December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Ban CU Secrecy, Keep TLA's!
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Mr David Bickford, the first British intelligence lawyer > to speak publicly in the UK, said at a conference in > Cambridge, 50 miles north-east of London, that there > "appears to be no justification at all for offshore bank > secrecy other than to protect the criminal". Apart from tehe confidentiality of the customer, bank, all those they trade with and all other interested parties, well then, they can`t be that important can they > > He said "offshore bank secrecy can and must be abolished" > and "the UK should be the first to abolish this secrecy > given their control of their dependent territory offshore > centres". So because we choose to maintain a statist and totalitarian empire we had better set an example of how to do it to the rest of the world??? > > Mr Bickford, who now runs an international legal > consultancy, said "endemic corruption" is caused by > offshore secrecy, and it is "difficult to see why it is > tolerated by any other than those with an unlawful > disposition". It is also diffult to see why I don`t go round to mr. Bickfords house and kill him, his dog, and his pet hamster, but I don`t, nor do I intend to, to say that we cannot see a reason for people wanting privacy is no justification for legislation that prohibits such privacy. <for any spook agencies etc. reading the above, it is NOT a death threat, it is a sarcastic comment> > He said allowing countries to maintain offshore banking > secrecy is "a classic example of the corruptive influence > of organised crime". It is a classic example of privacy and freedom in a free society (not that I believe Britain falls into this category) Has anyone got this guys IQ, it`s probably the first ever negative IQ in the history of the world, cheer everyone, its a historic find. Mr. Bickford, I believe you to be a fuckwit, feel free to prove me wrong.. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az4= =riHc -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Digital rights organisation
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:46 AM 9/11/96, Stephan Schmidt wrote: >Hi, > >thinking about what happend in Germany, >are there any 'digital rights' organisations >in Germany ? > >If not, we would like to found one. >Are there any international orgs (EFF?,...) >who can help us ? A wonderful idea, Stephan! You might try contacting EFF to see if a German branch exists (though EFF is not a strongly member-oriented organization, though people tell me this may be changing). Germans should embrace the idea that the cure for bad speech is _more_ speech. Specifically, for the current German concerns, the "cure" for speech by semi-Nazi skinheads and Holocaust deniers is free and open speech. Hard to deny the Holocaust when web sites have thousands of pictures, when archives exist. (And when speech saying the Holocaust "never happened" is outlawed, a certain fraction of the population thinks it's cool and chic to engage in this speech! Human psychology and all. This is probably what 90% of the skinheads are all about, plus some run of the mill hatred toward Turks and other immigrants who they think are taking away their jobs....) I understand that Germans have free speech in a lot of areas, and have less censorship of sexual material than the U.S. has (television, especially). But the areas where they _do_ censor, such as discussion of the Second World War and related issues, are the ones the world see. Germany needs to embrace completely free speech. This is the best way to ensure that another dictator like Hitler does not get elected to power. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Conjuring up the latest utopia for a minoritarian sect of illuminati
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:43 PM 9/11/96, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: >> And who might these people be? I suggest you name them, as I have not even >> mentioned your name to anyone. You don't rate a complaint from me. > >E.g. Kelly Goen is one of the people who told me that Tim May's been >complaining about my alleged "spit" posts. I've only spoken to Kelly Goen _once_ in many months, and he was calling from his cellphone and we only talked for a few minutes. I don't recall mentioning Vulis. So, who are these "various people"? >Note that Kelly's not on this mailing list (unlike at least two other >people who said to me that Tim complained to them off-list) and that >most of the posts Tim complains about are obvious forgeries. Who are these "at least two other people"? I _do_ think you're a loon. Not in the endearing sense of some net.loons, but in the peculiar kind of foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy that I've seen in several Russian and Armenian emigres. --TCM We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Child porn as thoughtcrime
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:51 PM 9/11/96, Chuck Thompson wrote: >The answer to the all the questions in the first set is yes, in this country >anyway, if they are interpreted by the legal system as intending to incite >illicit sexual acts, fantasies or obsessions about children. The fantasies >or obsessions are assumed to lead to the illegal acts. You later mention that "Intent to commit an actual crime must be proven." Saying that fantasies or obsessions are assumed to lead to crimes is the same as thoughtcrime. >>Clearly the first argument applies to many other things. Why not outlaw >pro-drug speech? > >Hold on here.. you are making an invalid comparison. To my knowledge, >there is no law against speaking in favor of child porn, any more than there >is against speaking in favor of drug usage. It against the law to *use* >either of them. Writing a pro-drug article on the joys of marijuana use, on the