December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage >being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific >American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the >sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and >"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing >about. Choosing what you read and choosing what other people (including your children) read is the difference between filtering and censoring. I didn't say filtering was wrong, I said censorship was wrong. >If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away >from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where >there views are already basically set. I am sorry to hear. I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more harm than good. I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will leave it up to you to read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for very strong arguements in my support. >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the filtering programs we were discussing allow a user very little, if any, ability to "set his filters differently". >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. Again, I agree, and thought I had made that clear. However, that doesn't mean we can't object on a social (opposed to governmental) level. I repeat: just because a government doesn't have the right to oppose private censorship doesn't make it OK. >Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" >notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from >filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." I was under the impression that most on the list were avowed libertarians, and would rather the State didn't intervene in any part of your (or your son's) life. However, I would still argue that restricting your son's access is more of a detriment to your son than allowing it, then discussing why it is Wrong (or whatever) and why he feels it is necessary to read such things. I would also argue that you are right in that the State has no right to force you to raise your child in any way. But, as I stated in another post, the problem is not just the government. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). I fail to see how trying to breed attitudes that you allegedly avow is "propaganda". The book you cited is intended as a means of teaching acceptance, not necessarily approval. You say you tolerate homosexuals, but that is not a wide-spread practice yet. Violence and ridicule is the more common response to openly homosexual behaviour, and that book is meant to stop such bigoted reactions. You'll note that nowhere in the book does it say anyone *should* be homosexual, it merely says that it's okay if you are and you should accept others who are. >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). Please show me an instance where you or your children (if you had any) would have been forced into practicing homosexuality by anything taught in a public school or shown on a web page. Exposure to a lifestyle and having that life- style's practices forced on you are not the same. Would you allow your children to learn about Nazi Germany? I find the lifestyle of the Nazi positively disgusting, but wouldn't think to prevent my child from learning about it. Same thing with other cultures, religions, political principles, etc. The simple fact that this particular issue is regarding sexuality bears no significance to the arguement. A child (or any other person) should not be restricted access to any sort of information available about any topic, unless she is restricting her own access (filtering). <garbage regarding AIDS/etc ignored> //cerridwyn//

3 2

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:48 AM 7/19/96, Simon Spero wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage >> being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific >> American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the >> sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and > >Actually, the Economist has, er, come out strongly in favour of gay >rights on numerous occasions- most recently on the issue of same sex >marriages. Sure, and I didn't exactly state what my position _is_ on so-called queer rights. I said I have no interest in hearing nonsense about it, e.g., the drumbeat of propaganda, etc. Of course, it should come as no surprise that I believe everyone has the legal right to refuse to associate with anyone. Thus, a shop owner or employer, in my view, has every right to refuse service or employment to whomever he wishes. While many may not _like_ this (including me, when I am banned from certain businesses, as I am), it is part and parcel of liberty. --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."

1 0

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Sternlight writes: > Here's the problem in a nutshell: Everyone who has looked at our systems, > from Cliff Stoll A *famous* security expert. >on to blue ribbon scientific commissions, The last of which recommended that crypto be entirely deregulated. > Serious studies have shown that the kinds of protections to make the > systems we depend on robust against determined and malicious attackers (say > a terrorist government, or one bent on doing a lot of damage in retaliation > for one of our policies they don't like), have costs beyond the capability > of individual private sector actors. Defense is cheaper than attack in encryption because it is easier to make coherent information incoherent (see Usenet) than it is to make incoherent information coherent. > In such a case, where public benefits from government action greatly exceed > public (taxpayer) costs, and the private sector cannot (or will not) act > unaided, the classical basis for government action in the interests of the > citizenry exists. It's the economist's "lighthouse" argument. But since the Internet and the WANs and LANs that you are talking about are all "private value-added networks," the benefits of enhanced security a fully captured by the users of those networks and there is no "public goods" problems. (BTW, there were private lighthouses too.) Note too that major money center banks disagree with you. There was a recent article about the fact that they are not reporting computer intrusions and just fixing the problems themselves. They don't seem interested in official security "help" with all the disadvantages (publicity and security leaks) that it brings. DCF

2 1

No Subject
by weffross＠counsel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Inet unsubscribe weffross(a)counsel.com Thanks!

