December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >(snip) >>(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and >>employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in a free >>society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes to >>decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc. In a free >>society, it is up to people to not disclose that which they do not wish >>remembered.) > >While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at >regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's absolute >theory. Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering to one where >corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal" responsibility, which >in many realms is part of any definition of "free". > >Take, for example, the practice of redlining. How are people who live in >"bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information. You may lend your own money to whomever you wish. If you do not wish to lend money to somebody, that is your business. It is difficult to understand why redlining should be illegal, to the extent that it even occurs. When it does occur, we expect that eager entrepreneurs such as yourself will rush in to grab new customers. As for the privacy issue, you seem to be proposing that you have some sort of right to borrow money on terms which are not acceptable to the lender. You need not give your address just as you need not borrow the money. Of course, we hardly live in a free banking era. Most people would prefer to bank with a company that respects their privacy. Yet, banks are so tightly controlled in the United States that they most often will not dare to protect the privacy of their customers for fear of regulatory consequences. When the service is provided, it cannot be advertised. And, the banks are required to report all transactions over $10,000 or give up all information if the attorney general tells them it involves national security. You are in the unpleasant position of appealing for protection from the very people who have robbed you of your privacy. Red Rackham

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C[ocksucker] May, a product of anal birth, appeared with a coathanger through his head. /o)\ Timothy C[ocksucker] May \(o/

1 0

Re: PRIVACY: X-No-Archive and mail.cypherpunks
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 AM 12/3/1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 10:15 AM -0600 12/3/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>This is primarily addressed to the person who supports cypherpunks >>mail-to-news gateway. If you know who such person is, please send >>his/her address to me. >.... >>I am opposed to seeing my articles showing up in DejaNews and other >>search engines. All my emails and usenet postings have this header >>line. However, when cypherpunks-to-newsgroup gateway reposts all >>articles, it strips this header line. I believe it to be a mistake >>and hope that it will be corrected. > >Igor raises an important point. > >I believe he is misguided in his expectation that his public utterances in >a forum containing at least 1200 readers (and probably more, through >gateways, etc.) that he can limit uses of his posts. Any recipient of his >public utterances may choose to quote them in other articles, forward them >to friends, archive them on his own disks, etc. > > ... > >In a free society it is impossible to control what people do with material >given to them. The best means of protecting one's writings is not to >distribute them. It is unlikely that anybody is going to pay money for our postings, even Igor's postings. Copyright is not the issue. Perhaps, Igor is worried about the unpredictable consequences of his posts being readable by anybody, anywhere, forever. The solution to that problem is straightforward and I leave it as an exercise. Red Rackham

4 4

Re: Culling the proles with crypto anarchy
by Jeff Ubois 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The numbers quoted in the press were based on a study by the Cato Institute, "The Work Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare Benefits by the State" by Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman, September, 1995. It's at <http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html>. Extracts: * To match the value of welfare benefits, a mother with two children would have to earn as much as $36,400 in Hawaii or as little as $11,500 in Mississippi. * In New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, and Rhode Island, welfare pays more than a $12.00-an-hour job--or more than two and a half times the minimum wage. * In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00-an-hour job. In 17 states the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00-an-hour job. * Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit. * In 9 states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a computer programmer. At 01:27 AM 12/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 4:06 PM -0500 11/27/96, Clay Olbon II wrote: >>At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security(a)kinch.ark.com> wrote: > >>>I am not in a position to argue with you, I simply don't have the facts. >>>My question is, do You? can you cite where this figure came from, it >>>sounds like Republican rhetoric to me. Of course, I will point out, that >>>minimum wage is simply not enough to feed a family. It is (or at least >>>it should be) reserved for single folks just starting out. >> >>Can't give you the exact date, but it was an article in our local paper (The >>Detroit News). The $10 figure is not exact, as the actual number varies >>from state to state, I remember that number as being about average. > >I can confirm the gist of Clay's point: I saw a table listing "effective >hourly welfare pay" for the 50 states and D.C. This was in the "San Jose >Mercury News," at least 8-10 months ago (and presumably elsewhere, as it >was a major story). I used it in one of my articles, and gave the reference >then (sorry, not handy, and my own welfare rate does not pay me enough to >spend hours sifting through past articles for something so minor, an old >cite, that is). >

6 6

IP address
by varange＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, the "danger" of posting a static IP must be even greater than with a temporary IP. Just call the police if you uncover a bonafide case of a denial of service attack. From what I gather, they take this shit seriously, and have better capacities of getting lazy admins to reveal the relevent data in their logs. -- Cheers!