pleasures of opium, on the "naturalness" of various herbs, etc., would seem to me to be essentially "drug pornography" (by the standards of porn laws). To use your quote, "The fantasies or obsessions are assumed to lead to the illegal acts." (By the way, the language of pro-censorship anti-pornography crusaders is being adopted by other special interest groups. Sarah Brady has called for restrictions on what she calls "gun pornography," and there are a lot of people trying to "clean up" television and movies by controlling "the pornography of violence." By your various arguments that "fantasies and obsessions" can lead to later crimes, are they not behaving as you would wish them to? If thoughtcrime about how cool guns are can be eliminated, we can save the children from gun violence!) ... (my quote left in for context) >>The second argument, that children are actually harmed, is vitiated by the >fact that >much so-called child porn comes from countries where the actors >are of legal age. >>How can a 14-year-old Thai girl be "harmed" when what she is bing paid to >do is >>perfectly legal in Thailand? > >There you go again.. being legal does not, in any way, mitigate it's >harmfulness. There may be places on this earth where it is legal to ??? Are you saying that the legal system should punish people for perfectly legal behavior which is "harmful" (putatively, in a future or "inspiration" sense) to people? (The civil litigation community is of course in agreement with you: Sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed using their guns. Sue the makers of rock climbing equipment for the harm done to rock climbers, even though voluntary. Sue the horseback riding farms for falls suffered by riders. Sue tobacco companies for the lung cancer of smokers. Sue MacDonald's for the high cholesterol-induced heart attacks of customers. Sue the director of "Natural Born Killers" on behalf of victims murdered in "copycat" cases. Sue the author of "Lolita" for inspiring sex crimes. Sue.....) >>And the case of morphings, drawings, stories, etc., clearly involve no >actual children, >so the argument that children are harmed is empty. > >The argument is not dependent upon whether or not actual children are used, >any more than whether or not an actual gun is used in a robbery - the net >effect is the same. Children are harmed by the promotion of child porn >because it leads to the abuse/exploitation of kids. You seem to be arguing for class-based rights and wrongs. Does promotion of capitalism lead to the abuse and exploitation of workers? Perhaps we could outlaw pro-capitalist writings. Does pro-drug speech lead to drug abuse and misery? (Probably it does, of course.) As I asked earlier, should pro-drug speech be outlawed? (You earlier implied that of course it should not, that pro-drug speech is protected. But if it probably leads to consumption of drugs, as nearly everyone on both sides of the issue will likely agree, isn't it the same as your point about child porn?) .... >First, you must separate opinions from actions. In this country, opinions >are not ever illegal. Some actions are. The illegality is probably (I'm Do you mean _unspoken opinions_? If so, I agree--after all, if never spoken, the opinions are unknown to others, not even to Big Brother. If, however, you mean that "_expressed_ opinions are not ever illegal," this is clearly false. Sedition laws are still on the books, as are laws outlawing the "advocacy" (an uttered opinion, surely) of various things. (I believe it was Eugene Debs who spent time in prison for expressing the opinion that the United States should not be in the Great War, or that the draft should be abolished, or something related to this.) >which we deem to be in our best interests. And, as long as the laws which >are passed do not violate our constitution, the underlying basis for passing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Such as the "Congress shall make no law" language in the most important items in the Bill of Rights? Just where in the Constitution is it said that speech may be limited so as to reduce "fantasies and obsessions"? I read the Constitution as saying this may not be done, and I read most later Supreme Court interpretations as saying that limitations on speech may only be implemented if there is a compelling need to protect other basic rights (a la the infamous "falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater"). >Your case is weak, because it is based on the false premise that the >illegality of child pornography equates to illegality of thought. It is >overt action which is illegal, not thought. None of the acts I described in my piece involved _actions_ against children in the United States. Drawing a picture or writing a story is _speech_ (in the accepted definition of speech, thought, expression of views, literature, etc.). Morphing an image of Raquel Welch is speech. And so on. This is not sophistry, this is a statement of what is really happening. No actual child is involved. If one argues that speech which may lead to later crimes, by other people, can and should be outlawed, then Pandora's Box is truly opened for limiting vast amounts of speech. Words _do_ have impact, tremendous impact in fact. Free speech _can_ and _does_ lead to others committing crimes, killing themselves, acting stupidly, undermining society, even having "fantasies and obsessions." Get used to it. >By the way, Tim, I found your "translation" to be offensive, crude and >deliberately provocative. I do, however, support your right to publish it. What if it inspires a young girl to think more positively about having an incestuous relationship with her father? Mightn't it inspire "fantasies and obsessions"? And under the CDA, it's probably illegal, given that various 13- and 14-year-olds are reading this list. --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]

