December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

"The Observer" calls the internet a child pornography ring
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Banner Front page headline in the British Observer, Sunday 25th "The Peddlers of child abuse" see http://scallywag.com/ The internet is presented as a conspiracy by child molesters. There is a picture of Johan Helsingius, the man who free of charge provides an anonymous remailer service: The picture is captioned "The internet middle man who handles 90% of all child pornography" He is represented as personally profiting from the distribution of child pornography, though in fact no posts to binary newsgroups can go through his system, and no large binaries can go through his system, and he provides the anonymising service free of charge. There is a picture of Clive Feather, the man who runs the largest internet service provider in Britain, captioned "The school governor who sells access to photos of child rape"]] The observer article savagely demonizes all who use the internet, presenting it as primarily existing for the purpose of distributing child pornography, and demonizes and libels by name those who have sought to defend the liberty of netizens. I urge you all to check out this article, and send snail mail letters to the observer condemning (since they are obviously too low tech to read email) and email letters of support to those netizens who have been savagely libeled for their defence of liberty. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re:Edited Edupage, 18 Aug 1996 [SATELLITES]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:24 PM 8/26/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 12:35 AM 8/21/96 -0800, mccoy(a)communities.com (Jim McCoy) wrote: >>You want to avoid moving parts like the plague in orbit. They eventually >>wear out or fail and once that happens you have a very expensive piece of >>junk in orbit. Solid-state storage is the _only_ way to go if you want to >>avoid things like neding to pressurize the drive (eliminating any cost >>advantage over solid-state.) > >Why do you need to pressurize the drive? Most hard disk drives >for the last N years have been airtight sealed containers, >haven't they? (Removables are different, of course.) While I haven't looked at the more recent ones closely, most hard drives have an ultra-fine (<0.1 um particles?) filter element separating "inside" from "outside." It allows air to pass to equalize pressure and humidity, while keeping out the dust. (it is probably made of the same kind of material that is used, internally, as a filter for the airflow within the drive.) Even if they didn't, there is a big difference between an enclosure that's good enough to hold a hard disk on earth, and one which can spend N-years in a high vacuum yet maintain enough air to run a hard drive. > >I'd worry far more about the stresses of launch bothering >the drives. That's not a problem at all. Most modern drives are rated for 10's of G's, non-operating. Satellite launches are probably a breeze compared to this. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

"The Observer" calls the internet a child pornography ring
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Banner Front page headline in the British Observer, Sunday 25th "The Peddlers of child abuse" see http://scallywag.com/ The internet is presented as a conspiracy by child molesters. There is a picture of Johan Helsingius, the man who free of charge provides an anonymous remailer service: The picture is captioned "The internet middle man who handles 90% of all child pornography" He is represented as personally profiting from the distribution of child pornography, though in fact no posts to binary newsgroups can go through his system, and no large binaries can go through his system, and he provides the anonymising service free of charge. There is a picture of Clive Feather, the man who runs the largest internet service provider in Britain, captioned "The school governor who sells access to photos of child rape"]] The observer article savagely demonizes all who use the internet, presenting it as primarily existing for the purpose of distributing child pornography, and demonizes and libels by name those who have sought to defend the liberty of netizens. I urge you all to check out this article, and send snail mail letters to the observer condemning (since they are obviously too low tech to read email) and email letters of support to those netizens who have been savagely libeled for their defence of liberty. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 2

FYI: GOP's Stolen Laptop...
by Steve O 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI: Front page of the New Jersey Star Ladger: "GOP's Stolen Laptop had credit card Details" NJ Republicans' convention info and card card numbers and info was on the laptop insecurely, a letter went oput to the NJ Republican committee informing them of the 'inconveince'. Several key Rebulican Reps' cards were among those stolen including: Dick ZImmer and Christopher Smith as well as the State Committee's credit card. etc... "True Utopia can only be reached by an uncensored and secure Internet, True Chaos can only be reached by the government, True love can only be reached in the movies." S.O. "Bang your head, Metal Health will drive you mad!" Quiet Riot "Welcome my friend, Welcome to The Machine" Pink Floyd -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzHF2iIAAAEEAKw9QZ8yNG0X1YOGvaYeLaOQphDSEFYxelYED8a4YKoxnHuX Wd7CPKXBS6Bhx9uGFpNa/7Km33TfhzJhuolHPb60upBIsNTdrkzVlSYyiE0aWuFt EORVWEG6Rmy9w2yZ8obQAIx9aAy7h1wDi2mdSrDH+rPBw0pXelhDCiQ5KnJpAAUR tCBTdGV2ZSBPIDxwcml2c29mdEBpeC5uZXRjb20uY29tPg== =J4Tk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

