December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Mob Combat
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The those with an interest in extraordinary descriptions of the bloody, vicious mayhem and carnage of urban warfare, The Philadelphia Inquirer has been running a series since late November describing in gory detail a disastrous battle between US Special Forces and Somalian mobs in 1993. With gunship video, maps and audio of US and Somalis participants. You won't forget it: http://www3.phillynews.com/packages/somalia/nov16/rang16.asp

1 0

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

www.borders.com: "Borders is opening new stores almost every week. If there's not one near you now, there will be soon." This is depressing. Something has to be done about "free"-market capitalism. It is as destructive as government, and built on the same lies.

4 3

words have value, for good or ill
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > >There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially > >among members whose positions are otherwise indefensible. It's > >surprising in a way because this fallacy is more common among > >statists. > > > >There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be > >illegal. We see this all the time. People think of the government > >as their way of expressing moral values. Drugs are wrong, so they > >must be made illegal. Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it > >also must be illegal. We have countless bad laws based on this false > >premise. > > > >On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, > >it must be moral. Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, > >hateful, immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was > >legal, because of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Their > >critic must be opposed to free speech if he objects to their words. I didn't write this, but I wish I had. It is exactly correct, and well-done. If I had written I would've attached a nym in an attempt to accrue some reputation capital. (The author should e-mail me so I can credit her repcap account. :-) ) Monty Cantsin wrote: > > >Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game. It > >leads to the false reasoning of the statists. We must remember that > >there is a clear distinction between morality and legality. > > This is a good thing to remember. However, what you seem to be > calling immoral is holding a belief with which you disagree. Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the cash token. :-) ) > What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should > refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world > because they are immoral. I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks discourse. The rightness of one's actions is independent from the legality of those actions. (Except, of course, that it is sometimes wise to avoid doing something illegal out of pragmatic concern for consequences.) If a cypherpunk is accused by her fellows of a wrong act, it is completely irrelevant and out of character for her to reply by stating that the act is legal. This is a such an obvious truth that I'm surprised no-one, including myself, has brought it up before Anonymous did. Regards, Zooko --- Software engineer for hire. http://www.xs4all.nl/~zooko/resume.html

1 0

Brown != Blue
by BrownList＠GOPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Giving you a BROWN reason to complain. Get busy. This BrownList is harder to find.

1 0

[Fwd: Please Read This!]
by webbiz＠MCI2000.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

P*L*E*A*S*E Do NOT Delete This Message! Hi, Just wanted to pass along some info about that I now call my "secret weapon". It's amazing! Listen to this... Myself and hundreds of others can now reach "millions of potential customers" absolutely FREE! A lot of us are creating immediate "cash flow explosions" literally overnight! And blowing our competition right out of the water! You have to check this thing out. To get some details, all you have to do is go to the web address below. Take care. I'll talk with you later. Bill Go to http://www.insider-secrets.com/home.html This is NOT wild spam! If you do not want this information and wish to be placed on a global remove list put "remove" in the subject box and mailto:hotline@insider-secrets.com

