December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why the world needs privay protecting Ecash
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:20 PM 7/27/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Who said it had to be in one day? I didn't. Most vacations to Europe last a >couple of weeks, e.g., "If this is Tuesday, I need to make a withdrawal in >Milano." The original definition of multiple transactions (structuring) said the transactions had to occur within one day. There is now a separate rule that says that the bank has to report *any* suspicious transactions even if they don't fall under specific regulations. Keep the population guessing as to what's reportable. >I think a lot of ATMs will now dispense big chunks of cash--I've never >checked on limits, but I notice that some CRT screens now have chunks up to >$600 or so listed. New York money center banks allow $1000 a day or so. Credit cards (which are also bank accounts although most don't think of them as such) let more get out and one can always over pay one's credit card to get a credit balance of any amount. They take the money. Usually in those cases, you can withdraw the credit limit each day and then when the account settles overnight it draws down the credit balance you've built up and your available credit is back. Some may do this "live" one would have to experiment. ATM and credit cards may also have different limits for point-of-sale transactions than for cash withdrawals. >Thanks. Still not sure if it applies, but I'd forgotten that it's up to the >banks to do the reports; good to know it's not up to me. You have to report taking cash (currency or monetary instruments) into or out of the country but you don't have to rat on yourself for cash transactions with a bank here. DCF

1 0

Re: The Four Horsemen Go to the Olympics!
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ANybody got a big timer I can run at boot up ?? PC and MAC ? I travel a lot ! On Sat, 27 Jul 1996 01:43:11 -0700 Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > At 11:15 PM 7/26/96 -0700, Alan Olsen <alano(a)teleport.com> wrote: > >Well, there was an explosion at the Olympics... It may have been a bomb or > >it may have been a transformer. > >Expect this to be used as fuel as to why every one in America must be under > >constant survelance by the Government. > >The Four Horsemen are now an Olympic Event! > > Yeah, it's been a wild week. There was also an airplane hijacking > today, which ended peacefully. The hijacker had a laptop wrapped > in tinfoil he was claiming was a bomb.* And of course Clinton's > first speeches after the TWA crash were "we don't have any evidence > of terrorism yet but you'll all have to give up your civil liberties > so we can do a better job of protecting you." > > ---- > *Penn Jillette proposed that a good boot-up program for laptops > and PDAs is one that displays a big timer counting backwards, > for use in airports that want to see that you've got a real laptop. > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com > # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> > # Dispel Authority! > ---------------------- Charley Sparks sparks(a)bah.com

1 0

HACKER REPORT
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Just saw part I of a two-part series on "hackers" being broadcast by a local San Francisco TV station. Nothing horrible, in my opinion. The adroitly sidestepped the hacker/cracker distinction by saying the "hacker" has come to mean..." and then gave the negative, intrusive definition. The interviewed a spokesman for "InsWeb" an on-line insurance company that has been the target of "hackers." During the filmed segment, they did a trace-route on the intrusion which lead back to Germany. The explained "social engineering" and showed how a hacker could get someone to reveal their password. They also interviewed a San Jose computer crime cop named Keith Lowery. He didn't add much to the discussion. At the end, Pete Wilson (the TV guy, not the governor) said something like, "Hackers tells us that the problem may be overblown. Most people--and this includes most hackers--know the difference between right and wrong." Tomorrow's show should be more interesting (and possibly much more sensationalistic). Part II is "The Hacker Underground." Oooh, scary! S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 2

Re: ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI
by Scott Schryvers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:33 PM 7/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >I AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE EXISTENCE OF A MEDIUM FOR CRIMINAL HACKERS >AND MUNITIONS SMUGGLERS. I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE FBI IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY >CAN TRACK YOU DOWN AND CLOSE THIS LIST. > I'm not. Yet.

