December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Anonymous stock trades.
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:25 AM 6/8/96 +0200, Asgaard wrote: > Who is going to assure that someone has an ownership stake in the > Humpback Whales? The World Government? Brand them and herd them like open range cattle: The west did not need a government to do that, though they did need to hang a few folk who favored a different method of open ranging. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

3 2

Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bryce wrote (whilst on his high horse): > Hm. I think the best we could hope for is along the lines of > "The suspect subscribed to the 'Cypherpunks' discussion group on > the Internet, but his violent views were rejected by the members > of the group." Not every member of this list rejects his views. I for one do not reject them outright, but will not defend his views publically for fear of embarassing the corporation that I work for. I do not reject Jim Bell's violent views for the simple reason that violence is often required to fight violence. In other words, the best you can hope for is "... but his violent views were rejected by some members of the group." > It is important that the reporter manages to _not_ use the word > "member" to indicate that Bell is a "member" of Cypherpunks. He *is* a member. And why shouldn't he be? Are you suggesting that this group become moderated? (hiss). The whole AP concept is very relevent to the Cypherpunks, whether the majority like it or not. > I think that conversing with Bell, or publically replying to him > at all, even to insult him, makes him more of a "member" and > makes his pet topic more a part of cypherpunks, both in appearance > and in substance. So don't do it. That means you, too, > Black Unicorn. At _least_ you can take it to private e-mail in > order to prevent the reporters from getting the wrong idea, and > in order to spare the rest of us the tedium of deleting the > messages. No platform for lunatics??? If there is one thing that a Cypherpunk should have learned during his time in the group, is that the answer to hate speech (or violent speech, or whatever you wish to call it) is more speech. If your fear is that reporters will get hold of the wrong end of the stick, then perhaps you are correct, but the real problem is the *reporters*, not the attitude of the Cypherpunks. blame them. propose a solution. (how about abolition of all libel laws?) > This is assuming that the statement "his violent views were > rejected by the members of the group" is actually true! If > there _is_ anyone else here who shares Bell's evil enthusiasms, > I strongly encourage you to begin a new list dedicated to that > topic. I disagree with the phrase "evil enthusiasms." Bell is not an evil man. A little crazy perhaps, but not evil. If you bothered to listen to him, you would find that his aim is to create a "better" world, where people (especially politicians) are very much more responsible for their own actions. He suggests that the number of deaths due to AP will be less that the number of deaths due to the current corrupt system. think about it. how many on this group would have another man killed for his views? For his noisy stereo? For a competive advantage in business? I am confident the answer will be zero. On the other hand, I would gladly throw in a few dollars to have certain politicians killed. gladly. and I will be able to sleep at night. I will sleep better knowing that, although I was partly responsible for a mans death, I will have saved countless others (a bit like dropping an a-bomb on Japan). Question for Jim - would you resort to AP to have Bryce popped off? Question for Bryce - would you resort to AP to have Jim popped off?

