December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Copyrights and Wrongs, from The Netly News
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:28 AM 11/20/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >********* >http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1588,00.html >The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/) >November 20, 1997 >Copyrights and Wrongs >By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > While you're cooling your heels in Club Fed, you'll >have plenty of time to consider your misdeeds -- which in >this case could have been making just three copies of Adobe >Photoshop (cost: $389). The legislation covers anyone who >copies compact discs, videocasettes or computer software >worth at least $1,000. The No Electronic Theft Act, which >President Clinton is expected to sign later this month, >will be the first law in the history of the U.S. to >imprison copiers looking to save (not make) a few bucks. It is interesting that while almost the entire body of copyright law deals with materials other then what is to be covered, the industry has enough clout to get their's singled out for the first criminal penalties for violation. This leaves the bulk of copyrighted material, printed material, photographs and the like open to being stolen as does nizkor for example. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

3 2

The Great Awakening - Final Post (hopefully)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate wrote: >Then you should go back and read them some more. In fact, if you still have >the originals they include in the header the URL where I got the data from. >Take the 10 minutes and go over and take a look at them. All three were >related to religous revivalism in one form or another. The 1st (which >itself some consider to be the second occurance of a previous movement >as indicated in the title) did not occur in the 1800's which was the >original precis that somebody threw out Bob Hettinga said it was in the 1800's. You said you thought it started in the 1500's, going no later than the early 1700's. Bob retorted that he thought you were confusing the Renaissance with the Great Awakening. I chimed in by quoting Norton's Anthology which stated that the period was in the early 18th century. Take 10 minutes to "check the archives." >I did some looking around as well and other then Norton, yourself, and >whoever it was that made the original claim all references I can find to >the Great Awakening refer to the 1700-1750 event(s) as the first one to >occur in the America's. If I can find my Norton Anthology I'll take a >look at it, though it is 15+ years old. If you look back at my post, you will see that this is what I (and Norton) were claiming. The early eighteenth century = the early 1700's! Read my first post which included the quote from Norton's Anthology. In other words, we both agree that the Great Awakening ended by the middle of the eighteenth century (a.k.a., 1700's), not the middle of the nineteenth century (a.k.a., 1800's) as Bob was claiming. >> >Subject: 1st Great Awakening >> [...] >> > X-within-URL: http://www.fourthturning.com/html/great_awakening.html > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > The Great Awakening (Second Turning, 1727-1746) began as a spiritual > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Second Turning" has to due with the cyclical theory that the authors of the web page you cited have written about. The fact is that they refer to that time period (early 1700's/18th c.) as the Great Awakening, not the Second Great Awakening. If you read the other pages at the site *more carefully* you will see that they were stuffing the Great Awakening into their theory under the category named the Second Turning (out of four, thus the site's name: fourthturning.com) Notice your Subject: line says 1st Great Awakening, but that you're using the parenthetically referenced Second Turning as a justification to contradict what I (and you) have been saying all along. What's going on here? How can we have any meaningful discussion on this list when we don't pay any attention to what we are writing or what others wrote? Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNHTymeFWwZe05jcJAQGyswf+PhJIbFZlR7om8rWF6dogcsJf25bz9mHo OHj5k0j7RuEzx0s2j17Ico2ZckWOAdVhwg1fv9AWo4om1lUmysxpqTUHineJk3M2 A2Mw+Y9ogMps1V9nrrVsGmDswKulmBMA222XT8v6Si0X3r4D19qgSRqgH4rs8qs2 as51/AqxEeayx+Yphskys0HsU8ZjY/4w76dZP/TbakwWT+R5V4Yx3yQkcnsxh+iR Rk0D0q13SIk0xnc2+Ao3jkD0Og+t/QXFNLAjhXmlNHhvGvC8dcDHZuA7Lf3SAPcw Yp5qCyrTGBH1Gi0OEABHapg18Yo5WlwHx0nStKN3nl1z2vPJQdEbLQ== =GaMe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^^^^ Dig that!