1 0

[NOISE] Nerds, Dykes, Niggers, Dweebs, Fags, Bimbos, and Geeks
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 27 Jul 96 at 4:49, and entity caling itself Timothy C. May wrote: [..] > Look, anyone is perfectly free to wear t-shirts espousing "Wimp Pride" and > saying "We're gimps, we're wimps, we're dweebs, and we're PROUD!" > > I just cringe when I meet young programmers at Cypherpunks who mumble "I'm > just a computer geek." Fine, I write them off as geeks. [..] > As for what people ought to call themselves, e.g., when journalists ask > what they are. just what is wrong with "engineer," "programmer," > "scientist," and "cryptographer"? I prefer reclaiming far more ancient terms. "Journeyman programmer" gets more attention than "Consultant" and actually describes something. 'nuff said. --Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Re: The Four Horsemen Go to the Olympics!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:43 AM 7/27/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >Yeah, it's been a wild week. There was also an airplane hijacking >today, which ended peacefully. The "funny" part of it, for those who remember the spate of hijackings in the early 70's, is that he hijacked a Cuba-bound airliner...to Miami! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Lynx...
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have had it with all the cutsie moving graphics and Java intrusions on my feeble 28.8 connection. Can someone PLEASE tell me where I can get a copy of Lynx or similar text based browser for '95 and / or NT ? Thanks folks Charley -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCWAwUBMfo2quJ+JZd/Y4yVAQFPkAQIyBl+XmSRoJUlpDbof8FGNi4TGexivaux ZPPiyuCflseiw53077xP4FsF8Q1v5SgDe/87OCCDiG3XrWqOyRhah5IRmDw+3S2L brxbTc/oqwkCddAGglF08OGOIGHa8iK0x2KhRVZPStRopNbHgVIJiDJzcSFOeFLY mpj0jKto1s7+ =qxPe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Charles E. Sparks<sparks(a)bah.com> In God we trust, all others we encrypt ! http:/www.clark.net/pub/charley/index.htm Public Key At http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/cp_1.htm

1 0

Re: ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMIN
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 09:33 PM 7/26/96 -0700, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >I AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE EXISTENCE OF A MEDIUM FOR CRIMINAL HACKERS >AND MUNITIONS SMUGGLERS. I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE FBI IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY >CAN TRACK YOU DOWN AND CLOSE THIS LIST. > Damnit Sen. Exxon! We told you not to use the computer!! :) P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... "The future of robotics" Ä by Cy Borg and Anne Droid ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

3 2

Re: Bernstein files for partial summary judgement in crypto case
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:28 PM 7/25/96 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: >Here's the press release on the latest development in the Bernstein >case. >July 26, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation >In his 45-page memorandum in support of his motion, Bernstein sets forth >several First Amendment arguments: >* Any legal framework that requires a license for First Amendment >protected speech, which may be granted or withheld at the discretion of a >government official, is a prior restraint on speech. In order for this >framework to be acceptable, the government has the burden of showing that >publication will "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable >damage to our Nation or its people" and that the regulation at issue is >necessary to prevent this damage. The government has not met this burden >regarding the ITAR legal framework. Maybe it's just me, but why would even the _certainty_ that a publication will "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people" justify violation of 1st amendment rights? There are, certainly, kinds of "damage" which should not warrant prohibition: If, for instance, a business regularly cheats its customers, my investigation of that behavior and revealing it publicly would certain "damage" that business, but we conclude that's justified if for no other reason than it's the truth. Would digging up an embarrassing revelation about "our Nation or its people" constitute "irreparable damage" sufficient to justify concluding that the 1st amendment didn't apply? Had the fact that we'd slaughtered Indians in the late 1800's been kept secret until today, would its discovery and publication be that "irreparable damage" that regulation could legitimately seek to prohibit? Would the news that the events leading up to the "Gulf of Tonkin resolution" were a fraud cause "irreparable damage"? Would finding out the truth about the Watergate incident cause "irreparable damage"? In a sense, speaking of any of these incidents might cause "irreparable damage" to government and people, but it's "damage" that a person should simply be entitled to do, given the concepts of free speech and the 1st amendment. In short, I don't think Bernstein should give an inch. There may, in fact, be limits on the 1st amendment, but I don't see this as being one of them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: HACKER REPORT
by JonWienk＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: [snip] >On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Rich Graves wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> >> > At the end, Pete Wilson (the TV guy, not the governor) said >> > something like, "Hackers tells us that the problem may be >> > overblown. Most people--and this includes most hackers-- >> >> Really? Hackers are people? > >MOST hackers. [snip] The rest, of course, are chupa-cabras, yeti, descendants of the Roswell crash survivors, and ATF agents... Jonathan Wienke

1 0