December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Dave Hayes wrote: > > Igor "Gadzooks" Chudov writes: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike you > > > > or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my list. > > > So what's the difference between yours and gilmore's position? > > Simple. I choose whom to invite to my parties. Gilmore provides an > > open door. > Providing an open door does not mean that it is always open to everyone, > Dave. It only means that it is open to all by default, but that policy > can be reversed for certain individuals. That is not to say that I agree > with Gilmore's the decision to kick Vulis out from cypherpunks, but John's > decision was neither dishonorable nor he was acting outside his powers, > in my opinion. Technically, John Gilmore did nothing, since Vulis continues to read and post. Symbolically, he punched holes in his ideology. That's my opinion. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet You need not wonder whether you should have a reliable person as a friend. An unreliable person is nobody's friend.

3 2

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:14 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >>As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, >>things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I >>suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts >>cannot work. > >Oh I forgot to mention, last week we found you guilty of sedition, it >was a pity you were not present to put your case but maybe if you had >bothere to read the court roster you would have attended. You might be surprised to learn that this kind of thing doesn't bother me at all. To whatever extent such commonlaw courts act like loose cannons, they will primarily tend to do so against those who are most abusive of the public's perceived rights. Like a non-lethal version of AP, those people who are most abusive of the public (primarily current government employees and officeholders) will be named most often in commonlaw court proceedings. Eventually, they will begin to behave. >>1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. >>The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility. > >Untrue, the US constitution replaced all previous constitutions. But commonlaw courts were not a product of previous constitutions. And the US constitution certainly didn't "replace all previous constitutions": state constitutions were "replaced." The only document the Federal constitution arguably "replaced" was the Articles of the Confederation. > Thats >what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts >were extinguished. Ah! So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh? Well, if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished." >>2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the >>FEDERAL portion of government. > >It also includes a supremacy cluase and a "due process" clause. The >due process clause means amongst other things that noone can be subjected >to proceedings that are not authorised under the constitution. Anyone in state court are "subjected to proceedings that are not authorized under the [Federal] constitution." Clearly, state courts operated before the Federal Constitution existed. And the "due process clause" may simply apply to the Federal government, not necessarily all individuals or the organizations they form. >>3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it >>references state Constitutions at all. > >There is no logical reason why it should, if a state exists it has a process >of government, a boundary to its authority and performs legislative, >excutive and judicial functions. The explicit recognition of the states >was necessary since otherwise the supremacy clause would claim to extinguish >their rights. There's a big inconsistency with what you just said. It was the representatives of the STATES which WROTE the US Constitution. Their ratification was _necessary_ to approve that document. If states were not recognized, nor their representatives, they would have been unable to ratify the Federal constitution. It would be, therefore, totally illogical to believe that the product of their writing could somehow "extinguish" the rights of the citizens, let alone the states. You're obviously confused. >The authority of the states to make law is explicitly >stated. Whatever it said, it was not necessary to have said it. The 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that any power not explicitly granted the Feds was reserved to the states or the people. >>You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the >>courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my >>recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter >>local courts. > >It recognises the states, and thus their constitutions. If you can find >a state which omitted a supremacy clause from its constitution then you >might have a point. > > >As a practical matter however the immediate effect of claiming to issue >proceedings under "common law courts" is from now on almost certain to >be criminal and civil proceedings followed by long jail sentences. Oh, really? It certainly isn't "criminal." At most, you might try to claim that it is legally irrelevant. After all, if commonlaw courts don't really exist, then nothing they do has legal weight, and thus it's a legal nullity. But your commentary seems to indicate that no, what commonlaw courts do is not only real and significant, it's also going to be called "criminal." In other words, it's a threat to the existing legal monopoly. >While Jim Bell can pick nits and pretend that he is a lawyer the people >recognised as lawyers in our society act in a different matter. All of whom are trained to recognize the existing legal monopoly. >It is >an empirical fact that those convicted in federal and state courts >go to jail, those convicted in "common law kangeroo courts do not". In >fact the only people who do are the judges, jurors and other >instigators. Of what relevance is this? Sending a person to jail is only one of many ways a court can exercise its power. >It is an empirical fact that the authority of "common law" courts >is not recognised by society. "Society"? I think you mean "the people who believe they are in charge." The "thuggerati" would be one way to identify them. The vast majority of the population of the US are simply unaware of commonlaw courts. In fact, it's quite possible that the vast majority of the population can't quote even a single law verbatim. The average person knows nothing of the history of commonlaw courts, and therefore what he "recognizes" is unlikely to include them >They can be dealt with easily enough, >the intended victim need only apply to a real court for an injuction >prohibiting proceedings, What "proceedings"? You just said that commonlaw courts do not exist, and that their actions are legally irrelevant. Why should an "intended victim" NEED to "apply to a real [sic] court for an injunction"? An "injunction" is generally obtained to prevent somebody from doing something that he'd otherwise have the power (and, often, the right) to do absent the injunction. >turn up to the "court" to serve the injunction >and if people insist on proceeding apply to the real court for >enforcement of the original order since anyone participating in the >"common law court" would then be in contempt. They would only be "in contempt" if their actions were legally relevant, which you have already denied. Your problem is obvious: You're desperate, and you can't promote a consistent argument. I, far more honestly, started by pointing out the fact that commonlaw courts are but one type of court, and they were in competition with equity courts in England for centuries. It's a power stuggle, quite analogous to the free market, and if anything their long absense will only make the competition keener. Naturally, the opponents of commonlaw courts (and, "opponents" are exactly what they are; they are biased on one side of the issue) want to deny past reality as well as prevent the resurgence of those courts. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

