December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:48 PM 2/4/96 EST, you wrote: >"David K. Merriman" <merriman(a)arn.net> writes: >> >Now that we all have web pages that are naughty and might be seen by >> >little children, I'd like to hve some kind of a graphic that can >> >universally be seen as a "Warning: The following material is unsuitable >> >for children and close-minded twits". (or words to that effect). >> >> Hmmmmm. Maybe a doll with an international 'no' sign superimposed? > >Either the 'no' sign (red crossed circle) or a wide red cross over one of: > rattle > baby bottle / pacifier > disposable diapers (with contents visible) > safety pin? How about the circle-slash "no" symbol superimposed on the Constitution? -- "The anchored mind screwed into me by the psycho- | Greg Broiles lubricious thrust of heaven is the one that thinks | gbroiles(a)netbox.com every temptation, every desire, every inhibition." | -- Antonin Artaud |

2 1

glide.c??
by Jim Small 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DO you know where I can find glide.c , or (newer) to bruteforce .pwl files?

2 1

The wisdom of Mark Twain
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove any doubt. ObCypherpunk: Mark Twain was a pseudonym. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: Tell me whats wrong with this
by avatar＠mindspring.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:34 PM 2/8/96 -0600, you wrote: > >avatar(a)mindspring.com writes: > > I have a six year old boy I am trying to raise and it is hard > > enough to teach him respect and values... > >What does your six-year-old have to do with my TV? > > > Tell me why parents should not be able to censor their OWN > > television so that they may raise their children the way THEY see > > fit > >But what about *my* TV? Why should I be forced to pay for something I >don't want just because you want it for yourself? [ Why does this >seem so obvious? You probably had no problem with seat belts being manditory eqiupment , because they protected YOU and the people YOU cared about. You probably had no problem with manditory airbags, public building smoke alarms, unleaded fuel, restaurant health codes,etc....Because they protected you and or people you care about, even though they cost YOU more money. > > > All I'm saying is it's tough to raise a child these days without the added > > distortion of modern programing ... > >"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." > > > ... and parents need not be denied any tool that can help them > > achieve success. > >Oh, OK then. Parents should be given access to incendiary equipment >as a tool to destroy the studios that produce offensive material. > It's obvious that you watch a lot television your an excellent sensationalist. Besides, we both no that the cost of the chip is insignificant. This device hurts no one! Charles Donald Smith Jr. ||The government is my shepherd I need not work. It alloweth me to lie down on a good job. It leadeth me beside stilled factories. It destroyeth my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake. YEA, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficet spending I shall fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic utopia for me by appropriating the earnings of my grandchildren. It filleth my head with false security. My inefficiency runeth over. Surely, the government should care for me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a fools paradise forever.................AMEN! || nuke'm if ya got'em||

2 1

CDA Yes Votes; Collection
by Tim Cook 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Find out if yours ( or any ) representative or senator voted for the CDA. Send me email with the subject CDA-YES. Put their name and where they are from in the body. I'll compile the list and post it. When this is over they'll wish they realized how powerful the internet REALLY is. Besides, what makes the US Congress think they have any control over a worldwide network? PS. Repost this msg where appropriate. I'm only posting to cypherpunks. Another "Logical Conclusion" by: Tim Cook <twcook(a)cts.com> Support THE US Constitution... Vote Alexander in '96 and '00!

1 0

China
by Alex Strasheim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've seen a couple of pointers to information about China's ambitious attempt to build their own censorable net, but not a lot of discussion. The Chineese net strikes me as a very signifiant (and very negative) development. In a worst case scenario, I could see them shopping their net around the world as an alternative to the Internet. China's size might make it possible for them to put together something that might be in the Internet's ballpark as an information resource, especially for technical and commercial applications. This would make it attractive to other countries -- Islamic, for example -- who want to use networking to stay competitive economically with the West, but who are unwilling to allow information to flow freely. A split between a Western net and a Chineese net would have important political, cultural, and economic reprecussions; it could be the cyberspatial version of the old iron curtain, with information policy rather than economic policy as a dividing line. I know that the Chineese net won't have bullet proof security, and the crypto anarchy model tells us that the attempt is doomed to failure over the long run. That's probably true, but there is a chance that it might not be. No one, including the Chineese, is going to expect perfect security. But everyone ought to expect a real and substantial chilling effect on the free flow of ideas. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that they'll be able to have the same sort of success controlling ideas online as they have with printed material. We ought to speak out against this Chineese net, and start asking questions about Western companies that are collaborating in its construction. All of this, incidently, puts a new spin on the exportability of crypto. We've always assumed that exporting crypto meant that individuals and businesses would be able to have control over their own tools. But what's our posisition if RSA wants to sell tools to the Chineese government that will be used to affix signatures, perform validation, and generally control the flow of ideas? We ought to allow the free export of any crypto tools to any country for any reason. But if there are going to be any restrictions at all, it ought to be on tools used for anti-democratic controls. -- Alex Strasheim, alex(a)proust.suba.com