3 2

File System Encryption
by drifter＠c2.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm aware of the three main disk encryption programs SFS, SECDRV, and SECDEV, but I need to find a solution that works with Windows 95 32bit or Windows NT 4.0. I'm currently using SFS 1.17 and Secure Drive under Win-95, but am unable to continue to work in dos compatability mode due to severe performance hits. I am open to commercial products that have passed peer review, but know of none. If anyone could suggest a solution (outside of switching OS's), I would be *most* gratefull. Please respond to the list, as I am a subscriber under another account. The Drifter

6 7

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:50 AM 8/26/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:23:57 -0400 >From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org> >To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> >Cc: shabbir(a)vtw.org, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu, brock(a)well.com, > telstar(a)wired.com >Subject: Re: INFO: Democratic convention chats online! Be there! (8/25/96) >Declan: >In a world where we have very few real friends, I simply don't understand >what you are trying to accomplish. It's fine (and healthy) to raise >concerns about the particular positions a member of Congress takes (hell, I >don't agree with everything Leahy does), but to simply dismiss Leahy as a >'no friend of the Net' is naive and counterproductive. > >Look at the record. Leahy is hands down the strongest supporter of the Net >in Congress. Period. No other Member (including our small but growing >handful of other friends like Burns, White, Wyden, Cox, Eshoo, etc) has >been a more forceful or consistent advocate for your causes for as long as >Leahy has. What exactly do you want? Perhaps we should elect you to >Congress and see how well you can do. Leahy's crypto bill sucked, bigtime. The portion of the bill criminalizing the use of encryption that had the effect of thwarting a government investigation is classic, "foot in the door" creeping government manipulation. I was particularly disgusted to notice that a number of the traditional net-freedom organizations rushed to announce that they were in favor of that bill, without even a few days of analysis, and did not retract or even restrict that support when a more careful study (specifically, that of Peter Junger) showed how seriously flawed it was. Indeed, I never saw another analysis that purported to defend Leahy's bill, despite the fact that it would have been the responsibility of any organization which claimed support of it to prepare one. I believe that it is particularly suspicious that these bills come into existance without even cursory "vetting" on the Internet. Both the Leahy bill and even the Burns crypto bill popped into public view without any indication of how they were written, or any public input on their intent and scope. Perhaps this "take it or leave it" practice is old hat to politicians, but frankly I'm disgusted at politicians' presumption that they can prepare a law with no identifiable input from the public. I am similarly disgusted at any organization (even if, ostensibly, acting in support of "net freedom") that assisted in the development of the Leahy crypto bill (and to some extent, even the Burns bill) because they clearly failed to solicit the kind of public input that such bills should automatically get. And in a sense, "the Net" doesn't NEED "strong supporters": what we need are politicians who are willing to LEAVE US ALONE! It should come as no surprise that the call you frequently see among net-freedom- supporters for new legislation is that which repeals existing restrictive laws, such as ITAR and censorship laws. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 3

