December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:11 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Brian Davis writes: >> >>> I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property >>> rights. >> >> I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds >> with freedom of speech. >> >> They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's >> a different fla...er...discussion. > > > I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken >away if abused. There is no such thing as a 'right' to >property--in fact the very notion seems absurd. > > Steve Philosophically, a lot of people would agree with you Steve, and this would probably place them in dozens of "killfiles", "lists of unemployable persons", plug-pullable minorities of "kooks" and so on, inside the American Section of the Internet. No wonder (after malicious slander I have seen directed against you), that so few people come out with such views. However... Reality has many facets, and property can mean many things. "Abusing property" is also punishable already by some (very capitalistic) laws. I know I deserve everything I own, but do the chicken know it? The chicken who hide behind roles like Gilmore's for instance. Surely the ONLY things we most CERTAINLY own, are our bodies and our speech and other facets of our existence. If people were offered large sums of money to cut off one... hand, they'd probably refuse! :-) Goddess Venus knows why if a lot of people when offered similar similar sums of money to chop off their speech, they obey. I am very troubled at recent events and spend my time wasting yours. But wait till you see what I figured out... :-) (with the Greek paper). George

1 0

BayLISA: Randal Schwartz, Just Another Convicted Perl Hacker (fwd)
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This should be QUITE entertaining. -rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 17 Nov 1996 19:03:17 -0500 From: Laura de Leon <deleon(a)cat.hpl.hp.com> Newsgroups: ba.announce Subject: BayLISA: Randal Schwartz, Just Another Convicted Perl Hacker The BayLISA group meets monthly to discuss topics of interest to systems and network administrators. The meetings are free and open to the public. BayLISA holds monthly meetings on the third Thursday of each month at 7:30 PM PST. We meet at Cisco building J in San Jose, on Tasman Drive near First street. (This is across the street from the room we met in at Cisco last month). See www.baylisa.org for more information. The meetings are also broadcast via MBONE. NOTE: AS OF OCTOBER, WE HAVE MOVED TO CISCO. This is a new location. Thanks very much to Synopsys for hosting us. Schedule -------- November 21 Randal Schwartz: Just Another Convicted Perl Hacker This talk will describe how the speaker became a felon in the process of doing his job as a systems administrator in the well-publicized Oregon v. Schwartz case (victim: Intel). It will include some points about Oregon's current law and the implications of this case on the computer community. There will be a special focus on how to make sure this doesn't happen to you. There will be copies of Randal's new PERL book available if you would like to get one signed. BayLISA Board Elections & member meeting before the regular meeting At 7:00, Elections for the BayLISA board will be held. We encourage all members to vote. If you aren't a member, this is a good time to join (see our Web site) December 19 Our Holiday meeting-- Join us to share goodies and computer horror stories, as well as descriptions of stupid computer tricks. There will be a prize for best story. This is a very informal meeting, and will not be broadcast on the MBONE. January 16 Brent Chapman, Containment Zones (firewalls to keep people in) February 20 Standards efforts and how they will effect you March 20 Paul Vixie [Schedule subject to change] For further information on BayLISA, check out our web site: http://www.baylisa.org/ To get further information on the meeting location, you can also ftp it from ftp.baylisa.org:/location For any other information, please send email to: info(a)baylisa.org If you have any questions, please contact me or the info alias listed above.

