December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "And who shall guard the guardians?"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Cyperpunks recently, Tim May wrote: > >>The Latin maxim "And who shall guard the guardians?" has some relevance to >>the headlong rush into converting the U.S. into even more of a security >>state than it is now. The English-Only bill just passed in the House bans the use of non-English languages by government officials. Does Tim's sudden avoidance of the Latin mean that _he_'s the Fed?? At 02:57 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Martin Minow <minow(a)apple.com> wrote: >I would suspect that a Baysian analysis >would indicate that the risk of holding (and losing) a key is >greater than the risk of not holding (and needing) a key. Cui bono? Or, in this case, risk to _whom_? The damage from losing a key is done to the key's owner, who's a mere Subject, while the dangers of needing a key that one doesn't have are interference with the Custodians doing the jobs they want to do. Sounds like a no-brainer, from the Government's viewpoint. TRUST NO ONE!

2 2

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Brian T Hancher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? It is my understanding that police need a warrant to tap *cellular* phones, but not *wireless* phones. One should understand that monitoring cellular traffic is *much* more difficult than tapping a conventional phone, because as the user moves around in the service area the phone switches to different repeaters, often several times during a conversation. I am curious as to the language of the proposed law, as it is also my understanding that the government already has the (technical) means to monitor cellular traffic (but it requires a warrant, just like tapping a regular phone). Brian T. Hancher http://rio.atlantic.net/~briant briant(a)ocala.com briant(a)atlantic.net Brian.Hancher(a)lmi.fdles.state.fl.us

1 0

SECURITY WARNING - D0 N0T D0WN0AD "New Clinton Administration Ping Policy"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WARNING! DO NOT DOWNLOAD THE E-MAIL MESSAGE LABELED "New Clinton Administration Ping Policy" IT C0NTAINS EVIDENCE 0F SECURITY VI0LATIONS IN THE HEADERS AND D0WNLOADING IT RISKS C0NTAMINATION 0F Y0UR MACHINE: > X-Authentication-Warning: server1.chromatic.com: hua owned process doing -bs > X-Authentication-Warning: server1.chromatic.com: Host hua@localhost didn't use HELO protocol > Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> FURTHERMORE, IT IS DISTRIBUTED BY THE THE CYPHERPUNKS-ERRORS LIST, AN 0RGANIZATION KN0WN T0 HAVE BR0KEN US EXP0RT-GRADE SECURITY AND APPARENTLY LED BY THE KN0WN FEL0N ``KLAUS'' AND AN ANARCHIST W00DW0RKER BRIEFLY SUSPECTED IN THE UNAB0MBER CASE. TRUST NO ONE!

1 0

Courtesy, Clubs and Clinton
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpt from http://www.msnbc.com/news/21324.asp Clinton's golf war Teed-off clubbers grumble president plays too slow, disrupts things Congressional Country Club Secretary Tim May confirms that some members have complained about the president, but insists that "more members are delighted the president is playing at our club." _________ Is there something that Tim isn't telling us? ;-)

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From grafolog(a)netcom.com Fri Aug 2 11:48:53 1996 > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:48:47 +0000 (GMT) > From: jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> > X-Sender: grafolog@netcom10 > To: "Paul J. Bell" <pjb(a)ny.ubs.com> > Subject: Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon > X-No-Archive: yes > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Content-Length: 772 > > Paul: > > On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Paul J. Bell wrote: > > > in general, i suspect that the rip-off is going the other way. after all, > > no one forces anyone buy from microsoft, AT&T, etc., but people do steal from > > When I purchased my computers, I had to pay $150 to not have > Windows and Dos installed on them. That $150 went to Microsoft. > It seemed to me that I was being ripped off, by Microsoft. > > As far as AT&T goes, do you know how to determine what their > lowest residential rate is? Secondly, do you know how to > sign up for it? > > > xan > > jonathon > grafolog(a)netcom.com > > > > Illiterate: adj. Inability to read write or speak five > or fewer languages. > Funksioneel Ongeleerd: a. Die wat kon nee elf or meer tale > lees, skryf and gesprek. > > > as i said, i have no use for microsoft, whats more, i don't use microsoft. that said, if a person really must pay to not have their products installed, i agree that that is intorelable, and at the least calls for finding a new vendor for computers. if you really don't plan to use dos or windows, there is no reason why you should pay for them. frankly, this sounds like a real stupid move on the part of your hardware vendor. maybe you need to shop around. as for at&t, no, i don't know the lowest residential rate, but i'm sure that the rate varies depending on your long distance calling pattern. i'm sure that the rate is less for someone who rarely makes an ld call but wants to have the ability to do so when and if the need/desire arises then for someone who makes a few call per month and for another user who makes a lot of call each month. at any rate, all you need to do is to ask them for the lowest rate for your calling pattern, and if you don't like the answer, hang up and call mci, s print, etc. at least thats better than microsoft, where you don't have a lot of choice. take a quick look around the world, paying particular attention to those many countries where the telephone company was directly controlled by the government. was the service they provided really great? was it cheap? did they every provide anything new or improved? as one who has spent a lot of time in some of these countries i can answer from experience, hell no. a one time, in the late 50's i lived and worked in a certain west african country. th erule was, taht the first person in the office in the morning would take the phone off the hook, and maybe by 10:30 or 11:00 we would get a dial tone. of course, you would never hang the thing up again taht day, just pass it along to anyone else that needed to make a call. egypt and all of france was not a lot better. as late as 1983 it was a real challenge to get a phone installed or make a long distance call in france. no matter what the french say, telecommunications services still suck in france. i agree with you that a lot of companies do gouge the customer for all that they can get, and maybe AT&T is one of them, but maybe not. i have spent my entire working life providing for myself, asking and taking nothing from anyone, other than what i earned for myself. i payed for my education and for everything else that i ever had. however, once i had the money to invest, i did so, in, among others, AT&T, and since i take a chance with the money that i worked for by investing in them, i, by god, expect a return on my investment, and if AT&T can't provide it, i will dump them and take my chances elsewhere. however, whether its AT&T or someone else, if i risk my money, i expect something in return, and i can only expect that if the company (AT&T or who ever) makes a profit. profit is not a dirty word, it is what makes it all possible. AT&T did not build the worldwide network that serves us all for fun, not did they invent the transistor or UNIX, or all the other thinks that we take for granted just for the fun of it, or without risk. if you take the risk, you deserve a return on your investment. i have yet to meet a stockholder who said that they were satisfied with any given profit level and wished the company to give away goods or services rather then increase the dividends to the stockholders. the name of the game is PROFIT, its what keeps us all alive and employed. the real saving grace is in having a choice. i am not suggesting that as long as a company makes a profit that anything goes. what i am suggesting is that a company, or an individual for that matter is only obliged to see to there own well being. if an individual so chooses, they may spend their life, or any portion thereof, working for the good of someone else, or giving the results of all their labors to others, as they choose. in many ways this is a good thing and is what makes civilized life. however, i do not believe that it is ever permissable to dictate to an individual or to a company which is, after all, only the sum of it's employees and stockholders, the requirement or terms of how they will dispense the profits of their labors. if AT&T or any other company doesn't give you what you want, tell them to fuck-off, and take your business elsewhere. oh that we could so easily deal with a government that provides so little of what the people want. i think that it is rare for a company to forget who is really calling the shots, but our very own government seems to be completly unaware that they exist to serve us, not the other way around. they seem to have forgotten that the purpose of the constitution is not to define what rights are given to the people, but rather to define what powers the people give to the government. cheers, -paul