1 0

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:48 PM 9/10/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Q: Is a drawing of a child engaging in a sexual act an illegal item? > >Under the original Hatch bill, yes. Certainly under the revised one. Of >course, Hatch's proposal goes even farther. There's no "sex act" requirement. >Judy Krug from the ALA testified about this, opposing Bruce Taylor. > >> Q: Is an image of Raquel Welch morphed to make her look like a 15-year-old >> illegal? > >Even under the original Hatch bill, yes. It seems to me that the logic of these answers would make the movie, "Carried Away" illegal. According to a Boston Globe review (reprinted in the local rag), "... his character cheats on his longtime girlfriend with a new student who's only 17, ..." Depending on how this is depicted in the movie (Rated R), it seems to me that this could go over Hatch's line. (BTW, the review rates the movie 3 stars out of a possible 4.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Lone Star" - My personal | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | choice for best movie of | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | 1996 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: : Declan answers in the affirmative that, yes, nearly all of the examples I : cited are indeed crimes. .... : As I well knew, which is why I presented them. (The Jock Sturges case was : in SF, ... I've read in several places that the Jock Sturges case was thrown out of court by the judge. Nobody has dragged me away in shackles for owning "Radiant Images." Stores selling photo books often carry his work, and it is rarely covered with opaque plastic. So it may be nudity that set the gendarmes (sp?) in motion, but that's evidently not what's really illegal. I wonder what would happen if an "adult magazine" were to reproduce Sturges' work. The court case might be interesting... Now apply that to the Web. Imagine there's a Sturges site, and a porn site links to it. Does that make the Sturges material "child porn?" If so, is the porn site illegal or the Sturges site? I suspect the prosecutors will come down on both and let the courts sort it out. Prior restraint, eh? : ...the "little girls in leotards" case was only a few years ago, etc.) Don't know about that one. Is it illegal for little girls to be photographed in leotards now? "Nutcracker" is X rated? Move over, Bambi. Personally, I think the political posturing theory captures the essence of the legislative climate. Rick.

