December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Appology
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jun 25, 1996 21:14:56, 'chris.liljenstolpe(a)SSDS.com (Christopher Liljenstolpe)' wrote: >... the meaning of r and R have been reversed Way it is, Chris, The motherfucking Best and Brightest did that to us all time in Nam, granting us a few days to stumble around fuck-you-GIs-it-ain't-our-war Aussieland, with a few stolen hours layover, hungover puking up poison, in Thailand, then back to eating their Ivy League shit sandwiches. There it is, live with it -- or frag their pasty asses back to the stoned age.

1 0

Re: Zimmermann's Senate testimony
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:39 AM 6/25/96 -0700, Philip Zimmermann wrote: >Testimony of Philip R. Zimmermann to >the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space >of the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and >Transportation 26 June 1996 >The government has a track record that does not inspire confidence >that they will never abuse our civil liberties. The FBI's >COINTELPRO program targeted groups that opposed government >policies. They spied on the anti-war movement and the civil >rights movement. They wiretapped Martin Luther King's phone. >Nixon had his enemies list. And then there was the Watergate >mess. The War on Drugs has given America the world's largest per- >capita incarceration rate in the world, a distinction formerly >held by South Africa, before we surpassed them during the eighties >even when apartheid was in full swing. Recently, we've seen the >images and sounds of the Rodney King beatings, Detective Mark >Fuhrman's tapes boasting of police abuses, and the disturbing >events of the Ruby Ridge case. And now Congress and the Clinton >administration seem intent on passing laws curtailing our civil >liberties on the Internet. At no time in the past century has >public distrust of the government been so broadly distributed >across the political spectrum, as it is today. > >The Clinton Administration seems to be attempting to deploy and >entrench a communications infrastructure that would deny the >citizenry the ability to protect its privacy. This is unsettling >because in a democracy, it is possible for bad people to >occasionally get elected-- sometimes very bad people. Normally, a >well-functioning democracy has ways to remove these people from >power. But the wrong technology infrastructure could allow such a >future government to watch every move anyone makes to oppose it. >It could very well be the last government we ever elect. Yes, the situation is bad, very bad. And yes, I agree that a political system has to have ways to remove bad people. The odd thing is, some of the people who say that are the same ones who get squeamish when a solution is suggested. <sigh> Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:46 AM 6/25/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, WorldNet User wrote: > >> AT&T WorldNet service has banned the sending of anonymous email or >> posting anonymously. >> >> >From the "AT&T WorldNet Service Operating Policies": >> >> (i) Members may not post or transmit any message >> anonymously or under a false name. Members may >> not permit any other person (other than an agent >> acting on Member's behalf and subject to Member's >> supervision) to access the Service Member's >> account for any purpose. > >I don't have a problem with this, actually, and a brief visit to >news.admin.net-abuse.misc would show why. AT&T is selling you access under a >given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held >accountable. Why should this be true? I can still walk to a pay telephone, put in a quarter, dial a random number and talk to somebody anonymously. The various Baby Bell companies aren't "held accountable" if it's an obscene phone call. I think that any attempt to hold the Internet to standards higher than existing services is a mistake. >I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make >messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable. Isn't the whole purpose of anonymity (remailers and such) in order to ensure that the messages AREN'T traceable?!? >If AT&T bans or monitors access to anonymous remailers, then that's a >different kettle of fish entirely, but they're not doing that. Yet. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How on earth can a service try to stop anonymous dealings. Well.. i can see HOW... because they say their just going to do it. Now.. I know theres such things as the internet task force....etc... Isnt there any groups out there whose _SOLE_ purpose is trying to protect rights in the online community?

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> (ii) Members may not post or transmit any message >> which is libelous, defamatory or which discloses >> private or personal matters concerning any person. >> Members may not post or transmit any message, >> data, image or program which is indecent, obscene >> or pornographic. political figures..yep....out. the most recent Oj or whoever joke...out ANY ethnic joke...out. IE yo mam's so black she went to nightschool and they marked her absent..... OUT This cr*p is so unlimited as to what rights of ours it overruns on. Imagine this: a message posted appeals to 34,000 people that read it. 1 person is offended..complains.. Same thing happens again. The person's user access is cancelled. BS? You decide. My opinion is evident =-}

1 0

Re: domain name zapping threat by Internic
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:21 PM 6/25/96 GMT, Greg Miller wrote: > > Since the NIC charges $100 per registration, you can bet there will be >some legislation somewhere along the line. They must be makeing 5000-10000% >profit. Regarding NIC's policy concerning the taking away of domain names if X states Y usurped his trademark, there are at least 4 suits pending wherein the domain name owners/plaintiffs are challenging the alleged infringement, namely: First lawsuit - Roadrunner v. NSI background at: http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht complaint at: http://www.patents.com/nsicpt1.sht Second lawsuit - DCI v. DCI and NSI background at: http://www.patents.com/dci/dci.sht complaint at: http://infolawalert.com/source/src061496_dc_complaint.html Third lawsuit - Giacalone v. NSI et al. complaint at: http://zeus.bna.com/e-law/cases/giac.html Fourth lawsuit - Clue Computing v. NSI background at: http://www.clue.com/legal/index.html complaint at: http://www.clue.com/legal/complain.html Fun and games.... Regards - Lynne ************************************************************* Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; lharrison(a)mhv.net | - Survive; http://www.dueprocess.com | - Go to bed." ************************************************************* DISCLAIMER: I am not your attorney; you are not my client. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

1 0

Re: Leahy vs. Landers
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 25 Jun 96 at 17:58, John Young quoted Ann Landers: > ... The > Internet is tailor-made for con men, the lonely and the > bored. The word from here is beware. More on this subject > tomorrow. Gee? Is that why the DoD created ARPANet? To help con men (well, there's the $200 hammers, er "multivariable handheld impact devices") and all of those lonely gronks based on ships and bases in B.F.E... Seriously though...