infowar Digest for 14 Nov 1996
by list 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

infowar Digest for 14 Nov 1996 Topics covered in this issue include: 1: Flight Information Resource by Betty(a)infowar.com 2: Flight Information Resource by Betty(a)infowar.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Message:0001 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Subject: Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 We thank our sponsors: Internet Security Solutions New Dimensions International - Security Training Secure Computing Corporation HOMECOM Communications National Computer Security Association OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. __________________________________________________ Infowar(a)infowar.com is brought to you in the the interest of an open,= unclassified exchange of information and ideas as a means for advancement= of Information Warfare related issues. Topics of discussion for this list= include: Infowar, Electronic Civil Defense, Hacking, Defensive Techniques,= Policy, Non-Lethals, Psyops, Chemical Warfare Agents and WMD.=20 As the list expands we will adapt to the needs and desires of our= subscribers.=20 __________________________________________________________ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: winn(a)infowar.com Subject: MCTL Process Infowar.com is proud to have been given permission to publish the=20 latest Military Critical Technologies List - Part I: Weapons Systems=20 Technologies.=20 THE MCTL Process is the systemic ongoing assessment and analyses of= technologies to determine which technologies are Militarily Critical and= therefore should have additional controlsplaced on them or made subject to= export control.=20 This document is the first of three parts. Part two: Weapons of Mass=20 Production and Part three: Critical Developing Technologies are in= development=20 and will be published when completed and made available to us. Don't miss= =20 reading this! Download Acrobat as the file is in .pdf format. (acrobat= readers are free) This file will be posted the week of November 17 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Betty(a)infowar.com From: "Eric L. Nelson, M.A." <enelson(a)nosc.mil> Subject: G-TWO RECRUITMENT FORM Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com Please use this ammended form to inform your DOD intel and CI colleagues about g-two. Please discard previous editions. Thanks, EL Nelson moderator Get The Word Out (G-TWO) is designed to provide direct assistance=20 to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence teams by providing=20 open-source intelligence and news summaries pertinent to DOD=20 interests. Topics include: Political: Politics of intelligence. Political history of hotspots/groups/personalities. Information: WWW locations of intelligence usefulness with brief summaries. Lists, databases, and archives accessible via the internet. Resource sharing. NBC-M (nuclear, biological, chemical & medical): Biochem threat analysis/events (outbreaks). Medical technology and issues related to DOD missions/personnel. Tracking the development of NBC capabilities by country/group. Terrorism: Threat/threat mindsets/tactical intent. Issues related to security and threat issues. International Crime. New developments in terrorism. New technology/weapons systems with CT application. Info. on capability of Special Teams/personnel. Military/Intel Agencies: Force protection. OPSEC. Military plans/policies. =20 Reports on terrorism/counter-terrorism activities. Data on military forces and capabilities (order of battle). Analysis: More analysis by SME's (subject matter experts). Emerging threat analysis. EOD/chemical analysis. Group profies (themes, objectives, etc.) Who are these people? Cultural profiles and key info/customs to know. Technology & Industrial: Hacking/Infowar. Technology/precursor tracking, what is being procured by others. Industrial/technical intelligence on foreign countries-=20 what are they doing? Other: Central/South American, and Caribbean information. =20 Psychological profiles/cultural profiles of groups/personalities. Deception. Stateless Warfare Issues (gangs, 4th generation warfare). State department info. =20 Washington Early Bird news summaries. =20 World hot spot info. Information warfare. Daily news articles on terrorism and related issues State Department country studies State Department terrorist groups/personalities files Emergency News Network (ENN) updates Intelligent Concepts Daily News Summaries Special support tasking News