2 1

Re: Bombs & bomb threats in LA
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:33 AM 8/2/96, Conrad Walton wrote: >i'm not exactly sure what an acid bomb is, but according to my book, The >Anarchist Cookbook, that I bought in 1972 (was the internet around back >then?), there is a compound called "picric acid" that is "more powerful >than TNT, but has some disadvantages". The ARPANET (or ARPANet, or Arpanet...) was around then. (I had an account on it, circa 1973...not very useful for me.) I also got my copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook" back around then. It was in the news locally when the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's office attempted to have it removed from the local bookstores....this removed it all right, as the stacks of copies sold out as quickly as they could be received and unpacked. (As others have noted over the years, much of the advice is probably bogus and even dangerous. Not being an explosives dabbler, I wouldn't know.) If Feinswine gets her ban on bomb-making information passed, and this is upheld by the courts (doubtful), the sites will be swamped with information queries, and fooling around with bombs will become more popular amongst the teenage set that has not expressed much interest in such things the past couple of decades. The more things change, the more they remain the same. --Tim May, an I-bomb-throwing crypto anarchist Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container.

2 1

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:52 AM 8/2/96, David Wagner wrote: >I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional? > >I'm reading the Fourth Amendment to our honored Constitution of the United >States, which proclaims > > [...] > no warrants shall issue, > but upon probable cause, > supported by oath or affirmation, > and *particularly describing the place to be searched*, > and the persons or things to be seized. > >Are we just to strike out that emphasized phrase? What's going on here? >Someone tell me I'm not just having a bad nightmare. The same way the Second Amendment has been turned into a shadow of itself by creative lawyering. ("The Founders did not mean to include AR-15s and .45 Automatics as "guns," as these did not even exist in 1791. Likewise, cellular phones did not exist in 1791, so the Fourth Amendment could not possibly apply to them. Have a nice day.") --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: privacy is a SMOKESCREEN.
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See. Right-wing nuts are good for something. >from eff: > >CNN reports: "Key members of the Senate blamed House conservatives for >the failure, saying they had insisted on linking proposed new >wiretapping authority for the FBI to an expansion of privacy laws." > >CNN quotes Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) as saying that House Republican >leaders "have come up with this smokescreen called privacy".

1 0

Re: Bombs & bomb threats in LA
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:33 AM 8/2/96 -0000, Conrad Walton wrote: >i'm not exactly sure what an acid bomb is, but according to my book, The >Anarchist Cookbook, that I bought in 1972 (was the internet around back >then?), there is a compound called "picric acid" that is "more powerful >than TNT, but has some disadvantages". Picric acid is 2,4,6 trinitrophenol, easily produced by the nitric/sulfuric acid nitration of phenol. If picric acid contains about 15% of water or more, it is rather stable and innocuous. If it is allowed to completely dry out, it then becomes sensitive to detonation with a blasting cap. One disadvantage of picric acid is that it reads with heavy metals (copper, lead, etc) to form unstable picrate salts. >There is also instructions on using an inverted vial of sulpheric acid, >that will then eat thu the stopper at the top (bottom) of the vial. when >the acid makes it thru, then is mixes with Potassium Chloride Potassium _Chlorate_ and causes >a small explosion which sets off the larger explosion in the dynomite >packed around it. It would probably require a booster... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

my message Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in my earlier message of this date, i said: >"i have spent my entire working life providing for myself, asking and taking nothing >from anyone, other than what i earned for myself. i payed for my education and for >everything else that i ever had." maybe i should have taken something, then i would have learned to spell. yes, i know that the correct spelling is 'paid', not 'payed', but sometimes, (often?), my fingers outrun my brain. does this, you ask, also account for the lack of uppercase characters? no, it's just my style, maybe its really laziness. cheers, -paul ps. you will undoubtly also find a few tath, thta, teh, and the like. maybe if i used that microsoft stuff with the spell checker rather than the sun mailtool i could present myself without the plethora of typos. sigh.

1 0