2 1

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear "Info", Mr. Stephen Boursy has made a number of important revelations here. I went back and read nearly all his posts, and I will say this _again_, I have found NOTHING to suggest a lack of reliability in what he says. I am in no way affiliated to Mr. Boursy. I have never seen his face, even. In fact I had hardly noticed Mr. Boursy's presence till only a few days ago, when the forcible expulsion of Russian Mathematician Dimitri Vulis from the "cypherpunks" list fell like a bomb over my naive gullible head. Only AFTER this, I started reading ALL the previous postings that I had missed (about 60-70 % of them). I decided to find out what's happening. I saw OBVIOUS things, and OBVIOUS LIES, since as a lurker who kept ALL previous postings (in the Freedom-Knights list and elsewhere) I could COMPARE my archives to what people claimed. More often than not, to my amazement, what a LOT of people claimed were packs of lies. And against Mr. Boursy and Mr. Dimitri Vulis in particular, entire SEWAGES of lies. ' So I forward this info to... "INFO", the Weekly Net-Supplement of "Eleftherotypia", Greece's largest and most democratic newspaper. The Greek public are rather well informed on the "shiny" side of the Internet. But (the director of "Info" and I) have met and discussed, on two occasions, a few months ago, ALSO the "DARK" side.... Our only problem, is VOLUME. It's like trying to clean up a shit-hole which has spilled the shit even outside itself, in the garden... :-) (The AMERICAN section of the internet, i.e. MOST of it). Here goes... At 07:24 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >George A. Stathis wrote: >> >> At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >>> >>> Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis. > > > I've lost but one account--world.std.com (Software Tool & >Die) soon to be purchased by the conglomorate Plug Pullers >R US. That was entirely related to a local rent control >matter. Now I may be a 'twit'--that is an entirely >different matter. > > >> I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal >> or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many >> accounts he has lost". > > I would say though that if one makes false statements as has >this 'snow' character it indicates a lack of credibiltiy. > > >>> Ignore him. > > Something you seem unable to do. Isn't it odd how some will >tell you how insignificant and irrelevant you are only to devote >so much of their time and energy to you. I find that very odd. > > >> It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses >> of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks >> list for instance). > > Well thanks George but I do think his statement speak for themselves. >I'm not in the least concerned someone like him could harm me--in fact >I find it very amusing that he is deemed 'acceptable for that list >while Dr. Vulis is not. > >> Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for >> believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 >> people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what >> and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... > > > Well that's sort of like Tiny Tim Skirvin and his Global Killfile-- >it does him more harm than those he is after--in fact little Tim reads >my every word. > > >> But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your >> number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might >> avoid. > > And based on lies as well--I've only had one account terminated--that >by Barry Shein who lives in Brookline, Ma. and that was entirely do >to real estate industry money and the rent control issue (a statewide >referrendum on rent control which existed only in Brookline, Cambridge, >and Boston)--many millions of dollars at stake there. Shein is simply >a whore. > >> First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis. >> >> Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy. > > Well my suggestion--given the size of the list and that we have >numerous sympathizers there--is to have all of their posts forwarded >and publically post them for free and open discussion. > > Steve > > >> >> Then... >> >> When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me. >> >> (You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-( >> >> Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-) >> George Stathis >

1 0

POC_ket
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WaJo reports today on IBM's tiny pocket computer that transmits data through the body -- to another body or to a device such as a telephone. Invented by Tom Zimmerman, formerly of the Media Lab, it can tell "anything you touch who you are." Being shown at Comdex. The body as a token. How to crack a human? Grab and squeeze out a pass phrase. ----- http://jya.com/pocket.txt POC_ket