flashes More to be added soon! MEMBERSHIP: Limited to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence personnel, (active, reserve, or retired). Non-DOD intel/CI applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating a need for=20 inclusion, (such as law enforcement intelligence, FBI, etc.) To apply for membership answer the following questions and email to Eric Nelson at: =20 enelson(a)rohan.sdsu.edu <send the following> NAME/RANK: MILITARY UNIT/ORG: JOB TITLE: EMAIL ADDRESS: REG/RES/RET? NAME OF PERSON WHO REFERRED YOU (MANDATORY): <clip here and send> ------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Robert A. Walton" <waltonr(a)meade-emh2.army.mil>=20 Subject: DC Area Infowar Event Cc: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:04:22 +0000 You may wish to post the following notice. The Maryland chapter of Armed Forces Communications and Electronics=20 Association will have a luncheon meeting at the Fort Meade Officer's Club=20 on Tuesday, 19 November. The lunch is at 11:45, the program follows at=20 12:30. The speaker is Brigadier General Jaeger. The topic is=20 "Information Warfare Exercise Lessons Learned." The cost is $10.00 for the luncheon if you register today or Friday, or=20 $12.00 at the door Tuesday. If you are interested in going, please call=20 Vicki Neuman at 301-317-9474 to make a reservation. Thanks Bob Walton ------------------------------------------------------------ To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: aludwig(a)pacbell.net Subject: Legal aspects of information warfare My name is Aaron Ludwig and I am a third year law student at Whittier Law=20 School. I am currently writing a law review article about the legal=20 aspects of information warfare. If anyone has any insight or helpful=20 information regarding this topic please contact me at=20 aaronludwig(a)juno.com or simply reply to this mail. The following are=20 just a few of the questions I hope to analyze and answer: If the U.S. sustains an information-based attack, does this warrant an=20 armed response?(i.e., what constitutes an attack?) What laws are involved in carrying out or defending against information=20 attacks? What laws are involved in the detection of enemy information=20 warriors? Last, but not least, I wonder whether anyone can tell me how to get a=20 hold of the proceedings of any of the information warfare conferences. =20 Keep in mind that I am a highly-leveraged (broke) law student. Thank you. Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: Betty(a)infowar.com Subject: Defense Science Board Task Force Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense=20 (IW-D), will be issuing a report in the next few days. Federal Computer= Week=20 has an interesting article stating that the report called the threat of an= IW=20 attack "significant," adding that the nation's "vulnerabilities are= numerous,=20 [and] the countermeasures are extremely limited...." You can read the= article at=20 http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1111/duck.htm. We will be publishing the= report=20 as it is made available to us. ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:13:20 CST Subject: Flight Information Resource Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com ENN Info Update 11/11/96 - 20:00CST New Information Resource Assists in Tracking Domestic Flights (ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the World-Wide-Web. This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and= the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). The= program will then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have been delayed. The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove useful while waiting for Grandma's flight to come in from Des Moines, or a variety of other uses. Courtesy of: EmergencyNet News Service Emergency Response & Research Institute 6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312 Chicago, IL. 60646 (773) 631-3774 - Voice (773) 631-4703 - Fax (773) 631-3467 - Modem/Emergency BBS On-Line http://www.emergency.com - Website enn(a)emergency.com - E-mail ------------------------------------------------------------ END Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 DIRECT REQUESTS to: list(a)infowar.com with one-line in the BODY, NOT in the subject line. Subscribe infowar TO JOIN GROUP Unsubscribe infowar TO LEAVE GROUP Help infowar TO RECEIVE HELP=20 TO POST A MESSAGE: E-Mail to infowar(a)infowar.com =20 _____________________________________________________ Infowar.Com Interpact, Inc. Winn