December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Trolling with Dale (a bite)
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> Subject: Re: overview.htm (fwd) Dale Thorn hopelessly wrote: >Let's be realistic about how AIDS is acquired. Yes, Dale, let's >AIDS, OTOH, is likely to be a development from years of 1) Contact >with germs, chemicals, food additives, antibiotics other medical >treatments, sexual contact, etc. and 2) Immune-suppressing activities >such as lack of sleep and exercise, anxiety and stress, and so on. Sounds reasonable to me, especially contact with germs (Who says "germs?"), and sexual contact. Take it on the road, Dale. >It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab >with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses >go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also >(on average) drug users extraordinaire. Yes, nebulous! Extraordinaire (on average), certainly. At the risk of being offed by the moderator, I do believe that Dale is masturbating when he writes nonsense such as this. Perhaps "masterbating" as opposed to j.o. will pass muster. Dale makes an excellent case for having a moderated list right here. What do his nutball beyond-the-fringe remarks have to do with crypto, privacy, security? Cripes, in the old days even an _accurate_ off-list remark would open a blast furnace of condemnation, a la Jim B. If the list won't moderate itself to "guide" the Dale's, it DESERVES to be moderated. He's gotta be trolling to keep it hard. (Dangerous ground here!) Read "erect" for "keep it hard." I suggest even (even!) "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" would disavow this pseudo-scientific nonsense regardless of his stated feelings toward homosexuals which I do not share but, nevertheless, believe may be aired. Step up, Doc. P.S. Does tripe such as Dale's latest make the mod list?

2 1

How to subscribe
by Theodor.SCHLICKMANN＠BXL.DG13.cec.be 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have learned from the discussions in this list that there are other lists related to this one. Can anybody send me information on what is available and when this confusion created by having different lists will stop. cypherpunks : unmoderated and uncensored cypherpunks : unmoderated and censored cypherpunks : moderated and uncensored cypherpunks : moderated and censored cypherpunks : US eyes only -- export restrictions cypherpunks : Europe cypherpunks : private mail Theodor W. Schlickmann

3 2

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote in article <5c5891$ah(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > > this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? > > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. If Billy-Bob wants to shoot himself in the foot, > let him. Might be purty funny to watch. I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from calling itself a democracy. > > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > > speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. That was not all. We had a political Web site established during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people when we had fewer than 100 Web sites. I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool for confirming the present social order which is manifestly corrupt. Phill

3 2

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > 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. 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. The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. > 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. If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of property you do. Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" from the previous rulers. I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every philosopher since Locke. It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states I'm not a 'subject" of. > 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. They are allowed to connect their machinery to the Internet so long as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. They are not allowed to have a free ride, to demand a valuable connection facility on their own terms. > ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university > web site on French soil to use French. As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens as a whole. Phill