1 0

Re: US: Domestic Encryption Protected by US Constitution?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:26 AM 6/9/96, C Matthew Curtin wrote: >Given that the US State Department classifies strong crypto as >munitions, is it possible that any laws passed outlawing the use of >strong crypto among US citizens could be declared unconsitutional, in >violation of the second amendment? > >Are there any legal precedents that apply here? Is the question purely >academic (i.e., no such laws exist, no such bills are in the works, or >none have been tried)? Does anyone know of any laws on the books that >might be relevant to my question? I recall that this general issue was discussed several times on the "Cyberia-l" mailing list, a list consisting mostly of law professors, lawyers, law students, and a bunch of Cypherpunks. (I left that list several months back.) Some points: 1. There are currently no laws restricting crypto use in the U.S., save for some special circumstances (e.g., sending code over the ham radio band). There being no laws, no courts have been asked to rule on such laws. (I don't mean to sound confusing and circular here. The point is that the boundaries of a law get shaped when the law is tested. Inasmuch as there have been no laws about domestic use of crypto, we have little guidance as to how the courts will frame arguments should such a law ever be passed.) 2. Most advocates for a continued right to use strong crypto have used the First Amendment centrally. That is, "encrypted speech is still speech." Any demand that speech conform to government standards would run into the basic point that Congress is not to make such laws. I believe this approach is the strongest one. Even if there are some limits on speech (a la the infamous "falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" example), this sort of limit does not limit the _form_ of speech. (Quibblers may point out other such limits, even some on _form_. For example, speech at 95 dB is OK, but "speech" at a jet-engine level of 135 dB is not. I won't get into such quibbles here.) Casting a pro-crypto argument in terms of the Second Amendment ("encrypted speech is a weapon") opens the door to all kinds of potential arguments for restricting access to crypto. Think of all the various limits on firearms ownership and use: certain calibers and types are restricted, the shapes of firearms are controlled, special taxes are often required, waiting periods for purchase, no ownership by convicted felons, no possession on or near schoolgrounds, bullet types are controlled, limits on magazine capacity, no possession of biological weapons, etc. etc. etc. I don't think we want crypto controlled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, do we? --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: [Off-Topic] "Curfews"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:03 AM 6/9/96 +0000, Jean-Francois Avon wrote: >On 8 Jun 96 at 12:40, jim bell wrote: >> As you can see, this is one of the big difficulties that people can >> have understanding AP: Since it changes just about everything about >> how a society works, you can't analyze it "easily" using your >> built-up knowledge of societies. > >Actually, it makes one realize that society and the "collective" is >nothing, that the basic building block is the individual. If you >analyse the motivation of the individual, AP is not difficult to >understand. It is, however, hard to separate out all the familiar assumptions we make about the world based on the current way of doing things. > >> As I've said so many times before, AP is like a political Rorschach >> test: Your reaction to it is strongly related to your political >> philosophy. That's part of the magic. > >Please stay out of magic. The actual politician are enough into it. Well, I was speaking hyperbolically. (hyperbole.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Minority vs. majority
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:40 PM 6/8/96 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: >> You haven't seen _real_ corrupt officials. :) > >Jim - could corrupt gov't official hide behind anonymity too? >E.g., a particularly obnoxious gov't regulation being issued from >behind anon remailer? Regulation issued? Sure. Regulation _enforced_? Far more difficult! Maybe even impossible, when considered over the entire population. I've been considering this for a long time, and I came to the conclusion that you really can't enforce regulations dictated by a small fraction of the population onto the large majority. Enforcing a regulation costs effort. (money? time? people?) People are not going to put in this kind of effort unless they feel strongly about an issue. It would be possible for a large majority to enforce a standard of behavior on a tiny minority ("rules" against theft and other common crime) but this will work only if the average individual is willing to donate money to see those general rules enforced. Over time, few people will donate money to see victimless crimes (drugs, gambling, prostituion) enforced, for instance. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: RFD: Time to kick some anti-scientologist ass?
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:52 PM 6/8/96 CST, roy(a)sendai.scytale.com wrote: [snip] >Am I the only one whose ironometer just pegged? Actually, now that you mention it, mine is pegged. I hadn't noticed, because I was busy trying to recalibrate my bullshit detector which was off the fucking dial. LD's post is full of shit. David Gerard, Jon Noring, and Ron Newman are not "flamers." People who have even lurked there for a short while should know this. I've seen Ron urge people towards compassionate behavior on a.r.s. more than just about anyone on a.r.s. It's a bit hard to be compassionate when you're dealing with a group that uses every means at its disposal to silence its critics. I don't even think Nauta is on a.r.s., except for perhaps an occasional crosspost or two. Perhaps he lurks, but he doesn't post there to any significant extent. I don't know of any "Anti-Scientologists" who are forging cancels. I really doubt anyone would have checked with Dimitri first, though :) JEM did issue a bunch of cancels, as have some of the ISPs whose services have been abused. We have been inundated with over 12,000 "vertical spam" posts since May 19th, and it's still coming in. Many of these posts are repetitions of the same materials, and must be well over the BI by now. "Anti-Scientologists" have discussed various technological methods of dealing with the spam (cross-posted to news.admin.net-abuse), but no plan has been seized upon due to lack of consensus. I've written an article in the latest issue of my zine about the spam, if people would like more info. URL in my sig. Rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbp6fYT0GKfZRA/9AQFGVgQAvvH4Fa8nwF6qbqHGVuKfO2uv0Ynw388Z 0QxO42wIzt9VrNckRvn+geYFRRYu9DoasGCw8imQqBN85OY3OasjpOIycyQnrjEW C3MqyP44esuyThI6Ds30bwFYc4rP+ZWFWp1rmgv3LmYAaPdh1dAwtzPsKzy4N4NF 0pLAsusDr9k= =PSIh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