1 0

Re: Gary Burnore Caught in own Trap (Long)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > What those who are capable of looking at this with an open mind might > notice is that there is much more to this story than you and Mr. > Know-it-All Sam are telling. Excuse me while I rain on your parade and > repost some SERIOUS ANALYSIS from someone with a clue: What motive would Sam have for being part of the mythical "Spam baiting/ forgery/libel/teenager-abusing/cyber-stalking conspiracy" you've concocted? Could it be that Gary is now searching for another person to falsely accuse of doing all of these things, now that he and the first person he accused sem to have declared a de facto truce? Is Sam going to be your next victim? > > What seems to have happened here is that someone telnetted to the SMTP > > port of myriad.alias.net and forged E-mail from your address. If > > these are full headers, then this forgery did not involve remailers at > > all. The perpetrator has therefore run the risk of being traced. Which blows a huge hole in Gary's own theory that some evil "anon asshole" used a remailer to do it, thus justifying his anti-remailer witch hunt. And since you've chosen to quote that opinion, what were the results of that trace he mentioned? > Oh, my. Looks like that shoots yours and Sam's theories right straight > to hell, doesn't it? On to the next lie: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How many do you plan to tell? > In case you missed it, let me repeat: "looks like somebody sent you a > message with a Return-Receipt-To: header set to > alt.revenge(a)myriad.alias.net. To which the broken, mis-configured mail server at DataBasix autoresponded. Why would Gary have claimed he was going to fix it if it weren't broken? > >What would be the point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look > >like it came from "mmdf(a)databasix.com", anyway? > > You're the one with all the fricking "answers", why don't you tell us? You might start with asking yourself who stood to benefit from this happening. You and Gary are the ones who keep bringing it up, because it's the only "evidence" you have to support your grand conspiracy theory. Thus far, all of your alleged "evidence" has proven nothing because it's all (conveniently) had truncated path headers. > >Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly > >suspect. > > Methinks you are confusing your alleged villains. Usually Wotan gets > the blame for closing Mailmasher and Gary and I get the blame for > huge.cajones. While I have a lot of respect for Jeff Burchell (and I've > met him personally, can you say the same?), I disagree with the > allegations he made against Wotan re: the Mailmasher attack. Do try to > recall that even Jeff said he was *speculating* as to what happened with > MailMasher and the software piracy fiasco. And you've got a better explanation of what happened? Right after Billy McClatchie went on his campaign to get Mailmasher shut down, someone signs up for a Mailmasher account, puts out a fake post advertising some "warez", then dutifully turns himself into the SPA to get Mailmasher in trouble. Just a "coincidence", right? And just because you, Billy McClatchie (Wotan), and Gary Burnore are all staff members at DataBasix, and the two servers that you three attacked in sequence were both run by the same person, we're not supposed to make the conncection? As Gary himself once said "There are far too many coincidences". He was at least right about that. > And if you think Jeff closed huge.cajones because of Gary and me, you > obviously don't know the whole story. But what's new? What you don't > know, you just make up. I've read Jeff's account, and you, Gary, and Bill "Wotan" McClatchie are the only attackers he mentioned. > >First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently > >didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a > >web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer. > > I'll freely admit I don't really understand the difference between the > two. But I distinctly recall seeing dozens of messages with a from line > with *my* email address and a message ID of mailmasher.com. Like so: > > ------ > > Path: > ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!news1.mpcs.com!anon.lcs.mit…! > nym.alias.net!mail2news > Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:22:07 -0800 > Message-ID: <199702060622.WAA09539(a)mailmasher.com> > From: eridani(a)ix.netcom.com (Mailbomb^me) > Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to > <remailer-admin(a)cajones.com> > Subject: Nuke Your Local Junk Mailer! > Newsgroups: misc.entrepreneurs,biz.mlm,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace, > alt.sex.erotica.marketplace,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace > X-No-Archive: yes > Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster(a)nym.alias.net > Organization: mail2news(a)nym.alias.net > Lines: 5 > > This message is not intended for humans to read. Other than a Message-ID and a Comments line (both forgeable), what indicates this came from Mailmasher? Why was Mailmasher not in the path header? You still haven't produced a single shred of evidence that this came from Mailmasher. You haven't even shown from any of the Mailmasher help files that Mailmasher even had this capability. In someone's haste to point the blame at the remailers' ability to paste From: headers, they chose the wrong target -- since Mailmasher was not a remailer and had no header pasting capability. Mail coming from Mailmasher accounts all contained a pseudonym followed by "@mailmasher.com". Access was via a web-based interface, and there was no place to specify a From: line. > You're an idiot and a liar. Engaging in ad hominem is an obvious attempt to divert attention from your lack of evidence. > First of all, Gary stubbornly didn't start > X-No-Archiving his headers until a couple of months ago. You should > know, Mr.Whining About Not Being Able to Track Gary Through Deja News > Anymore. Actually, in the beginning it was YOU, McClatchie, and the so-called "spam baiter" that used the No-Archive header. Gary didn't use it until later when he became worried that people could actually read his old posts and see how his story changed over time. Gary has apparently gone back and even had his old posts nuked from the archives, as well. Apparently Gary "I have nothing to hide" Burnore has reconsidered that stance. If someone wanted to forge a post to embarass you, would it make sense to hide it with a No-Archive header? Why limit the readership like that? > Secondly, it's not possible to forge message IDs with a piddly > Netcruiser GUI account. Netcruiser accounts can't telnet into an SMTP server, which is your theory of how the "forgery" was done? Also, you, Gary, and Wotan have shell accounts that are quite capable of doing many of the things you claim that your mythical "spam-baiting/forging/libelling/cyber-stalking/child-molesting" mega-villain is guilty of. You also once claimed that this person had spam baited "every known email address of DataBasix staff and customers". Who but a DataBasix insider would have access to that kind of information? > Lastly, it certainly is convenient that every single spam bait > posted--thousands between 4/97 and 11/97--contained the X-No-Archive: > yes header. Makes it really easy for someone with a vendetta to say, > 'oh no, they don't exist, because we can't verify them!' Conveniently similar to the posts of Wotan and yourself. And that quote is obviously the reason that you, Gary, and Wotan also utilize that same header, right? So that you can later claim that anything you post and later regret was "forged"? > That's an insane theory cooked up by someone with a very twisted mind. As are most of Gary's theories. > How many people posting anonymously have > been inadvertently denied an audience because of one IDIOT ruining it > for everyone? When have you EVER had a decent thing to say about anonymous posters? Can you cite even one instance? Are you suddenly trying to polish up DataBasix' image? Polish that turd all you want, and it still won't smell any better! > Have we "harassed" any > other remailers since then? Hhm? Why don't you _ask them_, mouth? Jeff didn't reveal your harassment of him until AFTER he had shut down his remailer and had no further retribution to fear. And we didn't learn of your attacks on Jeff's machines until Gary made a similar taunt back in June. > <cue follow up consisting of selective snipping in order to post more > lies and distortions> Stop your pitiful whining about "selective snipping". Anyone who missed it the first time can read your epic whine-fest by following the reference headers. That's what they're there for. And if they're reading this thread via DejaNews and can't, well that was YOUR choice, not mine. My posts are archived for all to read. --