1 0

BIG_dif
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-19-96. NYP: "AT&T and Wells Fargo Investing in an Electronic Cash Card." The companies said that they would form the American affiliate of Mondex. Any one with a Mondex card can transfer electronic cash to anyone else with a card. This flexibility has raised concerns both about the possibility of counterfeiting and of money laundering. Because of these concerns, Mondex has been modified in the United States so that banks will be able to track card use. That will allow them to audit for fraud, if not recreate every transaction. Data from Mondex cards will be used for various product marketing. "We believe there should be privacy, but there is a big difference between privacy and anonymity," Dudley Nigg, executive vice president of Wells Fargo, said. ----- http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/bigdif.txt (4 kb) BIG_dif

1 0

Inventor of radio...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I would like to correct a misconception about who is credited with the invention of radio. Nikola Tesla has held the credit for the creation since the resolution of the original lawsuit in the mid-80's. Tata. Jim Choate Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Mail-order Ph.D.'s > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 96 07:37:24 EDT > > He also invented the radio, but Marconi+Popov stole the credit from him.

2 1

Re: Reverse Engineer
by elfgard＠pooh-corner.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What do you mean by "reverse engineer?" I have heard this word several times especially in the world of hacking, but... can someone tell me what it really meant? Interesting question. Hmmm... I would answer this question for you but then I would have to kill you. That is basically like asking a car thief to tell yuo about how he breaks into cars and what cars hes broken into lately. My suggestion to you is to pick up one of those MEGA lame books like "What is a Cyberpunk!" and read that. It may not tell you shit, but it will give you a broad understanding about what you want to know. Elfgard *The One and Only* elfgard(a)netlite.com http://www.netlite.com

2 1

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Troy Denkinger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:07 PM 7/18/96 -0700, you wrote: [Cerridwyn Llewyellyn's text snipped] [Lucid argument snipped, I was with you until right around here] >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. We have an interesting problem here, though. You say that the government has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo. However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even "national security" to guide it. [snip] I'll preface my following remarks by saying that I'm not a libertarian. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). First point first. The "propaganda" taught in schools is generally aimed at teaching our children how to think. Perhaps rote learning and cultural naivete make us all comfortable at night and let us sleep better, but in a world where critical thinking is undervalued I'd rather have my and my childrens' views challenged than constantly affirmed. (Btw, I have no children at this moment, so it's quite possible to contend I'm talking out my ass here; time will tell.) Public school funding is way off topic, so I'll concede your "point" and let it slide. [Now the meat of the queer bashing, how charming. Sad to see you sully what was a decent argument up to this point with ignorant foolishness] >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). When was the last time a homosexual attempted to force their practices on you? I'll leave your fictitious children out of it for the moment. Are you an active eschewer or simply a theoretical eschewer? Have you ever been hit on by a gay person? I have; I told them I wasn't gay and that was that. No one forced their "AIDS-spreading practices" on me. >I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed >for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no >tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on >such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay >for the research. I usually read your posts to this list and often find them insightful, however the above statement leaves me wondering if some ignoramus has taken control of your keyboard or if the above was a simple, but remarkable, typing error. Following your reasoning, it's also proper to say that cancer and heart disease as well as violent crime resulting in death of a victim are also "evolution in action" isn't it? Your assertions are absurd and unfounded. Your final point that those who "introduced the new vector" should pay for the research for a cure continues to spotlight your inchoate notions on this topic. Pray tell, who introduced the vector? Who was responsible for the spread of the virus? Who are the victims of this disease? Who are the future victims of this disease--do they have to pay because obviously they're engaged in some kind of risky behaviour? What part does an unresponsive worldwide health structure have to pay? How responsible are you for the social blight that leads the underclasses to participate in risky behaviour through hopelessness or lack of education? Really, Mr. May, look further than your own front yard for a change. You live in a world -- welcome to it. Troy Denkinger

6 6

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order (fwd)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SternFUD claims: > There are exceptions to ITAR for this purpose (overseas offices of US > companies). Clearly UnProfessor failed to read recent Phil Karn's testimony at the Senate Subcommittee. Phil, representing both himself *and Qualcomm* explained how Qualcomm had attempted to export a Triple DES application to their own Hong Kong office, *for use by the AMCIT employees there* to communicate with Califunny. The request was denied with a FORM LETTER checked "resubmit a non-Triple DES method" or words close to that. Further, Phil told the Subcommittee that every time they need a bug fix on the CDMA code running on the system in HK; they must resubmit the whole package back for approval. A BUG FIX! They've been through this many times, each one taking eons. Just suppose ARCO needed all new permits every time they adjusted the crude mix, or retuned the cat cracker? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Netscape
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! There appears to be some new Netscape files with US encryption in ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming/ netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10 netscape-fts2-nt.exe Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz SSL 3.0 source code netscape32us-30b5.exe Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT By the way, is it possible to get a certificate for the Fast Track 128 bit servers outside of north america? Or would the certificate issuer be conspiring to export crypto if he exported a certificate?

2 1