3 2

Re: your mail
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, harman.david wrote: > > > This sat's no good fo' me. > > Is Jul 13 OK? > > I've got the ResNet conference that week, and I'll probably need to recover. > It might be fun to meet you at some Tuesday night boink. I'll buy you a > beer. I've got gay friends, but I don't boink them. And, I used to be a nice guy, but I quit drugs. BTW, what does it cost to get a dedicated T3? Would it cost more than a vacation? > > Again, I'm only interested in the implementation, > > the ongoing discussion about legal liability, > > is fairly bogus, I, Black Unicorn, and many others, > > have already declared we would go face to face > > with the law. > > To what was this a reference? Crypto-Anonyminity vs. the law and Co$. "In the national socialist paradise, there is no law" -- Kill Your Television

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: RFD: Time to kick some anti-scientologist ass?
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:34 AM 6/9/96 EDT, LD wrote: >Rich Burroughs <richieb(a)teleport.com> writes: >> I don't know of any "Anti-Scientologists" who are forging cancels. > >Check out the Lasarus reports on alt.religion.scientology -- 5000 lines, >6000 lines, 7000 lines... Gee, those poor CoS posters you mention must be pretty busy to generate that many messages (which were then canceled). Homer adjusted Lazarus, and the last I knew the reports didn't have enough info for anyone to tell who the sender of the cancel was. Here's an example from back on the 5th: - - ---------------------------------------------------------- Mon Jun 3 19:45:33 EDT 1996 Lazarus V2.3 lightlink.com/var/spool/news/control/1501139 Article: 176082 From: info(a)ars.com (ARS FAQ) Date: 1 Jun 1996 17:34:29 GMT Subject: Bryan Wilson - Diversity Among Religions: A Modern Example. Message-ID: <4opuv5$6s0(a)mordred.cc.jyu.fi> Control: cancel <4opuv5$6s0(a)mordred.cc.jyu.fi> - - ---------------------------------------------------------- Homer condensed them to one post, as they were just exacerbating the spam clutter. I wish he'd have left more info in them. To be honest, I haven't paid that much attention to them in the last few days, since it's impossible to tell from them who issued the cancel. If you know who is forging cancels you might want to share with me, but I honestly don't. The only people I am aware of who have been canceling have been JEM and some of the ISPs involved. Vague accusations against "Anti-Scientologists" don't really tell me much. >> really doubt anyone would have checked with Dimitri first, though :) > >The forged cancels started a short time after one prominent anti-scentologist >flamer e-mailed me and asked for a copy of my cancelbot. (The first time I've >seen him being quasi-polite! :-) The cancels look like they came from my 'bot, >and are directed at _anything posted by certain Co$ supporters. I haven't seen any of the actual cancels, and I wouldn't know how to identify them as being from your bot. Those "certain Co$ supporters" are all probably one person who's telnetting to open NNTP ports and forging thousands of messages a day. The posts are all obviously produced by a script (pulling info mainly from the CoS book _What is Scientology_), and they are not anything even in the neighborhood of an honest attempt at communication. It's Net abuse, and I think you must be trolling if you don't see that. Should have known you'd go where the action is :) >I don't care about the bizarre religion views of the present or former cult >members, but forging cancels makes you as much of a slime as Co$. The messages that are being canceled are forgeries. They are a result of an abuse of service. That isn't at all the same as CoS canceling due to content. Those poor "certain Scientologists" you mentioned have produced over 12,000 forged messages, which are actually only a small number of articles that are being continually reposted. Most must be way over the BI. I'm not crying a river for them. >I note that you chose to ignore the cypherpunks-relevant portion of my question >- that the anti-scientologists have been abusing the cypherpunks remailers. Wow. Good thing that there was a relevant portion, huh. :) Sorry I missed it. I have some mixed feelings about the CoS materials that were posted through the remailers. I'm sorry that Hacktic was shut down, but I don't think that was the intent of the people who posted those materials. They were blowing the whistle on a criminal organization. I can't honestly say whether I think their actions were "right" or not. In any case, the actions you've described were committed by a handful of people. There are hundreds of Anti-Scientologists who post to a.r.s., and many more who lurk. Probably less than 5 have done wholesale posting of copyrighted materials, (beyond what would be considered "fair use") and most of them didn't even use remailers. Scamizdat being the big exception. I'm assuming that your anti-"Anti-Scientologist" screed is just an attempt to get people riled up. Having fun? Rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbsypoT0GKfZRA/9AQF62wP/TUdUKXwAgO7irnE08P5mSP1K+MNP0Ukb ZqZPCKmWxrtHql/a3E7dYquQ0fp9fCe4a+d/TyvJQFAc3/LS/6/Qb6nkOB0HqSP5 +9URNIJPgBVRigxbL0m9ZJS6zzw9+ewRi6mu1wxaaHlPE/QDjZZnfKJi8bjcMUCk Ap7kN+sw8GQ= =jIEl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