1 0

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Jay Holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:16 PM 12/3/97 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. >They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion >and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic >and social diversity. > Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. Several members of the religious right also call themselves libertarians. Sometimes what is meant is freedom from interference in the market rather than real freedom. Jay

6 8

Sabrin in NJ (Was: Re: Censorial leftists ...
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:45 AM 12/4/97 -0500, Jay Holovacs wrote: ... >Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my >wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. Mr. Sabrin also accepted political welfare (matching funds, a form of compelled speech if ever I saw one). This annoyed me, since he did it in a nationwide campaign for contributions claiming that this retreat from principle would give him a chance to win. As I recall, he got about 10% of the vote, and IMO didn't even deserve that. He was, however, another great argument for NOTA's (None Of The Above) candidacy -- as if another one were needed. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQEPAwUBNIaaKzUhsGSn1j2pAQGjHAfQ1a1MJKRyDr7gBgR1nGCcbTrVvLTdQ5NZ Ce2Z4w1XPzb/6ml8uilPZE1/4oDCmwWH5R42NW6QmPpQjeQSmqh3cCApo11AeZ+/ ZRQQxD+SO3FtrnGXr+kGD2CniY6UxXBfzTYtAjpdv5roF4jkRxJwkd9px/GyZjCg jyKMTTaZTVoTfZUbadjFhyX14OjJ7gkbxFOkZKHBZ1lYes6fpW4Yj6V0selR6CKp 3jJHmHAJUgWbdwhaU3rIHpV5+7QKYyk7dFRblS5pC0p91rec5JDNAecfXYltwNwR YLTcg0gqYLIPOQi0MlJxXYBogKMbYxXC7a7YOQS+OiUUug== =7bMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Anonymous Threads
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something that I have found irritating about the posts by non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be repudiated, or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster. I compared this to sound bites. On second thought, however, there is an easy way to solve this. If the anonymous poster accepts the context of previous messages, the discussion can continue. There's no reason why the person behind the virtual thread has to be the same, but the context itself is important if we want to have interesting discussions. So, if you don't want to sign your messages, just acknowledge the message ID of the relevant previous messages whose context you wish to use. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Anonymous Threads To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Lieberman/Clinton
by Jeff Schult 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Well, this isn't entirely true. Some of the loudest voices in >banning/regulating crypto come from the left:Senator Lieberman, >Senator Feinstein,Rep. Dellums, the Clinton Administration in >general, etc. The fear of 'bomb making information' and 'terrorist <snip> Lieberman is hardly considered "of the left" in his home state -- he squeaked out a win over former Sen. Lowell Weicker by staking out positions considered to the right of Weicker and has stayed over that way. There have been recent articles in the Connecticut media speculating that Lieberman could become a Republican. Though that won't happen, GOP leaders were effusive about how welcome the senator would be ... As to the Clinton administration, if you can pin it down from minute to minute on the political spectrum, you're a lot faster with pins than I ... Jeff Schult Marketing Director, JavaNet http://www.javanet.com Internet culture and technology writer, New Haven (CT) Advocate

1 0