December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[...] May is a slant-eyed, rice-gibbling jap in a redneck disguise. ---._.--- / | \ / * \ ( @@ ) / _/-||-\_ \ / '/ || \` \ / / () \ \ / /| |\ \ / / | | \ \ / / / o o \ \ \ / / ( ) \ \ <_ ' `--`___'`___'--' ` _> / '~~--- / = \ ---~~` \ ,,,/ / ( v ) \ \,,, \ / / @|-' '-|@ \ \ / \__/ ////// \__/ Dave Smith bends over for Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the rest of the Databasix gang. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:42 AM -0700 12/3/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob >Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors >on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: > >-- MacKinnonite antiporn laws (she's a self-identified Marxist, I recall) And her partner, Andrea Dworkin, belies the oft-quoted notion that someone so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin is so far left she's just plain _left_. She argues that porn for womyn (or is it wimmin?) is fine and dandy, because this represents lesbian sisterhood exploring their own blah blah blah, but porn aimed and directed at men, even if containing precisely the same images of naked chicks, is inherently exploitative and should be banned. (How?) Dworkin has clamined, several times, that all heterosexual sex is rape. >-- "Hate speech" bans And "hate speech" laws are already spreading on the Net. Just a day or two ago there was a report that a student is being prosecuted for "hate speech" messages mentioning Asians (or maybe just Japanese?) in a derogatory way. What part of "shall make no law" is not being understood here? What part of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" did they not understand? (This being one of the lessons, along with several other crucial memes, that some of us learned early on...apparently this lesson, and the fable of the grasshopper and the ant, has been replaced by the Dworkin-approved "Heather Has Two Mommies" lesbian propaganda.) >-- Sexual harassment "hostile environment" regulations (Give me a break. >This is the justification for at least one library censorware >installation.) This is a fairly old one, at least 15 years old. Girlie calendars, even of bikini girls, are banned in most work environments. GIFs or JPEGs with sexy themes are banned (unless, one presumes, they are "lesbigay or transgender" (!), in which case they must be encouraged by Management so as to provide a nurturing environment for lesbigays...sort of a kind of affirmative action for dykes and fags). The City of Berkeley has floated proposals to ban public reading, in diners, restaurants, etc., of magazines like "Playboy." Not because children might catch a glimpse of a naked breast, but because womyn and other sensitive souls might be offended. (I don't know if this was ever passed into law, let alone challenged in court.) >-- Various FCC regulations aside from indecent stuff Like mandatory voluntary ratings. Like mandatory voluntary "public service announcements." Like denials of licenses for politically incorrect stations. >-- Labeling/compelled speech requirements (Jamie, are you out there?) > Labelled speech will be the touchstone for the next couple of decades of debate about censorship, hurtful speech, and mandatory voluntary self-ratings. "But you can say anything you wish, provided you voluntarily and accurately self-label your words, and provided none of the protected class members are offended or insulted." >>bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >>speech when it appears to be a threat. > >Well, at least the libertarians in the audience are consistently opposed to >government censorship. Such has it always been, such will it always be. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 3

RSA
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[retin] May studied yoga back-streching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). (((> /< ( / ((({{{{{:< Tim C[retin] May \ \<

2 1

anon remailer
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This guy has the IQ of a turnip... relevant to anon remailers & society thread... Tuesday December 2 12:07 PM EST Hate e-mail case to be retried SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance, federal prosecutors will retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to Asian students at UC Irvine. Prosecutors announced their decision while opposing a bail request for Richard Machado of Los Angeles, the first person in the United States to be tried on charges of committing a hate crime over the Internet. His first trial on those charges ended with a deadlocked jury in November. Jurors voted 9 to 3 to acquit the former UC Irvine student. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Genaco told Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler that it is important that the case be resolved because other similar cases are certain to occur. Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was first charged. Machado's retrial is scheduled to begin Jan. 27. _- David Honig honig(a)alum.mit.edu --------------------------------------------------- If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. -TJ