Re:
by Sean Sutherland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Aug 24 19:00:18 1996 > Does anybody know what I can get for generating the credit card > numbers? > And they say there's hope for the youth of America. - --- Sean Sutherland | GCS/C d- s+:+ a--- C+++ V--- P L E- W++ N++ K w o PGP Key ID: E43E6489 | O-(++) M-- V PS+ PE++ Y PGP++ t--- 5+++ X++ R b++ Vote Harry Browne '96 | DI+ D+ G e- h! !r y -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Key: finger or email w/ 'send key' in subj. http://www2.interconnect.net/maverick iQEVAwUBMh+Xk1ZoKRrkPmSJAQGj+Af8C2P7D+3ZZ4f8h76+6UfdgqEubOO0mkWj 2DazxBMuY1b1sx1G6gaIGR9Tc11vIcoCY3pmBzhBW7Nc6do8gfOK8Bkkon6Pck1g 61tCFH6qPb2bSH0HnbzjrXJhRD6dFv9ondTtyZgiFIeMuVDDIx4+ZKvelL6BHk8x o6sLdY4Y/Nmnvz9HXrBj0DaYR8pcY96+dexwj5luvcgVkdsDjghWXZy/mHkeDXMI bvOuUOMLQyExS0Ts4D5K4/XfIhP0HUiPfdeL9oxONcLUYznywxAUevBMfHceqvsS qFnxcDcyHa8ynHLRH9Qg0t5QuKVUvTpZh3YjPXCF9QKwvIFbZukHKw== =e03n -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Moscowchannel.com hack
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not really crypto, but related to the DOJ hack in a way. Moscow Channel is a pretty slick, Russian news/commentary page. Their Web site was hacked and altered by someone who didn't seem to like Russians all that well. See: http://www.moscowchannel.com/ While not as elaborate as the DOJ hack, it's interesting that Web page vandalism is starting to turn into a unique form of protest and social commentary. As Web sites with security holes increase, my guess is vandalism will increase incrementally. Both in terms of random graffiti, and targeted attacks. Just a matter of time before some builds a dedicated Satan type tool that scans for HTTP server holes or messed up file permissions to make locating potential victims easy.

5 7

Re: DON'T Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:35 AM 8/31/96, Arun Mehta wrote: >There are two sides to this: after all, it is the Singaporeans who finally >have to sort out this problem with their government, and denying them >the Usenet platform for discussion would only hinder that process. The point is to make clear to them that the Usenet and similar Web sites are global in nature, not subject to censorship without a very high local cost. If discussions of Lee Kwan Yew's dynasty are considered illegal, then Singaporans will have to choose not to carry the various newsgroups into which *I* post such messages! (This was done by many of us during the Karla Homulka and Teale trial in Canada a couple of years ago: Canada imposed press restrictions on discussion of the trial and the grisly evidence...and then was chagrinned to find that the global Net did not adhere to their notions of what should and could be discussed. They even seized copies of "Wired" at the border, very much akin to Singapore's stone age policies.) >Then again, inappropriate postings are the bane of the Internet: the consensus >on which the Net functions relies heavily on people not posting >inappropriately. This works imperfectly, as all long-time surfers of the Usenet will attest! And _never_ has it involved determinations of "inappropriate" by _governments_! Our point in protesting Singapore's actions (and Germany's, France's, America's, India's, etc., in other cases) is to technologically subvert their notions that their politicians can determine what the Net, Web, and Usenet carry. To be blunt, if Singapore wants to stop me from discussing the dictator Yew and his feeble son, they can't. Except by pulling the plugs on forums in which my posts are carried. I consider this a Good Thing (that politicians in Country A generally have no power to tell citizen-units in Country B what they can say and what they can't). The point of being sometimes "impolite" (*) is to "force their hand." (* I find it Orwellian that being "polite" is taken to mean not saying anything controversial. It was impolite for Salman Rushdie to write "The Satanic Verses," is was impolite for people to mention Karla Homulka in talk.politics.canada, it was impolite to point out that the prime minister of India drinks a glass of his own urine every day, it was impolite to refer to Bill Clinton's dalliances with Paula Jones, and so on. In a free society, all things are discussable. That various countries want to make the Net less free is not something we should support, even if it is more "polite" to accede to the wishes of their dictators, secret policemen, demagogues, preachers, and henchmen.) --Tim May -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

10 12

encryption
by patrickbc＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will pay $5.00 for a good encryption program. Write to patrickbc(a)juno.com

1 0