1 0

My last comment on Great Awakening...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been claimed that the original claim by Bob and anonymous was that the first Great Awakening ended by the late 18'th century. This is a complete fabrication. The original claim put forth clearly references dates in the 1800's as the date of the first instance, clearly 50-100 years in error from the original Great Awakening that occurred between 1700-1750. In my original posting I (thought) made it clear that I didn't quite know when the original event occurred but was certain it ended prior to the late 1700's which would clearly pre-date the original claim. I subsequently took the time to provide references for those citation and clearly indicated where my memory was in error, and even took the time to explain my confusion regarding the 'Beacon on the Hill' movement. In responce Bob and apparently anonymous made it clear that they saw no reason to do 'homework' irrespective of the impact of historical accuracy on their claims. Make up your own mind on the validity of the claims. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Boys, 13, charged with E-mail threat to Hillary
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sunday, November 23, 1997 - 20:40:28 MET >From the Orange County Register: Two 13-year-old boys are charged with sending a threatening e-mail message over the Internet to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Contents of the electronic mail message to the first lady haven't been released, but U.S. Secret Service agents are expected to outline themn during a hearing Monday in Juvenile Court in Cordova, Tenn. The youngsters, charged with threatening and harassing Mrs. Clinton, could face a fine, counseling, community service or detention.

1 0

Russ Alberry/CAUCE vs. the Cypherpunks (was: Re: RESULT: comp.org.cauc
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mindspring.com> <slrn676p9b.728.ichudov(a)manifold.algebra.com> <m3hg981owi.fsf@w Russ Allbery <rra(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > * I am specifically pissed at Igor about trolling for votes on random ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > newsgroups and on Cypherpunks. I am not pissed at him for disliking ^^^^^^^^^^^ > the moderation policy; he's entirely entitled to dislike the moderation > policy and vote accordingly. > > * If he keeps trolling for votes on Cypherpunks to defeat random ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > moderated group proposals he doesn't happen to like for one reason or > another, I'll keep doing what I can to counter his propaganda campaigns > (and judging from this result, I think it's fairly obvious that he'll > continue losing and may in fact help a few groups *pass* that wouldn't > have otherwise just by being as annoying as he was this time). In what sense are you using the word "trolling"? Are you saying that the mention of a proposal to ban anonymity is considered "trolling" when posted amongst a group of pro-privacy, pro-anonymity individuals such as the Cypherpunks? Or are you objecting, in general, to the mention of a proposal to ANY group that's not likely to favor it? Why should a proposal to require the disclosure of a poster's e-mail address (and its contribution to the address harvesters) as a pre-requisite to express an opinion not itself be fully disclosed and discussed? Were you counting on slipping that rule through unnoticed? Why is publicly disagreeing with you considered a "propaganda campaign"? Why should the C.A.U.C.E. brand of propaganda be the only variety allowed? When I first heard of the C.A.U.C.E., my initial thought was that it was a good idea. Finally a means to fight back against the spammers. Now I'm starting to wonder what sort of agenda is driving some of these illogical anti-privacy requirements. As bad as spam and UCE has become, one does have to make sure that each proposed cure isn't worse than the disease itself. For example, you *COULD* remedy the problem of criminals carrying concealed weapons by requiring everyone to walk the streets naked... --

1 0

Belinda Bryan's Defense of Gary "Sadaam" Burnore (was: Re: Keman the K
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