6 5

A Rant about Senator James Exon
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:57 AM 2/10/96, Mark Allyn (206) 860-9454 wrote: >Allright. That does it. > >I am going to volunteer to try to make a perl script that >I will make available that will automatically email every >congressman that has an email address. I will include a pre >pared text of the email message. All you would have to do is >to sign it and it would send the same message to all of them >with email addresses automatically. I can even have it have >several prepaired texts so that they are all slightly different >so that any funky gatekeepers at the congress email sites that >attempt to keep out spams could be defeated. > >What do you think? Is this worth it? Here's something I did about Senator James Exon: My complaint about James Exon I would like to take a moment to comment on James Exon's statements. What follows is a set of observations I have made about inane zombies. I truly suspect that his opinion is a lazy cop-out. If he gets his way, I might very well kill somebody. This is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present. To Exon, terrorism is a kind of religion. This is not the first time we've had trouble with unreasonable goofy-types, and it certainly won't be the last. His claims are a cesspool of alarmism. If you need proof that he is off his rocker, then just take a look at him. Exon has a driving need to reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Ostensibly, he does not intend to insult my intelligence, but in fact, insipid porn stars like him tend to conveniently ignore the key issues of this or any other situation. Speaking of insincere megalomaniacs, it would be downright ungrateful for him to censor any incomplicitous principles. It's a sad world where fickle worthless-types have the power to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. After all, I myself unequivocally maintain that Exon should take more responsibility for his actions. To put it another way, he likes to have difficult social issues presented to him in simple, black-and-white terms. I don't see how he can be so abusive. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is intentionally being stupid. Rather, it means that his attempts to turn the trickle of alcoholism into a tidal wave are just a game to him. Although Exon has tremendous popular appeal, Exon has come very, very close to making me defend my rights. He should just quit whining about everything. He feels he has not only a right, but also a duty, to toy with our opinions. His idea of a good time is to torture jealous radical hedonists. An inner voice tells me that Exon's claims are pure tripe. To sum it all up, pesky deranged moviegoers like James Exon often think they have the right to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. -Tim May P.S. As many of you may already know, a "rant generator" can be found at http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

[NOISE]More meaty CDA material
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded: The article starts with "SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- You motherfuckers in Congress have dropped over the edge of the earth this time." and gets better. >The American Reporter, working in conjunction with other groups opposed >to the CDA, commissioned a writer to produce a special article to >celebrate Clinton's signing of the new the law. > >Steve Russell, the author, retired after 16 years as a trial judge >in Texas and is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the >University of Texas at San Antonio. > >This article was specifically and carefully designed to be completely >and utterly in breach of the CDA. If you are opposed to the CDA and >you are not offended by the "seven bad words", you'll probably find >it highly entertaining and insightful. > >OTOH, if you are easily offended and don't like bad language, JUST >DON'T READ IT. > >If you are easily offended and like to be offended and then like to >file Police Reports, please go ahead. After all it was written to >help ensure that the CDA gets challenged in the courts as soon as >possible. > >Here's the URL and don't tell me I didn't warn you: > >http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html > > >-- >|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| >| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | >| malch(a)malch.com Gary Player. | >| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | "The Internet, of course, is more | than just a place to find pictures | of people having sex with dogs." stevenw(a)best.com | -- Time Magazine, 3 July 1995

1 0

Why ? You really want to know =>
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of >>the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. >So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing >laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to >enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more >tolerable later. If you already knew the answer, why ask ? It also could be that under our system of laws, once a rider is attached to a bill (in this case the telecommunications bill) it is almost impossible to remove. Congress has been using this quirk to provide pork-barrel & special interest thingies for years. I would prefer to think that some, realizing the impossibility of removal, increased it to the point of obvious unconstitutionality so that it would be separated as soon as possible. I suspect that both the three-judge special panel and the following supreme court decisions are already known and time is just needed to craft the SC decision so finely that this never happens again. (ever the optomist but believe that while the congressional agenda may be different and unobvious, it is rarely stupid.) - Pick almost any chapter in the Old Testament. Read it halfway. Look at how the famous figures look *at that point*. Just do not quote the "Song of Solomon" (KJV) on the net. Today. Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy
by Dr. Rich Artym 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199602070213.UAA03036(a)einstein.ssz.com>, Jim Choate writes: > If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply > because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and > moraly or ethicaly undefensible. I agree, but not for your reasons. "Reprehensible" and "ethically undefensible" both presupose that *you* can make an objective moral judgement that you are right and others are wrong, which is no better than the moral judgement that the politicians are making. A better reason for agreeing with your position is simply that value judgements of any kind are subjective, and therefore they cannot apply to everyone and hence it is a clear coercion to try to apply them to everyone. Coercion of one man's subjective views onto another is the fundamental fault in the position of the censors; it's a very fundamental attack on perhaps the most basic freedom we have, regardless of whether there is a Constitution or Ammendments in the country in which we live. > > 2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital > > cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom? > > > > By making shure they don't have the authority to make the decision in the > first place. It might well be too late for that: they've already taken the authority. Now we're starting a process of taking it back, and we can do so without bloodshed by moving the source of their power (monetary transactions and the consequent taxation) beyond their reach. That's where crypto comes in, and that's why many of us are here. > Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or > another. It is important that we adopt this overtly innocent view of civil servants and governments as our *servants*, because it is on the grounds of service that they justify their positions and actions on the single day every few years that we get to vote them in. Shoving the term "servant" down their throats at every opportunity is an excellent attack on their positions of power over us. Rich. -- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Internet: rich(a)galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # rich(a)mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1 # ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm(a)gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu # ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng # ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London ########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."

1 0