2 1

Re: The Rise and Fall of Cypherpunks WAS [Re: the Dennings]
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

attila(a)primenet.com writes: > > we, and I mean all of us, who contribute the bulk of the > > "opinions" to cypherpunks gave the mainstream press the biggest > > possible hole to run straight over us, declaring us anarchists > > and wild-eyed fanatics. unless we as a group mend our ways, and > > turn out intelligent reasoning for the advance of cryptography as > > a mainstream way of life, we will be forever consigned not only to > > the dustbin, but subject to the ridicule of both the press and the > > government. Quite surprising. This proves (to me) that cypherpunks is nothing more than lipservice, covertly contributing to the death of the human spirit which most people seem to want. "Unless we as a group mend our ways", indeed. By whose standard of "mending"? If they construct the proper standard can they not control you by that choice? Is your goal in life to be controlled by the press and the government? > > None of us are above a little sarcasm --but let's get the > > vituperative effluent out of the system. do whatever you wish in > > private mail, but keep the profane rantings off the list. The very existance of the "profane" keeps the "sacred" in existance as well. If you cannot see that, then John Grubor's lesson is wasted on you. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet It is only knowledge that will destroy bias.

4 4

RE: Counterproductive Dorothy Denning Flames
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Sir Galahad" >All of the people I know who have met her find her to be a >pleasant person, and the occasional Email messages we have >exchanged have certainly been positive and friendly. Irrelevant, of course. Some of the most terrible people in the world have been pleasant. D. Denning may or may not be the most terrible person in the world, but her pleasantness is unrelated. ............................................................ Statements like these, with which cpunks retort to each other all the time, are examples of the ever-continuing exercise of logic which goes on on the list - even if not formally delineated nor announced as being of such intent (LOGOS). I am glad for the points which "Sir Galahad" brought up, because they point out the difference between essential vs non-essential elements in arguments like this one. Objections present the opportunity to more definitely identify what *is* the critical element which makes up the substance of an issue (such as what is really is offensive and objectionable about Denning, aside from her personality characteristics). Denning is considered credible solely because her statements are consistent with the interests and views of those in authority. Yet even if one's statements are not consistent with the established authorities, they could be credible and noteworthy to a wide audience, were the statements in consonance with reality, expressing truths observable to any (once they were isolated and identified) and understable to those who hear or read them. The 'authorities' (appointed, not necessarily actually "authorities" in terms of knowledge) may find Denning's statements agreeable because these support their own views and government positions, but what is crucial in this support is the consequence of her arguments about GAK: if her statements convince the right people into complicity, into giving up the authority over their right to self-determined privacy, then the 'authorities' will be satisified that they will not have to deal with any protesting opposition which would prevent them from implementing their plans - they can proceed with their 'authority' intact, as though it had been validated. But if she (among others, of course) cannot convince the right influential bodies that passive acceptance of the 'authorized' point of view is correct and noble, then this means that the authorities cannot not proceed as they would like, and this would reduce the power of their position in society. If there was not an issue of power involved, it wouldn't matter so much what Denning has to say or whether it is credible or not. But if what she has to say adds support to the positions of those already in 'authority' - that is, if people accept her arguments for GAK in place of their own apprehensions against it, then control in the central corridors of government will have been preserved and it will be 'business as usual'. So is Denning offensive because she is unpleasant per se, or do negative opinions of her exist because of who/what she is supporting? i.e., because she is on "their" side, rather than "ours", because she employes her reasoning to their benefit, rather than to ours whose singular authority in this matter is under contention? .. Blanc > >

1 0

testing
by Phiberelic Phreaker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PhReAkInG iS a ViOlEnT pOiSoN. iT cAnNoT Be ApPlIeD eXtErNaLlY tO aNiMaL oR hUmAn TiSsUe WiThOuT sErIoUs InJuRiOuS rEsUlTs. It CaNnOt Be TaKeN iNtErNaLlY wItHoUt InDuCiNg VoMiTtInG, bLiNdNeSs, AnD GeNeRaL pHySiCaLlY uLtImAtElLy ReSuLtInG iN dEaTh. PhReAk ThE pLaNeT--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/PhreakThePlanet/index.html PhIbErDeLiC PhReAkEr

1 0

testing
by Phiberelic Phreaker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PhReAkInG iS a ViOlEnT pOiSoN. iT cAnNoT Be ApPlIeD eXtErNaLlY tO aNiMaL oR hUmAn TiSsUe WiThOuT sErIoUs InJuRiOuS rEsUlTs. It CaNnOt Be TaKeN iNtErNaLlY wItHoUt InDuCiNg VoMiTtInG, bLiNdNeSs, AnD GeNeRaL pHySiCaLlY uLtImAtElLy ReSuLtInG iN dEaTh. PhReAk ThE pLaNeT--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/PhreakThePlanet/index.html PhIbErDeLiC PhReAkEr

1 0

testing new Home Web site
by Phiberelic Phreaker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

try this site and tell me how you like it if you dont like it then message Mr.Angry on that page PhReAkInG iS a ViOlEnT pOiSoN. iT cAnNoT Be ApPlIeD eXtErNaLlY tO aNiMaL oR hUmAn TiSsUe WiThOuT sErIoUs InJuRiOuS rEsUlTs. It CaNnOt Be TaKeN iNtErNaLlY wItHoUt InDuCiNg VoMiTtInG, bLiNdNeSs, AnD GeNeRaL pHySiCaLlY uLtImAtElLy ReSuLtInG iN dEaTh. PhReAk ThE pLaNeT--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/PhreakThePlanet/index.html PhIbErDeLiC PhReAkEr

1 0