eridani+spam(a)netcom.com (Belinda Bryan) wrote: ^^^^^ > X-No-Archive: yes Clever. You and Gary demand "proof" of what you've said in the past, then you attempt to conceal the very evidence you're demanding like this. It figures. Nothing like this, coupled with repeated false claims of "forgery", to give your posts a little "plausible deniability", is there? > Organization: Boycott E-Scrub Technologies. The owner is an admitted spambaiter. Your obsessive disinformation campaign continues, I see... [...] > >>On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:54:33 GMT, eguy(a)mindspring.com (Eric Guy) wrote: > >>The account is closed. Find something ELSE to be obsessed about. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >Take your own fucking advice. Get off Ron Guilmette's back. > > You posted his ten year old tax lien. > > Public information. Just like all those "public" email addresses rfg ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > posted of users of ISPS who didn't meet his standards. Tit for tat. Well, if posting public information is OK, then why the hate campaign against Ron Guilmette and his business for (allegedly) doing like you and Gary did? Actually, either you're lying now about the reason that Gary posted the info back in February, or Gary was lying back then when he said: "What say each time you slam DataBasix for no reason, we post some publicly available information about monkeys.com. HEre's the first try" and "More where this came from. Yu wanna keep slamming DataBasix for no good reason?". [1] That sounds like an attempt at censorship through intimidation to me. After you pull stunts like that is it any wonder that people post their opinions anonymously? The more you attack anonymous remailers and their users, the more people will see the benefit of utilizing them. > Life's a bitch that way, ain't it? ^^^^^ No, LIFE isn't, but, OTOH ... > > You mail bombed him and tried syn flooding without success. > > THAT'S A VICIOUS LIE. POST THE GODDAMN PROOF OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. Now I'm beginning to see why you weren't able to convince Jeff Burchell that you were a "lawyer" for DataBasix when you tried the Scientology-esque stunt of demanding that he turn all of his (non-existent) user logs over to DataBasix to use in their witch hunt against the users of his remailer. [2] Going on a tantrum like that in a courtroom would get you jailed for contempt of court. I see you haven't changed your typical DataBasix tactics of demanding proof from others, but never bothering to offer any for your own accusations. Like the accusations that Ron Guilmette "spam baited" addresses at databasix.com. (The only thing you've posted that even looked like evidence was some idle talk about netcom.com addresses.) Or how about that claim that Mr. Guilmette supposedly "abused" an unnamed "teenage girl" at DataBasix? > > These days you looking for more blood. Find someone else to be obsessed > > about. Asshole. > > Jesus, cretins like you give *responsible* people posting anonymously a > bad name. As do those such as the delta sub-moron who forged my > former [1] email address in the Reply to: line of an obscene Usenet > post. As far as giving anonymous posters a bad name, since when have you EVER had anything decent or civil to say about those who don't believe that setting one's self up for abuse should be the price of free speech? Calling anonymous posters "anon assholes" only betrays your pernicious bigotry and hatred of those who dare to speak their minds without subjecting themselves to the revenge that seems to (coincidentally?) befall those who dare to criticize the almighty Sadaam Burnore. As far as "delta sub-morons" engaging in "forgery" (assuming they aren't your fellow "delta sub-morons" on the DataBasix gang) what about all the crude attempts at forgery involving the e-mail addresses of those who've dared to publicly disagree with Gary Burnore and his DataBasix wrecking crew? What about the letters in various MMF and MLM NGs saying "I have a lot of money to invest, please send me information on how I can get rich quick" and purportedly signed by these folks? I must have missed your vehement protests about that. > You aren't worth the bother anymore. > > *PLONK* Did anyone force you to post THIS tantrum? Don't let the door strike your posterior on the way out. > [1] former because I had to close the account when it become completely > unusable, thanks to some anonymous cretin who (a) used the address as > spambait several *thousand* times and (b) subscribed me to every > freaking html-ized newsletter in existence. Once again, you post accusations without proof. (Maybe I ought to do my DataBasix impression of you and Sadaam Burnore stomping your feet and chanting in unison, "Not a shred of evidence! Not a shred of evidence!") You can only say "I didn't do it, nobody saw me doing it, and you can't prove a thing" so often. Your post no evidence that such alleged abuse even occurred, nor that, *IF* it did occur, it was perpetrated by someone other than you or one of your fellow abusers at DataBasix, perhaps as a pretext to get a remailer shut down. If by your "former e-mail address" you're referring to an account at DataBasix.com, could the real reason be that Gary is so technically inept that he has been unable to get the databasix.com domain up and running after his hasty exodus from California to North Carolina? At least that's been his alibi -- "I couldn't have posted any spam bait - databasix.com is still down". Your whining is so hypocritical, anyway. Where were those protests when your fellow staffer at DataBasix, William J. McClatchie (aka "Wotan"), was busy making THOUSANDS of e-mail addresses useless when he went on his successful campaign to get the Mailmasher server shut down? (Remember the bogus "forgery" charges and the pitiful "evidence" that was posted?) > P.S. Fix your goddamn line wrap. Why? You claim to have "plonked" him/her.... Why not just fix your newsreader? -- Since Belinda likes to footnote her posts: [1] http://calvo.teleco.ulpgc.es/listas/cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com/HTML-1997… [2] http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html