Schwartau winn(a)infowar.com http://www.infowar.com 813-393-6600 Voice 813-393-6361 FAX Sponsor Opportunities/Comments/Help Betty G. O'Hearn Assistant to Winn Schwartau http://www.infowar.com betty(a)infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Message:0002 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Subject: Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 We thank our sponsors: Internet Security Solutions New Dimensions International - Security Training Secure Computing Corporation HOMECOM Communications National Computer Security Association OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. __________________________________________________ Infowar(a)infowar.com is brought to you in the the interest of an open, unclassified exchange of information and ideas as a means for advancement of Information Warfare related issues. Topics of discussion for this list include: Infowar, Electronic Civil Defense, Hacking, Defensive Techniques, Policy, Non-Lethals, Psyops, Chemical Warfare Agents and WMD. As the list expands we will adapt to the needs and desires of our subscribers. __________________________________________________________ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: winn(a)infowar.com Subject: MCTL Process Infowar.com is proud to have been given permission to publish the latest Military Critical Technologies List - Part I: Weapons Systems Technologies. THE MCTL Process is the systemic ongoing assessment and analyses of technologies to determine which technologies are Militarily Critical and therefore should have additional controlsplaced on them or made subject to export control. This document is the first of three parts. Part two: Weapons of Mass Production and Part three: Critical Developing Technologies are in development and will be published when completed and made available to us. Don't miss reading this! Download Acrobat as the file is in .pdf format. (acrobat readers are free) This file will be posted the week of November 17 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Betty(a)infowar.com From: "Eric L. Nelson, M.A." <enelson(a)nosc.mil> Subject: G-TWO RECRUITMENT FORM Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com Please use this ammended form to inform your DOD intel and CI colleagues about g-two. Please discard previous editions. Thanks, EL Nelson moderator Get The Word Out (G-TWO) is designed to provide direct assistance to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence teams by providing open-source intelligence and news summaries pertinent to DOD interests. Topics include: Political: Politics of intelligence. Political history of hotspots/groups/personalities. Information: WWW locations of intelligence usefulness with brief summaries. Lists, databases, and archives accessible via the internet. Resource sharing. NBC-M (nuclear, biological, chemical & medical): Biochem threat analysis/events (outbreaks). Medical technology and issues related to DOD missions/personnel. Tracking the development of NBC capabilities by country/group. Terrorism: Threat/threat mindsets/tactical intent. Issues related to security and threat issues. International Crime. New developments in terrorism. New technology/weapons systems with CT application. Info. on capability of Special Teams/personnel. Military/Intel Agencies: Force protection. OPSEC. Military plans/policies. Reports on terrorism/counter-terrorism activities. Data on military forces and capabilities (order of battle). Analysis: More analysis by SME's (subject matter experts). Emerging threat analysis. EOD/chemical analysis. Group profies (themes, objectives, etc.) Who are these people? Cultural profiles and key info/customs to know. Technology & Industrial: Hacking/Infowar. Technology/precursor tracking, what is being procured by others. Industrial/technical intelligence on foreign countries- what are they doing? Other: Central/South American, and Caribbean information. Psychological profiles/cultural profiles of groups/personalities. Deception. Stateless Warfare Issues (gangs, 4th generation warfare). State department info. Washington Early Bird news summaries. World hot spot info. Information warfare. Daily news articles on terrorism and related issues State Department country studies State Department terrorist groups/personalities files Emergency News Network (ENN) updates Intelligent Concepts Daily News Summaries Special support tasking News flashes More to be added soon! MEMBERSHIP: Limited to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence personnel, (active, reserve, or retired). Non-DOD intel/CI applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating a need for inclusion, (such as law enforcement intelligence, FBI, etc.) To apply for membership answer the following questions and email to Eric Nelson at: enelson(a)rohan.sdsu.edu <send the following> NAME/RANK: MILITARY UNIT/ORG: JOB TITLE: EMAIL ADDRESS: REG/RES/RET? NAME OF PERSON WHO REFERRED YOU (MANDATORY): <clip here and send> ------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Robert A. Walton" <waltonr(a)meade-emh2.army.mil> Subject: DC Area Infowar Event Cc: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:04:22 +0000 You may wish to post the following notice. The Maryland chapter of Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association will have a luncheon meeting at the Fort Meade Officer's Club on Tuesday, 19 November. The lunch is at 11:45, the program follows at 12:30. The speaker is Brigadier General Jaeger. The topic is "Information Warfare Exercise Lessons Learned." The cost is $10.00 for the luncheon if you register today or Friday, or $12.00 at the door Tuesday. If you are interested in going, please call Vicki Neuman at 301-317-9474 to make a reservation. Thanks Bob Walton ------------------------------------------------------------ To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: aludwig(a)pacbell.net Subject: Legal aspects of information warfare My name is Aaron Ludwig and I am a third year law student at Whittier Law School. I am currently writing a law review article about the legal aspects of information warfare. If anyone has any insight or helpful information regarding this topic please contact me at aaronludwig(a)juno.com or simply reply to this mail. The following are just a few of the questions I hope to analyze and answer: If the U.S. sustains an information-based attack, does this warrant an armed response?(i.e., what constitutes an attack?) What laws are involved in carrying out or defending against information attacks? What laws are involved in the detection of enemy information warriors? Last, but not least, I wonder whether anyone can tell me how to get a hold of the proceedings of any of the information warfare conferences. Keep in mind that I am a highly-leveraged (broke) law student. Thank you. Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: Betty(a)infowar.com Subject: Defense Science Board Task Force Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense (IW-D), will be issuing a report in the next few days. Federal Computer Week has an interesting article stating that the report called the threat of an IW attack "significant," adding that the nation's "vulnerabilities are numerous, [and] the countermeasures are extremely limited...." You can read the article at http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1111/duck.htm. We will be publishing the report as it is made available to us. ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:13:20 CST Subject: Flight Information Resource Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com ENN Info Update 11/11/96 - 20:00CST New Information Resource Assists in Tracking Domestic Flights (ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the World-Wide-Web. This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). The program will then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have been delayed. The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove useful while waiting for Grandma's flight to come in from Des Moines, or a variety of other uses. Courtesy of: EmergencyNet News Service Emergency Response & Research Institute 6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312 Chicago, IL. 60646 (773) 631-3774 - Voice (773) 631-4703 - Fax (773) 631-3467 - Modem/Emergency BBS On-Line http://www.emergency.com - Website enn(a)emergency.com - E-mail ------------------------------------------------------------ END Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 DIRECT REQUESTS to: list(a)infowar.com with one-line in the BODY, NOT in the subject line. Subscribe infowar TO JOIN GROUP Unsubscribe infowar TO LEAVE GROUP Help infowar TO RECEIVE HELP TO POST A MESSAGE: E-Mail to infowar(a)infowar.com _____________________________________________________ Infowar.Com Interpact, Inc. Winn Schwartau winn(a)infowar.com http://www.infowar.com 813-393-6600 Voice 813-393-6361 FAX Sponsor Opportunities/Comments/Help Betty G. O'Hearn Assistant to Winn Schwartau http://www.infowar.com betty(a)infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX

1 0

Inside Currents Vol. 1, No. 6
by Newsletter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

******************************************************* Inside Currents Vol 1, No. 6 November 1996 This is the electronic newsletter you requested when you joined Computer Currents Interactive at http://www.currents.net. ******************************************************* If you would like to REMOVE yourself from this newsletter mailing list, you may send an "unsubscribe" message to Computer Currents Interactive. ***To unsubscribe, address your message to listserv(a)compcurr.com. Leave the subject area in the header blank. In the body, simply type unsubscribe newsletter For security reasons you will then receive a message asking you to confirm your actions by replying with an "ok" (without quotes) in the body of your message. If this newsletter has been forwarded to you and you wish to SUBSCRIBE, you may join Computer Currents Interactive at http://www.currents.net. If you have any further questions, please send a message to insidecurrents(a)compcurr.com. ******************************************************* IN THIS INSIDE CURRENTS: 1. Our online computer forums are up and running. Get some free advice! http://www.currents.net/ 2. We've launched a new section: The Computer Advisor http://www.currents.net/cciu/advisor/advisor.html 3. If you're looking to buy computer equipment, try NetQuote. http://www.currents.net/services/netquote/netquote.html 4. BookPoint: We've made it easier for you to buy books in our online database http://www.bookpoint.com/ 5. COMDEXMeet us in Las Vegas at the biggest computer show in the country. ******************************************************* 1. Get some free advice: Our online computer forums are up and running. Weve opened up our bulletin boards to give Computer Currents Interactive users some free advice. Our online forums are fast becoming the best place to stop in with your computer questions and to share your experience and compare notes with others. Watch for advice from our computer advisorsindustry experts who will help you get the most out of your computer. http://www.currents.net/ 2. We've launched a new section: The Computer Advisor In our newly redesigned Computer Advisor section, youll find state-of-the industry news and reviews, along with simple how -to materials to help you use your computer to its best advantage. We also offer up HelpLinks to the most helpful sites on the web. http://www.currents.net/cciu/advisor/advisor.html 3. If you're looking to buy computer equipment, try NetQuote. Our easy-to-use service brings computer stores to you. You tell us what kind of equipment you want. We'll send your specifications out to stores in your area, and they'll contact you with a price quote. It's minimum-effort comparison shopping, exclusively for our members http://www.currents.net/services/netquote/netquote.html 4. BookPoint: We've made it easier for you to buy books in our online database Beginning this week, you'll find current computer-related bestseller books available online at a 10% discount. Also in BookPoint (our partnership with Staceys Professional Bookstore) you can access our growing database of professional books. All the books are available to CCI members at a discount. http://www.bookpoint.com/books/picks.html 5. COMDEXMeet us in Las Vegas at the biggest computer trade show in the country It's the biggest computer tribal gathering of the year, and we'll be at Pavilion #4, booth #P4705 just outside of the Las Vegas Convention Center. Stop by to meet our staff, tell us what you like (and dislike) about our site and what you'd like to see more of in the future. Viva Las Vegas! ******************************************************* Computer Currents Interactive http://www.currents.net *******************************************************

1 0

[CRYPTO] web-of-trust, signatures, and anonymity
by Ted Garrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ok, People... Let's say that I receive a message via a mailing list from an entity. This message is signed with a PGP public key. Being that I am interested in some of the ideas proposed by this entity, I respond to the message, but I fat-finger my mailer and it sends out the message unsigned. However, my .signature is reasonably automated and my public key id is included there. I obtain the the public key associated with the original entity from the keyservers and the signature verifies, but the key on the servers is not signed. Concurrently, I receive a message in response to a message I sent to this entity, which comes to me encrypted with my public key and signed with the private key paired off to the public key I obtained for this entity from a keyserver. Being a believer in anonymity, I feel that whatever person, machine, or thing which placed the key on the keyserver and kindly responded to my message is reasonably expected to be the owner of the private key associated with the public key I obtained. Is this a fallacy? Am I wrong to sign the public key I got from the keyserver and return said key to the address purported to be the entity of ownership? What the entity does with the signature is, in my opinion up to it. Is it unrealistic to assign the probability of two entities being able to generate signatures for the same public key as close to zero? (consider that this is a 2047 bit key) Am I opening myself to attacks? By this, I mean to ask whether or not MY key is in any way possibly compromised in the exchange described. I keep a separate and 'unpublished' keypair to be used for physically met individuals. The public key of this keypair is NEVER sent by any means other than physically. This key signs only the keys of the people I meet in person or have extensive telephone conversations with. While people who recieve the signature of this key also get a copy of it, I only distribute this key to those I trust not to disseminate it further. - --- "Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMowSJc1+l8EKBK5FAQEg2Af/agcalrlyDK+Ku+Qq7cnODOJjFIcsDAjh LLuA6KG2DeDQUiAH72uL5WgdiHQaZroAhqRsFGDic3zmc0YGDQkI4W2KTTsVFi08 ubcX9JCnOGuDWxLIwvBdCX/FxDsPyrhTeEUNjjkXp+5k+BdxzLTfbUgbnLgM/BGJ wD3Bq+evmTr86ul0SLUs3KL5h0488LhalPYTKtm9hdO9f3K01kz5W+FLUK3lXKJb YH2e2Ob2Nr/uSH6ElluSMVGtU09i+s40uloqokzAyB7NuTStSCupqUw0nHQKFIY7 Or8uwmZF6c7ivtacstViZ7/6xM0km7wmoyWsee3gxe63LH/Mqr25/A== =0HFl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