2 3

Re: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From:
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> wrote: > > So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their > >delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time > > >and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are > > >trying to offend them? > > > > Well TruthMonger (if that is your real name,) I think you are missing the > > point. For purposes of the discussion, no one cares about the content of > > the messages, who or why they are being sent, nor is anyone bothered by > > anything concerning the message itself. What's being discussed is scarce > > resources of remailer operators. > > I was responding to Bill and Lance's comments in regard to forgery > victims being set up as targets of retribution. I think references to > "deplorable content" indicate some measure of judgement in regard to > defining what is considered 'abuse' of a remailer. You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for material posted. > However, you are right about the thread basically dealing with the > reprecussions to the remailer operators and their resources as an end > result of the particular modes of remailer use. At the risk of actually > being on-topic in a thread, I should point out that I have always been > of the opinion that it is up to the individual remailer operators to > judge what level and types of use they are able to provide as a service > with their given time and resources. Agreed. My main concern is that those policies should be explicitly disclosed in advance. If certain keywords are forbidden in the Subject: line or body of a message, or if it is forbidden to post to certain NGs or to cross-post to certain combinations of NGs, those restrictions should be explained in the remailer's help file. I don't know whether remailers are currently engaging in content-based filtering or not (none are currently flying the "filter" flag in Raph's remailer list), but there seems to be a strong suspicion among certain posters to the alt.privacy.anon-server NG (probably from newbies) that this is indeed occuring. The usual scenario is that the person tries to make a bunch of posts, none of them show up, and it is assumed that they were blocked by the remailer operator based on their content. My guess is that in most cases the person screwed something up, like sending a message to a mail2news gateway with a malformed or missing Newsgroups: line, but it's rather rare that the poster is reassured by someone in a position to know what might have happened. It would be great if these people were told "we have no restrictions on content other than the length of the message" or at least, "it has become necessary to block certain types of posts, but those cases are spelled out in our help file". > > Most remailers are operated with donated time and resources. Problems with > > the remailer, especially artificially generated ones, are just simply not > > desired. > > True, but I doubt that the artificially generated attacks on a > remailer are possible to fully deter, no matter what convolutions > one puts themselves through in order to stop it. It's important that such attacks not succeed, lest they encourage even more such attacks. They succeed, or course, when they convince the remailer operator to do what the attacker wishes done. Often what is required is a bit of creative damage control. For example, when an attacker starts making posts with pasted From: headers in an attempt to get remailer operators to disable this feature, offering him source blocking instead. - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVb4gbp0h8ZvosNAQH2Ywf9H6HrrV/QA1TxdLo5OzA/RKKxmfnonuLI Kjd38SnXXw9WtVsTwbvGGdt7HiQ4BP93JWMSDseM0Rg61Rvsa5sBp017V3xeHqzF mr8wE70VkXGa/P0Dmk8ToP0R0wIQoFasyrK8QeBXNZpII0VZo0qlsz1SctwIhmpZ NQ44yBDRramc3zOy2OFzKoxM4iBz3TBLuZodqeiFFWbJtwmvK9PxxmZ3wYgxjDGA JnqHriOMwG74qUBYmmyrrR877HIL6WJreQR+m0PAiuzSvKSyJngT44ejcS1e33zf XMipKUZAAyVqmtfkRLsgBd3aVDS/zwBQWWgDMnLNo/Fzo70vhs33BQ== =OCx/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

[Fwd: [cpj:279] Re: PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT] [cpj:279] Re: PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 1

Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[For details on some of the proposals presented, read the full article. --Declan] ============ http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1608,00.html The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/) December 2, 1997 Censorware Summit 2.0 by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) If there's one political controversy that promises never to die, it's sex and the Net. There seems to be something about the combination of children and cyberporn that makes otherwise levelheaded adults more than a little worried -- and even a little irrational. Enter the politicans, always happy to pacify parents with soothing rhetoric. Vice President Al Gore is scheduled to speak this morning at a two-day summit dedicated to protecting kids online. Of course, the Communications Decency Act's backers had claimed that that particularly nasty law (which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional) did just that. They were joined by the White House, which two years ago said "the President firmly supports the Communications Decency Act" to "regulate the exposure of children to computer pornography." This time, however, the White House would like to avoid the same embarrassing mistakes -- and, perhaps more importantly, would like to avoid pissing off high tech firms that could be hefty campaign contributors to Al Gore 2000. Instead of endorsing new federal legislation, the Clinton administration says it'll oppose it as long as industry regulates itself. And, of course, if firms play ball, their CEOs get to share the limelight with the veep [...]

5 5

Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will >never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has >highlighted the tensions between the different types of >Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh) routine is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem acceptable. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles.

3 3

Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mix <mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> wrote: > >:gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > > [clipped only the equine manure parts of Mr. Burnore's article ] > > Hmmmm. Nothing left. > > Isn't it amazing how the Anti-Privacy Mr. > Burnore thinks there is only ONE anonymous person posting to correct his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > outrageous lies and massive disinformation? Uh, oh! Head for the hills! Our secret is out! We have all of these remailers and they only have ONE USER. <g> > Isn't it amazing how Dumbo Mr. > Burnore calls 'an asshole' all those who choose to post a dissenting opinion > anonymously? Isn't it amazing how Anti-Free Speech Mr. > Burnore demands to know all anonymous identities yet himself hides the > addresses of where he lives and works? Most control freaks like Gary Burnore and the rest of the DataBasix Gang are hypocritical about privacy. They want to invade that of others at will while protecting their own. Gary Burnore and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)netcom.com> were worried that their UNLISTED PHONE NUMBERS might be given out, but anyone who dares criticize their actions with an "unlisted" e-mail address is an "anon asshole". OK, let's make Gary happy. If he's so worried that my asshole is "anonymous", I guess I'd better give it a name -- "Burnore" sounds about right to me. So to all control freaks -- "stick it in your Burnore". I'm still wondering what wondrous plans Gary and Belinda had for all those e-mail addresses of the users of the Huge Cajones Remailer if Jeff Burchell had turned them over to DataBasux as they had demanded. (Not just the senders but the RECIPIENTS as well!) Fortunately, Jeff was smarter than your average Burnore and didn't keep such things around to tempt DataBasix, Scientology, etc., so we'll never find out.

1 0

"MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT"
by wildcard＠bittsnwhitts.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><HTML><PRE> "THE PLASTIC MONEY" QUESTION: How would you and your Family like to have a Visa "Cash" Card that has; No Credit Check - No Qualifying - No Interest - and NO PAYMENTS! is accepeted around the world and best of all, IT EARNS YOU MONEY! just for "Telling" NOT "Selling" others about it! <A HREF="http://www.bittsnwhitts.com/wildcard/345/index.htm"> http://www.bittsnwhitts.com/wildcard/345/index.htm</A> While at the site, be sure to click on Print Application for more information. Plus Call: 1-800-995-0796 ext 1288 and just listen,.... ask them about the NEW Executive Starter Kit that makes an already great program even better!!! Like what you hear ........Tell 'em ID# 345 sent you, .... then tell your Friends! Thank You =========================================================== To remove your address from our mailing list, you must reply to: remove(a)bittsnwhitts.com and write remove in the subject ===========================================================. </PRE></HTML> </PRE></HTML>

1 0