December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Espial
by bneiman＠navix.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I noticed your newsgroup posting, and thought you might be interested in a great business opportunity. Reply to this e-mail with your name and address info and I will sent you information. Or visit by web site: www.espial4u.com. Thanks.

1 0

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
by Sentient Demon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hOW DO i GET OFF THIS LIST?!!!!!!!!!!

2 1

Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment
by Paul Wren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:32 PM 1/8/97 -0800, Rich Graves wrote: > >In practice, a system such as Chudov's STUMP reduces the latency and >moderator effort considerably, as responsible posters get put onto the >white list for auto-approval (to be degraded to hand-moderation if they >lose it). For list regulars, it's as if the list were unmoderated. > "All animals are equal; some are more equal than others"

1 0

Is this true?
by remove＠opportunity1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My information tells me you are someone looking for an opportunity to make extra money. What if you could market with the best bulk email product available and at the same time make $100 every time you refer someone else to buy it? This bulk email program can personally address your letters which alone can greatly increase your response rate. It also can download addresses from 18 different sources. Users of Floodgate and Pegasus are rushing to get their hands on this product. It's so easy to use that I found myself stripping addresses and doing my first mailings within hours after registering it. As Entrepreneurs we understand the key to success is recognizing where the market is. The Internet is full of people promoting products and services. Now you can offer them the tool they need the most. For more information email me at cybergy(a)mindspring.com If you would like to be removed from any future mailings simply send email to remove(a)opportunity1.com. Thank you, Walter Cantrell

1 0

Re: Moderation and the Polymorphic Virus
by serw30＠laf.cioe.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > serw30(a)laf.cioe.com writes: > > Yes, lets create polymorphic viruses and CPU cycle stealing Java > > applets. Maybe even a new and improved Internet worm... > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes: > "Cypher punks" can't write any code - be it mail filters, viruses, or crypto. > Aw, surely "Cypher punks" can write some sort of code. Batch files, Macros for Word, programs for Logo or Turtle graphics, tell me it isn't so! Eric

3 3

ok, htf do I get off this list?
by Si Dawson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, I've now sent THREE requests to majordomo to get off this list.. I got a reply back 4 hours ago saying I was off, and the next two said I wasn't a member of the list. Interesting list (minus the spamcrap obviously) and I think the moderation will be a good thing, BUT the 20 emails I've received in the last 4 hours (since I 'officially' unsubbed) is (to say the least) far more than I (or any reasonable mortal) can deal with. How do I unsubscribe? No, more importantly, how do I stop all these damn emails turning up? Thanks in Advance Simon As I think, talk, and act.. so I shall become..