1 0

Unsolicited harrassing e-mail from <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please stop e-mailing me, cc:ing me, or otherwise harrassing me. I have no connection with the thread you're quoting and don't want to receive any more e-mail from you. stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com writes: > >> There > >> are a number of anonymous remailers out in cyberspace, but it has been > >> stated by a knowledgeable source that a number of them are being operated > >> by law enforcement agencies (presumably to troll for criminal activity). A > > > >Can someone verify/discredit/comment on this statement? Who is the > >knowledgeable source? > > Definitely true. Zero is a number, and there are also larger numbers. > KOTM = Kook Of The Month. > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com > # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> > # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto >

1 0

'robert' and his 'hipcrime' web site
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have you considered who is funding this "hipcrime" site? Web sites aren't terribly expensive these days, but someone paid at least a few hundred dollars in set-up fees for this. Now, I realize that most artists really just like to draw, and will spend money on their art projects without expecting any kind of benefit; that is not unusual. What is unusual is the disclaimer and its corporate mentailty, and the "anarchist info". It's obvious that this guy's true passion is fractals and raytracing. He threw in some bomb-making stuff, but he scanned it out of a book and probably never tried it. Compared to the rest of the site, it looks like an afterthought. Someone who was really interested in chemistry would have taken the time to retype the info and add their own comments. He had a reason to have some "anarchist" info on there but he's not really interested in it. So basically this guy is a mathematician/artist trying to pretend he's an anarchist. Same goes for the remailers. He claims he likes remailers and anonymity, but he's lying. Anyone who really liked remailers/anonymity/privacy would have pages and pages about how to use remailers, and why privacy is a good thing. He has a reason he needs to be anonymous, but it's not because he supports privacy. He publishes a PGP key, because he wants to pretend he's an anarchist, and Louis Freeh told him that all evil terrorist organizations use PGP. But he doesn't like PGP, he doesn't advocate PGP, and he doesn't tell you where to get PGP. So we have a guy, probably with an education in mathematics, who likes abstract art. Not what would generally be considered a political figure. But there's something else there - something that doesn't want to be seen, something that is very strongly law&order, something that doesn't understand the anarchy of the net, and fears it. Something that has the money to fund lots of little pet projects. Is robert(a)precipice.v-site.net just a useful idiot who found someone who will fund his fractal creations? Or is he a willing participant? I guess it doesn't matter really. Someone here doesn't like us... didn't like us before Hipcrime went online, and still doesn't like us. But now at least he's got our attention.

4 3

Re: [WAS xs4all.nl] Terrorists
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 AM 9/9/96 +0200, Stephan wrote: >One thought : How many of you would support terrorist >web server (say Oklahoma, TWA, Iran, Lybia, RAF, IRA, ...) ? But I _do_ support a terrorist web server! My taxes pay for CIA (odci.gov) whitehouse.gov, llnl.gov, *.mil, +1-888-ATF-FIRE .... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: Hacking Mobil Telephone System ?
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > > > The German Company MobilCom wants to proove > > that the German GSM networks D1,D2 and E+ are > > secure. > > > <snip> > > > > If a hacker is able to phone using the number > > 0171 / 3 28 99 66 in Germany with a hacked code, > > the company will pay 100.000 DM (~65.000$) to a non > > profit organisation of the hackers choice. > > > > Is someone able to do this ? :) > > While there's dubious wisdom in trying to tell Der Polizei, "I was just > responding to an authorization that I found on the Internet that says it's > OK to phreak your phones - honest," I'd also expect to get paid a hell of > a lot more than $65 for doing a penetration test on their network. Sixty > five bucks won't even pay the per diem, none the less a reasonable wage. > And Der Polizei is *NOT* known for having a sense of humor about anything, > at any time, with anyone. Remember, kids, they may look like shit in > uniform, but those automatic weapons they carry are real, so's the ammo, > and they know how to use both of 'em. The simple solution is to call the number from a regular phone, and find out if the offer is correct. I think you'll find that '100.000 DM (~65.000$)' is European nomenclature for '100,000 DM (~65,000$). The differences between US and European nomenclature can be subtle, yet important. Quick - which is likely to have had warmer weather: 1/8/96, or 8/1/96? Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei(a)process.com

1 0