1 0

Re: The Subliminal Algebra-Seinfield Conspiracy
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri confessed: >Above Tom's restaurant, on 112th and Broadway. I worked for 7 years upstairs >from that restaurant in a very secret organization. I'm socked they even >show that building on TV. :-) You bet, that secret org is well-known among CU pick-up artists as a swell place to pick up socks ... well, more than that and sudden death's your next shock.

2 1

Another Anti-Privacy Bigot Heard From (was: The Guilmette/Burnore deba
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sjsobol(a)devel.nacs.net (Steve Sobol) wrote: > So my challenge to the people posting anonymously is to either go away, or > find some balls and post non-anonymously. I know this won't happen, as much > of the stuff being said is rather libelous and can get the poster into a lot > of legal trouble, but hey, if any of the cowards involved would *like* to > reveal themselves... If you'd like to expose ... er, I mean "reveal" yourself, be my guest. <g> But knock off the bigotry -- anonymous posters are not going to be relegated to the back of the bus just because some control freak is annoyed by hearing things with which he disagrees posted by people that he can't identify. You're merely chanting the same line we've all heard over and over -- "unless you have something to hide, you won't mind my snooping and meddling in every aspect of your life". Threats of "a lot of legal trouble" for speaking one's mind are nothing new. But the tort of libel requires that the information be FALSE. There's a difference between something being libellously false and merely being embarassingly true. And, of course, the burden of proof is on the person making the charge. --