3 2

can Sun Tzu be a cypherpunks?
by nobody＠nowhere.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quotations from the Art Of War by Sun Tzu A Military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion. Use humility to make them haughty. Tire them by flight. Cause division among them. Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it. The formation and procedure used by the military should not be divulged beforehand. Comment: He seems to be advocating security through obscurity here. The one who figures on victory at headquarters before even doing battle is the one who has the most strategic factors on his side. The one who figures on inability to prevail at headquarters before doing battle is the one who has the least strategic factors on his side. The one with many strategic factors in his favor wins, the one with few strategic factors in his favor loses--how much more so for the one with no strategic factors in his favor. Observing the matter this way, I can see who will win and who will lose. The superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. The next best is to attack alliances. The next best is to attack the army. Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skilled warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable. That is why it is said that victory can be discerned but not manufactured. Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack. Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost. So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. Therefore a victorious army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army first battles and then seeks victory. Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules. Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt. Comment: Would it not be wonderful if we could prevail over the corrupt? Making the armies able to take on opponents without being defeated is a matter of unorthodox and orthodox methods. Therefore those skilled at the unorthodox are infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers. When they come to an end, they begin again, like the days and months; they die and are reborn, like the four seasons. The unorthodox and the orthodox give rise to each other, like a beginningless circle--who could exhaust them? Disorder arises from order, cowardice arises from courage, weakness arises from strength. Therefore those who skillfully move opponents make formations that the opponents are sure to follow, give what opponents are sure to take. They move opponents with the prospect of gain, waiting for them in ambush. To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense. For unfailingly secure defense, defend where there is no attack. So in the case of those who are skilled in attack, their opponents do not know where to defend. In the case of those skilled in defense, their opponents do not know where to attack. Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate. Comment: Are cypherpunks capable of this? To advance irresistibly, push through their gaps, to retreat elusively, outspeed them. Induce them to adopt specific formations, in order to know the ground of death and life. Comment: Sounds like known plaintext attack to me. Therefore the consummation of forming an army is to arrive at formlessness. When you have no form, undercover espionage cannot find out anything, intelligence cannot form a strategy. Comment: Sun Tzu seems to being saying that if your cipher is properly designed, you need not rely on security through obscurity. Victory over multitudes by means of formation is unknowable to the multitudes. Everyone knows the form by which I am victorious, but no one knows the form by which I ensure victory. Military formation is like water--the form of water is to avoid the high and go to the low, the form of a military force is to avoid the full and attack the empty; the flow of water is determined by the earth, the victory of a military force is determined by the opponent. So a military force has not constant formation, water has no constant shape;the ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according to the opponent is called genius. Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people know the conditions of the enemy. There are five kinds of spy: The local spy, the inside spy, the reverse spy, the dead spy, and the living spy. When the five kinds of spies are all active, no one knows their routes--this is called organizational genius, and is valuable to the leadership. Local spies are hired from among the people of a locality; Inside spies are hired from among enemy officials. Reverse spies are hired from enemy spies. Dead spies transmit false intelligence to enemy spies. Living spies come back to report. Question: Can cypherpunks use these methods to defeat those who would take our freedom?

3 3

Bruce "Penis With a Blister on it" Taylor strikes again...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:19:03 -0800 Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Robert Cannon <cannon(a)DC.NET> Subject: Members of Congress file CDA Amici Curiae Brief To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Approximately 22 members of Congress filed an Amici Curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLY, the constitutional challenge to the Communications Decency Act (this makes three known briefs filed so far in support of the CDA). The brief was filed on behalf of, among others, Exon, Coats, Helms, Grassley, Hyde, and Goodlatte. It was written by Bruce Taylor and Cathleen A. Cleaver. This brief can be accessed at http://www.cdt.org/ciec/SC_appeal/970121_Cong_brief.html Litigation update page: www.cais.net/cannon/cda/cda-up.htm --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ "If *you* don't go to FC97, *I* don't go to FC97"

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >Society is not bound to put up with cranks and psychopaths. Err, "Phill", how then do you see yourself fitting in?

1 0

Important information and instruction
by helpinghands＠lgcy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You obviously have the power and _certainly- the right to delete this unsolicited message. However, it _does_ contain information that will be extremely valuable to you regardless of your current employment situation so I admonish you to read it. Besides, it'll take less than one minute. NOTE: I obtained your e-mail address from a personal search of Internet ads using a variety of sources. It is not a generic purchased list, but is highly targeted. It will also be used just one time...THIS time. You need NOT send a "delete" or "remove" request nor do any other such nonsense to _not_ receive mail from me again regarding this information. If you have any interest at all in seeing how to _really_ do business on the Internet, I invite you to visit: http://www.cyber-action.com/oed/number1.html (If your e-mail program supports it, you can just double-click on the URL above and your browser will take you there.) Seeking home-based employment? Or _any_ employment? A career change? Something to assist you financially till your "boat comes in" with what you're currently doing? Well, here're some valuable job-hunting sites on the Internet: http://www.occ.com http://www.monster.com http://www.jobweb.org http://www.human.resourcecenter.com http://www.jobcenter.com If you don't already have a text-file, online resume prepared, you might want to check out... http://lgcy.com/users/h/helpinghands/strmline.htm ...for a head-start on the process. That's it. Hope this information serves you well.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >Society is not bound to put up with cranks and psychopaths. Err, "Phill", how then do you see yourself fitting in?

1 0

Re: Machine readable form (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think you're being far too subtle here. The issues have been clearly drawn in my case. The government is also now officially on record as reserving the authority to regulate the exports of even paper copies of cryptographic source code (e.g., books). They have simply chosen not to do so for now out of the goodness of their hearts. Or, more likely, because even they understand the furor this would cause, and the damage it would do to their position in court. Phil

1 0