December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:30 AM 1/26/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: >> The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the >> vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as >> someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not >> be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes >> out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come >> from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. >> >> It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens >> of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or >> "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of >> us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those >> who would take it away". > >However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should >not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians >in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. "I have a solution to that problem." Seriously! Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see any recognition of this fact. For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps. Simple. Economical. And, dare I say it, fair. I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war, and they didn't even get rid of Saddam. I'm sure AP would have done the task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes. Much of that money would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.) There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused among the people. Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected, except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded. Reminds me of the punchline to that joke. "He sent two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want?!?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program
by bernard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Newsgroups: comp.security.misc > > * DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program > > * at; http://www.xs4all.nl/~bernard > > Bernard, thanks for an interesting post. I am Cc-ing your message to > > Cypherpunks mailing list which is ostensibly dedicated to discussions > > of cryptography. > > > > As follows from info on your home page, you do use simple XOR to > > encrypt your data. It was not clear to me though, how do you generate > > the keys to encrypt the data. I am sure that many readers of cypherpunks > > mailing list will be interested, so please send a copy of your reply > > to cypherpunks(a)toad.com. You can enter a short key or import one with command [Get Key]. This is, you point any file, and the key will become the 30000 first characters of this file. You can get this file any where on your machine, the network, the internet, foppy,,,,, If you add (paste or type) or delete characters at the begining of the imported key, the reste will shift right, and this imported key become a new key. You can't remember a key of 30000 chr (so you have to store it) but you can remenber the the change you made (10 to 100 or more chr) and of course, don't store it. Thank you for your interest. DPT dos / DPT16 / DPT32 http://www.xs4all.nl/~bernard

1 0

Re: David Kahn advocates GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:03 AM 1/27/97 GMT, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: >On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:32:56 GMT, John Savard <seward(a)netcom.ca> wrote: > >>This is surprising, given that (in Kahn on Codes) Mr. Kahn expressed >>forceful opinions > >>- against certain aspects of export controls, > >>- questioning the value of the NSA's mission, in contrast to social >>demands on government revenues. > >I didn't find his opinions forceful in Codebreakers, 2nd. ed. > >Questioning the NSA's purpose vs. advoctating GAK are not incompatible. > >>However, while I oppose making key escrow mandatory in general, and >>share the general suspicion of a voluntary Clipper, if Mr. Kahn's >>support for Clipper is limited to cellular telephones, then I have no >>quarrel with such a position. > >>Encryption is illegal, without special permission, for use over the >>airwaves, particularly where mobile radio is involved. This is a >>long-standing restriction, and not unreasonable. Private communication >>between people at home is one thing, but allowing criminals to closely >>coordinate their activities on the move is another. It's odd that I can't seem to find the original message here. Contrary to the original claim, encryption over radio is generally legal. (One noted exception to this is ham radio...) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes: > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > any recognition of this fact. I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study. Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? > For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution > to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in > the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any > leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public > that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps. Simple. Economical. > And, dare I say it, fair. I have much respect for Saddam Hussein. I understand he's more admired by Iraqi people than, say, the kkklintons are by American people. Saddam even commands the respect of his Iranian enemies. > I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war, > and they didn't even get rid of Saddam. I'm sure AP would have done the > task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would > have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes. Much of that money > would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.) I doubt that they would collect much among the Iraqis: both because Saddam is pretty popular, and because they don't have much cash, thanks to the sanctions. I doubt they'd collect billions or even millions in the Western countries. These were involuntary taxes. Do people really hate Saddam so much as to bet that he'll live and hope to lose their bets to an assassin? I doubt it. And you can't do the standard fundraising trick of collecting some funds, then using them to run media ads soliciting more funds. I suppose Kiwaiti and Saudi sheikhs might bet a few million. (I hate these guys - I'd like to bet on the continuing existence of a basket of sheikhs :-) > There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused > among the people. Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected, > except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded. > > Reminds me of the punchline to that joke. > > "He sent two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want?!?" Was it really Bush's goal to topple Saddam's government and bring in a U.S.-friendly one that would need billions of dollars of aid? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com writes: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, > > 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that > > they've just left things as is. > > > Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold > > the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will > > hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between). > > In case of 2, they are probably not worthy of your help. I wholeheartedly agree. By now everyone's painfully aware that there are 3 mailing lists. It's not my responsibily (or Dale's) to encourage cypherpunks subscribers to do what I think is best for them - resubscribe to cypherpunks-unedited. Folks who choose to let Sandy choose what they read and don't read should be free to do that. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

(Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thought this might interest you guys. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:00:14 -0800 (PST) From: Audrie Krause <akrause(a)igc.apc.org> Subject: Just Say No to Telcom "Reform" To: iaj-futuremedia(a)igc.apc.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ACTION ALERT Please re-post where appropriate * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear Friends, On February 8, the first anniversary of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, NetAction and the Center for Educational Priorities are launching a month-long Internet demonstration to call attention to the wide gap between the rhetoric and reality of this sweeping legislation. President Clinton and Congress promised the American people that enactment of the Telecommunications Reform Act would lead to a cornucopia of technological innovations that would change the nation's cultural frontiers, expand our choices, dazzle our eyes, and inform our minds. Instead, we've been censored in cyberspace, subjected to TV ratings systems, and prevented from experiencing the benefits of a truly competitive marketplace by the emergence of "cartels" created by mega-mergers in the telecommunications and media industries. This is not reform! And it's not too late to demand that our decision makers deliver on what they promised us on February 8, 1996: MORE competition, MORE consumer choices, MORE widespread access to information technology. The Center for Educational Priorities and NetAction are spearheading this demonstration in an effort to pressure the Federal Communications Commission and other state and national regulatory agencies to ensure that the Act is implemented in a way that truly benefits the public. We invite you to join this effort by linking to the site at <http://www.cep.org/protest.html> for one month beginning on February 8. By linking to the protest site, you will be adding your voice to a united demand for true telecommunications reform. The site is currently under development. When completed, it will feature brief summaries of the impact the Act has had in its first year on telecommunications and technology policy, media ownership and content, and censorship, along with suggested actions to help ensure that implementation of the Act truly benefits the public. We are also creating extensive links to other organizations working on these issues, as well as to other sites with current information on censorship, mega-mergers, universal service, school hook-ups, and the v-chip. We welcome suggestions for additional links to add. Please let us know if you will participate in the demonstration by contacting NetAction, by email at akrause(a)igc.org, or by phone at 415-775-8674. Thanks! =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

RE: overview.htm (fwd)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only > cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY OBJECT TO. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> > > > > Nonsense - the net doesn't "belong" to "Singapore or China" - > > The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of > 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. > I have the right to do whatever I want to anything that comes through my part > of the net, including censoring or editing any mail that comes through it, so > that it reflects a point of view consistent with mine, since I am the one > paying for it. > The net is a bunch of computers, > running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and > EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility > support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody > else is along for the ride. > Those who pay the money, like myself and others who have bought the right > to control the net, are justified in acting without outside interference > on anything that passes through our part of the net. > If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on > the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. > The net belongs to those with the money to control it, and people who do > not have money have no rights on the net. > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > understand what is going on. > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > anything that passes through his part of the net. > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com Jim, Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over the part of the net that I have paid for. I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose they choose. As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was set up to espouse. Toto

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > "I have a solution to that problem." > > Seriously! > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > any recognition of this fact. > Jim, why don't you stop bullshitting and write a real assassination bot. [as a beta, it can be a mailbombing bot] This bot would: 1) Accept bets as combinations of a) Some amount of cybercash b) A string that identifies an event that should happen such as "domain X is mailbombed" c) [optional] date of that event (no date means that you always lose) d) Return address (possibly a nym address) to send all cash from UNSUCCESSSFUL bets for the event in question. e) [optional] time limit after which the cash will be refunded. Note that for simplicity, the bot should identify the event as a unique string, without any understanding of any semantics of that string. 2) Store these bets in a database. 3) Have a trusted party (someone really honest, like myself) report to the bot the signed strings that, in the opinion of the trusted party, are "true". 4) Upon receipt of such event notifications, the bot will find all bets and forward them to the better whose date prediction was the closest. If several betters predicted the same date, the money is split between them in proportion to the amount of moneys submitted. Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III, cjames(a)cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year). I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot. Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be a nym. The fact of mailbombing would become apparent when CEC-SERVICES's MX DNS record is pulled off. The trusted party will send a phrase (standardized) "domain cec-services.com disabled" to the bot. The bot sends my money to the mailbomber through his nym address. I estimate that this bot would take about 2000 lines of perl. You may need to use some real database, like postgres or sybase. Use a nym for it. It will take a while for this bot to develop a reputation (remember, there is real money involved!). - Igor.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The only `culture' Timothy `C' May possesses is that cultivated from his foreskin scrapings. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Timothy `C' May o...(\ |||||| ||

1 0