1 0

Re: Sadaam Burnore Strikes Again (was: Re: Keman the Klueless Strikes
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+spam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ^^^^^ No thanks, Gary. I'll avoid your added spam. > X-No-Archive: yes Cute, Gary. Hide the evidence, then challenge people later on to produce it. > : Gary L. Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com> wrote: > : > : > X-Rfg-Is-An-Asshole: yes > : > : What follows ought to be really objective, right? > : > : > : >The account is closed. Find something ELSE to be obsessed about. > : > : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > : > > : > : Take your own fucking advice. Get off Ron Guilmette's back. > : > > : > Why? > : > > : > : You posted his ten year old tax lien. > : > > : > Yup, that's right. Just as he said: It's public information, already > : > available to the public so it's Ok to post (Referring to email addresses > : > of NETCOM customers. Ron Guilmette's own words. > : > : OK, so you both posted "public information", but you're justified for doing > : so, but Ron was not? Aren't you the hypocrite who was spouting off about > : "two wrongs don't make a right"? > : > : So if he was right for what he (supposedly) did, what's your problem? Why > : the ongoing vendetta? And if he was wrong, then you were, too! > : > : > : You mail bombed him and tried syn flooding without success. > : > > : > Of course you have no _EVIDENCE_ of any of this. From where did i syn > : > flood? From where did I mailbomb? > : > > : > If I did these terrible things and you err... ron, have proof, why not > : > show that to my provider. Again, which provider? When and where am I > : > supposed to have done this from? WHERES THE EVIDENCE? > : > : And where's the evidence for all of the fanciful charges you've made > : against Ron? Where's the proof, for example, that he "abused" an alleged, > : unnamed, "teenage girl" at DataBasix, as you've charged? > > Where's the proof that I accused him of abusing someone? You have none because > there is none. You're so sure that just because you hide all your posts behind that "X-No-Archive" header and had DejaNews remove all of your old posts from their archives that no one can hold you accountable for the numerous false charges you've made in the past? Maybe you can find a job cataloging video tapes of campaigning fund-raising events for the White House. Your selective memory might be put to good use, there. <g> Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten about this accusation you posted: > Subject: Cowards > From: gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) > Date: 1997/02/18 > Message-ID: <gburnoreE5rxEF.F3n(a)netcom.com> > Sender: gburnore(a)netcom22.netcom.com > Organization: the home office in Wazoo, NE > Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc > > > [ Article crossposted from news.admin.net-abuse.email ] > [ Author was Gary L. Burnore (gburnore(a)netcom.com) ] > [ Posted on Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:26:02 GMT ] > > So now the cowards in Ronald Francis's corner (I'm outright expecting the > culprit to be ronald francis himself) have taken to sending email to > those who have names listed on databasix's web page. Sending comments to > a 17 year old that they're going to tell her mother that she's having an > affair with me. Telling her mother that I'm molesting her daughter. > Having all sorts of fun. > > > Well OK Ronald Francis. You win. You were right. It _IS_ ok to send a > list of names of those who annoy you to UCE sites causing those who annoy > you grief. I see it a lot differently now. You were right. BTW, as soon > as I find the connection between these posts, those from wazoo.com, those > from mailmasher.com and YOU ronnie, it'll all be reported to law inforcement. > > -- > gburnore(a)databasix.com mailto:gburnore@databasix.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I spilled spot remover on my dog. Now I can't find him. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > San Francisco, CA | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 Ý³Þ³ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ > http://www.databasix.com | Official Proof of Purchase > =========================================================================== > > -- > gburnore(a)databasix.com mailto:gburnore@databasix.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > <-- Invisable Sig > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > San Francisco, CA | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ > | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 Ý³Þ³ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ > http://www.databasix.com | Official Proof of Purchase > =========================================================================== In fact, just to really smear Ron, you posted the article twice. The second copy was identified as follows: > Message-ID: <gburnoreE5rxJ6.FFt(a)netcom.com> This allegation was based on a supposed anonymous message to an anonymous "victim" at DataBasix, and people are supposed to believe that Ron Guilmette was responsible for it despite that you've posted, to borrow your own words, "not a shred of evidence". --

1 0

Iraq and computers
by Michael Wilson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As you see from the news bit attached, I wonder if we'll need to worry about 'disk escrow,' or perhaps a requirement that disks be of an unusually large size (thus making them easier to detect), or a requirement for diskless machines... MW http://www.7pillars.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ Iraq reportedly hiding arms data on U.S.-made computers ____________________________________________________________________________ Copyright ) 1997 Nando.net Copyright ) 1997 Reuters WASHINGTON (November 23, 1997 02:35 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - To conceal its deadliest arms from U.N. weapons inspectors, Iraq has increasingly turned to U.S.-made computers sold in Baghdad since the end of the 1991 Gulf War in violation of international sanctions, the Los Angeles Times reported in its Sunday editions. Quoting U.S. officials and U.N. diplomats, the newspaper said that Iraqi scientists and defense officials are using Western-made computers to transfer data from bulky papers to small disks that can be easily dispersed, making the information difficult for inspectors to track. In addition, they are using computers for research and development in the four categories specifically forbidden under the U.N. resolution ending the war -- nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles. U.N. sources did not disclose the brands or quantity of U.S.-made computers, except to say they make up a significant percentage of what was in use in Iraq, the paper said. "There are not garden-variety computers that you can go down to Radio Shack and buy," the paper said, quoting a former U.S. diplomat. "This requires specialized equipment and programs only available in certain places. Most of the U.S. equipment was probably purchased through third parties to circumvent U.S. companies' more rigorous monitoring of such illegal sales, U.N. and U.S. sources said, according to the newspaper. The use of high-tech equipment underscored how Baghdad continued to keep data beyond the reach of the United Nations, the paper said, adding that President Saddam Hussein's regime was widely suspected of using the three-week gap while U.N. inspectors were out of the country to further disperse data on disks. The use of computers also reflected the way Iraq used its limited sources to modernize its military capability rather than address humanitarian issues, U.S. and U.N. officials said, according to the report.

1 0