It is getting easier
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From an infowar article on the list] >(ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the >World-Wide-Web. >This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any >domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. > >Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet >browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). >The program will >then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location >on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected >time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have >been delayed. >The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which >uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove If I remember correctly, some of the newer transponders used on commercial aircraft actually transmit GPS data back to the controller in real time. I wonder how long it will be before the FAA will include such information in their database. "To obtain the position of any passenger flight in the US within 10 meters, click here." -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred

1 0

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:22 PM 11/13/96 GMT, Adam Back wrote: ... >Nym sues nym. I think not. An alternate view of slander law suits is >as a way to encourage the use of Nyms. Certainly the dissenters of >the unnamed pseudo religious have learnt the value of nyms, remailers >and so forth. There are distinct advantages to nyms. ... They learned the value all right. Right up to the time that one of the founding remailers disclosed thier return addresses to save the rest of the hard drive. There are definate advantages to TRULY anonymous remailers too. Ones where the return address is not stored. For mailing lists and newsgroups, where you are going to get conformation on your post when its relayed to you, why do you need the return address anyway? Someone inside the group uses a remailer, just post your comments to the list, that person will most likely see it there. I assume that these already exist somewhere.

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:22 ìì 14/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: > Intelligence + money + time * will = Result > Some + 0 + a bit * some = A server with 4 or 5 mailing lists. Indeed! But I tend to use them for A.I. Research, and there is little left of 'em for them mailing listes ya knaw! :-) :-) > For every "tentacle" of the Vast Media Conglomerates, there is >some loose nut with a photocopier (or access to Kinko's). Thank Goddess! :-) >> Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral >> Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, >> and many many many other things all over the world. > > WHO is nuts? The American and European public, i.e. _we_ who trust those people! :-) >> P.S. Even if you offered me a million dollars I'd stay away from >> your country. My sanity is much more valuable. :-) >> (The Immigration Authorities in the U.S. have missed the point: >> We DON'T want to come to you guys. It's the last thing we'd want!) > > One of these days reality is going to hit you like a runaway >freight train. You mean my check for $ 1.000.000 is... coming? :-) Cheers George P.S. The reasons I'd decline the check are simply the difficulties in having to (1) hide from your authorities as an 'illegal immigrant', (2) having to work for someone else as opposed to myself (as I do over here) andf (3) having to hire a psychiatrist sooner or later! All this maan, is more costly than $ 1.000.000. And... yes, I _am_ nutts! (Aren't we all? ;-) )

1 0

Re: One Big Telecoms Company
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:02 PM 11/14/96 -0800, Dave Del Torto wrote: >Um, a _better_ one, now that government monopolies are largely out of the >way, leaving significant infrastructure for them to use? There's this one >little company called MCI, see, and there's this _other_ little company >called BT, and... There are now 150 Long Distance telephone companies in the US vs 1 when I was a kid. There are now 5 or 6 broadcast and 150 cable TV networks in the US vs 3 when I was a kid. There will soon be 5 cellular and PCS companies in NYC vs 0 when I was a kid. There are now 6000 ISPs vs 0 when I was a kid. DCF

3 2

Re: "Freedom Knights" are closet censors
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What is "censoring other people's censorship?" The act of preventing censorship. You are supposed to be capable at language, why can't you figure this out. > Say I argue in favor of the CDA. Would you censor me then? Why not? > Isn't this censoring others censorship? Nope. If you sent cancel messages out on USENET for Anti-CDA people, however, then you would fall under my "censorship". If you somehow caused mail messages to be deleted in people's mailboxes, I would find a way to stop that. But you can argue all you want. Go ahead, I grant you that permission. 8-) > I wonder why the so-called "Freedom Knights" are so insecure in their > beliefs that they will not tolerate a dissenting voice on their mailing > list. (Let's forget for the moment that my point in subscribing was to > disrupt it. That's not the point, is it? "More speech, more > speech!") Sorry, that *is* the point. If you tell me you are going to disrupt the list, I am not going to let you on the list...even though you are easily ignored. Why? Consider who is on this list. Dr. Vulis. John "No One Can Handle Me" Grubor. Steve Boursy. These are people who you can *not* annoy, trust me. No, this is for your benefit much more than ours. The damage you will do to yourself is far greater than the damage you will do to our list. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Wisdom (n.) - 1. Something you can learn without knowing it.

3 2