No Subject
by winn＠Infowar.Com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Class III InfoWar Part 2 Report from Europe FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE WIDELY I am ostensibly on vacation with my wife and two children ages 11 & 5 : Here we are in Venice, Italy but I can't ignore what seems to be going on in England. American media does not appear to be following it. So here 's what is happening. Headline of June 9, 1996 Sunday Times in London reads: "Secret Inquiry into Cyber Terror." This is a follow-up of last Sundays story about alleged extortion attacks against British financial institutions using Trojan Horses and /or HERF Guns. According to today's article, the British government is holding secret investigations into the "attacks" for more than two years involving the Dept. of Trade and Industry (DTI), government communications headquarters (GCHQ), the Brits NSA, The Defence Research Agency (DRA), and the Bank of England. On June 8, the DTI issued a public statement which included : "We are very interested in the allegations of extortion directed at City of London institutions which were brought to our attention in 1994. We responded then by involving many government organizations ... so far we have not been presented with any hard evidence from victims. We would urge those threatened to come forward." DTI Director of Technical Affairs, David Hendon wrote a letter in May 1995 saying they took the extortion issue "Extremely seriously." The Times' reporter's say they have seen some of the evidence that was submitted to DTI and GCHQ which includes a chart on 46 of the attacks. According to the article DRA Senior Director, Professor David Parks, his agency is " especially interested in the "weaponry" deployed by the cyber terrorists." The Tmes continued : "The agency (DRA) believes high intensity radio frequency "HIRF" guns may have been used to black out trading positions in City finance houses. The weapon disables a computer by firing elctromagnetic radiation at it and is a "Black Programme" at the Defence Ministry, one of the highest security classification levels." In Dec. Of 1995, the DRA and Parks approached a company who specializes in information warfare and asked them to "arrange a demonstration of a portable HIRF weapon in Germany." The article further states that details on the HIRF systems and their use in the City of London have been compiled by a British computer magazine and are being passed onto government officials. ***** I have spoken to more than fifty media in the last week about this story: The comments range from "suspicious" of the British reports, "sounds psy -fi", "alarming", "scary" and the like. Even though I am on vacation (Ha!) I called a few of my expert friends for a sanity check and here is what we have to say. * The alleged software attacks mentioned in last weeks article are more likely the weapon than HERF/HIRF attacks that todays' article focuses on. * "Given the kind of systems they use and their connectivity, I can figure a hundred ways to do what the article say" one of my experts stated. * As for the HERF/HIRF we have worked out a number of models for a number for the attacks scenarios mentioned, but we have a targeting problem. A free-space (air) based attacked would create a wide dispersion pattern and likely have effected other organizations not just those specifically under attack. * A ground plane attack might cause the alleged results but requires more physical access to the facility. A few thoughts of the potential motivations: * Were the alleged attacks meant as a malicious Denial of Service (DNS) attack or as a profit scheme? * Were trading volumes and the stock prices of the alleged victims effected during the times in question? * Was internal profit taking an ulterior motive ? * I have to keep in mind if we give these stories credence, that over 50% of computer crimes involve insiders. According to my British friends, the Sunday Times is preparing even more on this story which will appear next Sunday - when I will be in London to get it back to you within minutes. So, the kids are fine. "Thanks for asking." My life is almost relaxed, and we are now headed into the Alps for a leisurely 8 hr drive and will spend the night at the Jungfrau. "Damn, it's raining. It will have to be beer and sauerkraut." In the meantime, contact betty(a)infowar.com at Interpact for comments and interviews. Back at your later! Winn Schwartau Peace Winn Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc. Information Warfare and InfoSec V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361 Winn(a)InfoWar.Com

