-topic material. The same individuals may get upset at this new-found consciousness and be upset at it. They might even decide their original unmediated desires had been "chilled" by P.E. Metzger's request. So what? --tallpaul

1 0

berkeley site kinda' up
by Mark Rogaski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, I got in to ftp://ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/ but it seems that none of the filesystems are mounted. A nice, clean space. Any news on what's happening? - ----- Mark Rogaski | wendigo(a)gti.net | wendigo(a)pobox.com | I use PGP, so System Administrator | http://www.pobox.com/~wendigo/ | should you! Global Telecom, Inc. | Why read when you can just sit and | finger for pubkey http://w3.gti.net/ | stare at things? | wendigo(a)pobox.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMSSc09T48ZIkMoEtAQGhYQf9FTxwG4lTpGJ2Rc1DtcsmjOvhnM2eTxvJ zLy9WFo5Hr3W2jSAoQ7VWmfr5ZgcCuyiPtxnkTHfXBqWNS4SnJ5BCYmGhAmLu+WW EMTPXmmeLN/R2vsLCfetmII+/WR2SKvShU8TOTHSrsEZQnbz56AWUVexEs86kvKY q+dJFQadjTmQDdhIh/+jXIeJfccpRujBu7MOb7kWnbmC4VoMVDrKRh+73bcj+4+g Zm+ptTgn8NVCHyjn+Ydy9jU8H2bymQnQl1YsqcAmhrKW9cpB04ijXKM3rGQl99OS kc+qlT1Kwvf4laLHOcFcjKPIWV0o0WRExJhoapgpN6gUfmSWM3LDXg== =nOvQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Computer unmasks Anonymous writer...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Feb 16, 96 edition of the Baltimore Sun announces that a computer program similar to one used to attribute unknown poems to William Shakespeare has been turned to solving the mystery of who wrote the best selling book, _Primary Colors._ The work was apparently done by Donald Foster a professor at Vassar College who discovered that both Joe Klein and the author of _Primary Colors_ used these adjectives quite often: especially, entirely, fiercely, incredibly, mortally, particularily, precisely, profoundly, reflexively, relentlessly, seriously, subtly, surprisingly, ultimately, utterly, vaguely, wistfully More information will be published in an article slated to run in the copy of _New York_ magazine that goes on sale on Monday. This article seems to be the major source for the Sun piece. If Joe Klein, a well-known political writer, is indeed the author, it is clear that he didn't learn one of the first lessons of Washington. If you're going to leak information or quotes to the world, make sure you use the diction of your enemy. That's ventriloquism Washington style. -Peter Wayner

2 1

Computer unmasks Anonymous writer...
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Wash Post today also covers fingering Joe Klein by stylistic analysis, gives Klein's denial and in a separate article reports on the methodology of its own computer analysis and most likely suspects, who are ...

1 0

Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:32 PM 2/14/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote: > If I apply for a credit card and use it to buy a hockey glove (how >Canadian eh) I should not expect to be on the mailing list of every >sporting goods operation in North America! > > [...] > > Again, I am not suggesting prior restraint. I simply want to sue >the bastards who violated my expectation of privacy. 1. All so called privacy laws against databases *have* involved prior restraint, and thus necessarily involved massive violation of privacy by the state. 2. Absent prior restraint, you may have great difficulty discovering whole leaked information concerning you. 3. Such a law as you propose, without prior restraint, would not violate peoples privacy, and for that very reason it is vastly unlikely that such a law would ever be passed. The primary purpose of laws against acts that are malum prohibitum and not malum in se is to empower those that pass them, and the secondary purpose is to empower established businesses that are threatened by competition. (The digital telephony act should be called the big three preservation act.) When you say "There ought to be a law", ask yourself who would pass such a law, who would enforce such a law, and why. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0