1 0

Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:37 AM 1/7/97 -0800, Pierre Uszynski wrote: >Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)disposable.com> very correctly mentions: > >> 1) Moderator liability and anonymous posting. > >I agree that this is actually a critical problem with a filtering >moderation scheme. Such a scheme appears to provide the capability to >filter out possible "copyright violations" posts. From what I remember >of the Netcom/CoS case (without going back to the sources), that may >mean more liability for the reviewers (and the operator of the >machine). That's a major point against simple filtering moderation. I agree that this raises the spectre of liability for messages passed on, but I'm not sure it's a big problem. I see three broad categories of information which the moderation liability scheme may suppress: 1. Copyrighted items such as newspaper/magazine articles 2. Secrets which are being revealed (e.g., the alleged RC4 source, the Mykotronix trash stuff) 3. Defamation As to the loss of (1), I'm not heartbroken - much of this information is already placed online by its owners, and can be referred to with a hypertext link or a reference instead of being posted in its entirety. Also, some people (who I don't feel like singling out) currently provide access to third-party copyrighted information, but in a discreet manner. The "copyright violations" poster(s) could provide access in this way, unless they're committed to making John Gilmore and the remailer operators take the heat for someone else's actions. The loss of (2) is regrettable; but Usenet (and other unmoderated forums) are still available for hit-and-run disclosure of secrets. Also, it's unclear to what extent (2) will be lost. Given the recent California and Federal statutory changes strengthening trade secret protection, I think it's useful to be careful - but it's arguable that neither the alleged RC4 code nor the Mykotronix trash stuff would have been a trade secret violation. Also, let's weigh the value of what'd be lost (how many of these messages do we really get?) against the negative value of the crap we're currently subjected to, and the (speculative) value of posts we don't get because their authors have left the list because of disgust and annoyance. I'm not going to lose much sleep over (3). I can't call to mind a single instance of interesting or useful defamation that I've seen on the Net. >ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) responded: > >> [in another forum] >> After long thinking, moderator board has come with the following >> solution: >> >> 1) We do not know for sure if a certain post violates >> some copyrights or not >> [and more in the same line 2,3,4,5] > >Would any of this have mattered in Netcom/CoS? My hunch is that liability for infringement will focus on defendants' actions after they knew or had reason to know that a particular act of copying or distribution was a violation of the copyright owners' rights. Copying data from one place to another is the essence of the net; holding owners of machines (or moderators) responsible for violations they couldn't have stopped is nonsensical. I predict (but cannot cite cases so holding) that moderators/listowners will be held liable for copyright violations they could have detected and stopped with the exercise of some level of care; but that they will not be held liable where no reasonable amount of effort on their part could have prevented the copyright violation. And I think "reasonable" will depend on the facts at hand. (All of the contributory infringement cases I'm familiar with have involved a defendant who was aware of, if not actively assisting with, the underlying infringement.) >Instead, a system that would forward reviewers' opinions *after the >fact* does not have any of this problem. And we have already mentioned, >it is also more powerful (real time initial feed, easy multiple >feedback feeds, fully compatible with anything else...) although it >does not reduce bandwidth requirements. Can you name a software package which runs under Windows or the Mac OS which automatically processes reviewers' opinions against a mailbox of incoming mail? Better yet, can you name a Eudora plug-in which does so? Abandoning an imperfect but workable solution because it's possible to imagine that someone will create something better someday strikes me as silly. Comparing theoretical software/strategies with currently implemented software/strategies is comparing apples and oranges. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.

7 6

Re: About ICF(International Cryptography Framework)
by Pass me another! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: > > Here are two docs on ICF which might be helpful: > > http://jya.com/halicf.htm (Hal Finney's critique posted to c'punks) > > http://jya.com/declan.htm (news reports) > > John Thanks a ton...I appreciate it...I checked them out. They say that this tech may not be available for some time...however, I feel that may not be necessarily true...tech is coming and going much faster these days and according to Ray Bamford's stance at HP, he seems to think that this may soon(within the next year) become a viable reality. Can I ask what your stance and views are on this issue? And any ideas as to what we as a community can do about this NAZI-istic progression of freedoms?? -spanky

1 0

About ICF(International Cryptography Framework)
by Starr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone heard anything or been paying attention to the development of the ICF(International Cryptography Framework) standard. This seems to be an attempt of the US Gov and a FEW of our favorite corps to completely control cryptography standards as well as to have the keys to all cryptographical content. The only information I've found so far is on HP's website http://www.dmo.hp.com/gsy/security/icf/main.html I've also managed to get a hold of Ray Bamford (ray_bamford(a)hp.com)at HP who seems to have some PR role in this wool over the eyes attempt. It seems to be just another (souped-up, in disguise attempt at the clipper chip except on an International basis). When I spoke to him he told me that the only information that has been issued is what you seen in the technical paper, and that the info they have is extremely exclusive, even if you are a legitimate company working on cryptography issues, etc. Check it out...I would definitely like to hear your opinions as well as if any of you have more information on this subject(newsgroups, mail lists, etc). -spanky

2 2

IBM Key Recovery Propaganda on United Airlines
by dimple＠pacific.net.sg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The commercials between the movie and news show on the airline include an IBM spot on their new Key Recovery software. Sigh. The explanations they gave were mixed; one person was talking about making sure that if you lose the key that people with a legitimate need to access the material can do it. The other example they gave, with pictures, was along the lines of "Suppose you're going on vacation and you want to leave a key with a neighbor to feed the dog. A safe way to do it would be to put your house key in a lockbox that needs several keys to open it, and give those keys to people you trust." Yeah, right - cops can get in, but Dog's gonna get pretty hungry.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0