1 0

Re: Thank you for the Archives 100 messages
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This isn't true. I don't believe in killfiles. Being on my twit list simply > means that you're entitled to a brief acknowledgement of every message you How polite, like a Courtesy_Copy. Thanks! > send me. Skippy was added after he sent me the 3MB results from the > rec.music.white-power vote as a rather limp mailbombing attempt (free clue: > it takes a lot more than that to make a dent in our bandwidth or disk > space); see http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/potw2/rec.music.white-powder for > that email. Liar. Since they got rid of the old Bell, Stanford is as good as Netcom in their top level functions, I retreived the above page in a few seconds, it's the terminals and stuff which cause the problems. You, for instance, only use Micro$oft, so you lose out on the use of Stanford's T3's, which I use all the time whenever I'm logged in to Netcom. As if there's anybody stupid enough to use Micro$oft for networking, much less Dial-ups! > > somebody has placed a global cancel bot on I was wrong, I was just Dicked a few forge-cancels. He got angry of course, when I added misc.test, which means he can't continue to forge-cancel without quickly alerting me. > > me. I'm gonna have plenty of fun figuring > > this out. Kwow any good sniffers? > > The one that used to be running on darth.stanford.edu was pretty good. > Since February 22nd, I've working on the assumption that everything I do > unencrypted is public. I would revoke my PGP key, but I never used it much > for receiving mail anyway, and I'm not sure that it was found. You could explain to us what you are talking about, but that would threaten your B1!?3 status. > > I agree the list should be public usenet: > > A mail gate-way to a usenet group that > > ALSO permits unmoderated posts. This > > would be a nice way to combine a strict > > moderated mail-list, with a standard > > netnews group. Great idea. For stormfront. BTW, can you forge-request another archives for me? I saw a couple of letters before losing the rest. I'm trying to work novell dos with linux and making a general mess of things. Picked up an unwrapped copy for $40, is that a good deal? > Gee, what a great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that? hks.net, for > example. Unfortunately, there are too many copyright terrorists here. Never noticed it. > There's a tradeoff between freedom and visibility. As astute readers are > aware, hks.net had to take down the archives after WSJ made a threat that > was a little too credible. Never noticed it. You folks are just so damned paranoid. The government's not out to get you, just help you. > -rich > > -- Kill Your Television

2 1