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:02 AM 6/26/96, Intense wrote: >On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rich Graves wrote: > >> given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held >> accountable. I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make >> messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable. > >Under the common carrier law, i do not think that would apply I agree that ISPs are unlikely to be held liable for messages passing through their systems, but not because they have been determined to be "common carriers." So far as I know, no ISP has been so classified. (I'm not even sure what is involved in being classified as a common carrier. Perhaps someone out there knows about these matters.) However, it seems to me that the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act," the ECPA, gives an ISP a good defense. The ECPA forbids the interception of electronic mail (usual caveats about special exceptions), and so an ISP ostensibly is not supposed to be reading e-mail messages. Thus, an ISP would seem to have a pretty good defense in court, claiming that the ECPA explicitly precluded it from seeing what users were saying in e-mail. (But I am not a lawyer, and it would not surprise me at all if an ISP is someday held liable, despite the ECPA. "You can't read the mail, but you're still responsible. You should have known. Or at least we can go after you and shut you down.") --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

Alternic.net (was domain zapping)
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With all the talk about InterNIC zapping domains, there should be some talk about other registries, Alternic.net : http://www.alternic.net is offering an alpha test for registering new TLD's and the prices are considerably less expensive than the Internic. William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.org finger for public key --Fwd-- A L T E R N I C . N I C Is proud to announce .NIC! The folks at alternic.nic (formerly alternic.net) are proud to announce alpha testing of the .NIC top level domain name served up by: MX.ALTERNIC.NIC at 204.94.42.1 Other names are served by .NIC... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * ALTERNIC.NIC is being built to create a truly PUBLIC Network information center, for the benefit of all, on and off the net. * ALTERNIC.NIC is broadcast to disseminate information on Internet related issues, and to research new ideas on promoting the Internet. * ALTERNIC.NIC will promote the concept of Top Level Domainsi, and the de-centralization of name service. To this end, ALTERNIC.NIC will accept registrations for .NIC top level domains, as well as for administration of new top level domains. For now ALTERNIC.NIC will accept the existance of and promote a limitted number of top level domains. It should be recognized that at this point the concept of TLD diversification is EXPERIMENTAL. * ALTERNIC.NIC Will accept new TLDs or domain names which fit the following criteria: o The TLD or domain name must not already be registered. o DNS must be active for any TLD or domain names. o Payment of fees must be made to ALTERNIC.NET in advance. o Disputes between name holders may be handled several ways: + Release of domain name rights by existing name holder. If you want a name that's already registered, offer to buy the holder's rights. + ALTERNIC.NET will honour court orders from the jurisdiction which the domain name is currently registered in. + Sue ALTERNIC.NET. We're a privately held company, and do as we please. If you'd like to serve us with papers, it's dba A Towing Company, Inc., a Corporation registered with the Secretary of State of Washington State, USA. Of course, we'll have our corporate attorney counter-sue, and you can do it on our turf, OK --End Fwd--

3 2

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My AT&T Worldnet material finally came, and I was similarly anti-impressed with the policies against anonymity, indecency, and other things that their lawyers probably told them would cause them less hassle to ban outright than to not mention until they get complaints later (sigh...) (To give them a small bit of slack, the service did come out just about when the CDA got signed, so it's no surprise they'd cover their <noun deleted>.) I know some Worldnet folks, and I'll try to work my way up the food chain to see if I can find who did it, and how flexible they are. There are also some worldnet.* newsgroups where this can be discussed; that'd be a good place for issues like alt.sexual-abuse.recovery and other politically correct reasons for anonymity. Adam Shostack asked what services it provides - the 5-hour-free/$20-unlimited service gets you PPP, a POP3 mailbox, and servers for DNS, NNTP, SMTP, and technical support. There are also business services that get you anything from raw SLIP to frame relay to with us installing and managing routers on your premises and doing primary DNS service. Tim wrote: >I agree with Hal's points, but I suspect that these technicalities will be >ignored when the first _complaint_ reaches the DeathStar's administrators. >"Your account has been cancelled." I'd guess that the first complaint will either be ignored (because they're busy trying to get the service on line and scaled up to 500,000 people) or else get the account squashed without a second thought (because they're busy trying to get the service on line and scaled up to 500,000 people), but the first few spams that cause mass quantities of complaints will start to get people thinking. >I suspect other major ISPs will adopt similar language, absent a vocal >lobbying group for anonymous messaging capabilities. If I remember right, Netcom doesn't permit remailers (or at least discouraged one or two of them), but they'd rather not know about content, don't censor users, and do censor spammers. Disclaimer: This posting is official policy for any shares of AT&T stock that I own, which will be listened to the next time the issue appears on shareholders' ballot question.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Distract Authority!

2 1