3 2

Extreme Left/Right
by James Ormond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy, I always had trouble understanding what people meant when they used the terms "extreme left" and "extreme right". Then, about 4 months ago, I saw a guy define the "political spectrum" the way (he said) it used to be defined before the definitions were corrupted (by whomever wants to divide - and conquer - the people). It made sense to me. A spectrum afterall, at least when we're talking about colors, starts with one type of color and graduates to other, DIFFERENT colors. He defined the "political spectrum" as follows: < ------- LEFT RIGHT -------> Monarchy Oligarchy Democracy Republic Anarchy Rule by: ONE FEW MANY LAW NONE Examples: Dictator, Communist, Lynch Mob Constitutional King Fascist State Govt (US before 1930's) So, according to this definition of the political spectrum, a true "leftist" would be a person that supported the government's usurpation of individual rights, property rights, human rights, privacy rights, etc. Obviously we don't look at it this way. The government only takes away our property (eg. through income taxes), etc. when it's FOR OUR OWN GOOD AND THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRYMEN!!! Sadly, this can only be done (in this country) by violating the US Constitution, and it has been done and it is being done. Unfortuneately, the people that support and seek to defend the Constitution (according to the political spectrum you see above) are on the right (those that support the Republic). It's not politically correct to call yourself a "rightist" these days. Of course, there are not too many Americans (including people that call themselves "leftists" or "liberals") that are willing to publicly admit that they are opposed to the US Constitution. I dare say that most leftists would actually say that they SUPPORT the US Constitution. Many of these people are very concerned about the deterioration of our liberties and spend a lot of time and energy educating themselves and others about how this is being done. I know this because I used to consider myself a "leftist" (although I was never too fond of applying such labels to myself); after all, I had to be SOMEWHERE!!! My political "education" started during the Reagan years. Since that administration was considered "right-wing", I knew I didn't like that (because of the BAD things that it was doing) so I must be the opposite. When I used to listen to a certain "leftist" radio station broadcasting out of New York City, they would talk about "left-wing", communist dictatorships and "right-wing", fascist dictatorships. A dictatorship is a dictatorship!!! The "wing" that it comes from makes no difference!! The way the media defines these things makes no sense; you can't have a dictatorship on BOTH sides of a POLITICAL SPECTRUM no more than you can have YELLOW on both sides of the COLOR SPECTRUM. Maybe I'm totally wrong in my thinking. If I am please try to clarify things for me. I bring this to your attention only because I notice that you often use these terms in some of your e-mails. I think that most "leftists" and "rightists" want many of the same things. We can't get together because the language we use has been so corrupted. Sincerely, Jim.

5 4

Re: ?????
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 05:36:00 -0800 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com (John Anonymous MacDonald) apparently wrote: |Dale Thorn wrote: |>people on a list are given tools to filter with and reminded on |>occasion |>how to use them? |You are the reason, you can't shut up and you have little or nothing |to say. plonk. I wish I'd said that; my fear is that Dale will take 17 messages to compose his vapid thoughts. Love you all.

2 1

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:11 AM 11/17/1996, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:22:33 -0800 >> From: Huge Cajones Remailer <nobody(a)huge.cajones.com> >> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> Subject: The Utility of Privacy >> >> >> Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? >> >> Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds >> that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >> outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >> typical reader of this list. > >Insurance is a hassle. Is it worth it? > >Which unfortunate situations does insurance prevent? What are the odds >that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >typical reader of this list. I know many people who were happy they had insurance due to car accidents, health problems, or whatever. What is more, the odds of these events are carefully calculated and available. Call an actuary. Are there similar sources of information calculating privacy risk? I don't think so. Informally, I don't know anybody who has suffered due to a loss of privacy. It may be the case that it is politically beneficial to have a society of privacy fanatics. But, this is different from the direct benefit to each participant. My question remains unanswered, probably because privacy isn't worth the effort.

4 3

Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brian Davis writes: > I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property > rights. I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds with freedom of speech. They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's a different fla...er...discussion. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet History is not usually what has happened. History is what some people have thought to be significant.

4 6

re: accutrade
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hacking the 9 digit account number and 4 digit PIN will be easier than attacking the OS directly. Either method though would certainly ring loud bells at Accutrade unless they are infected with headinbutt disease.

2 1

[NOISE] Want to know about this "aga" character? Read the Grubor FAQ!
by Alan Bostick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In case you aren't clued in enough to know, "aga(a)dhp.com" is none other than John Grubor, well-known Usenet Kook Of The Month winner for November, 1995. He *cannot* be reasoned with. Don't even try. He makes Dimitri Vulis appear sane, calm, and rational. Read the Grubor FAQ, http://kendaco.telebyte.com/dharland/Grubor.FAQ.html for more details. Alan "pseudonum of the LYING FORGER PETER VOROBIEFF!!!!1!" Bostick -- Alan Bostick | You know those chemicals women have in them, | when they've got PMS? Well, men have those very mailto:abostick@netcom.com | same chemicals in them *all the time*. news:alt.grelb | Margaret Atwood, THE ROBBER BRIDE http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

3 2