December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Governemnts should give up regulating Internet [CNN] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From ravage(a)ssz.com Sat Sep 12 09:13:45 1998 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199809121413.JAA15418(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Governemnts should give up regulating Internet [CNN] To: users(a)ssz.com (SSZ User Mail List) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:13:39 -0500 (CDT) Cc: friends(a)ssz.com (Ravage's Friends) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2001 Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9809/11/govnet.idg/ > GOVERNMENTS CAN'T HANDLE INTERNET, SAYS MAGAZINER > September 11, 1998 > Web posted at 1:20 PM EDT > > by Jana Sanchez-Klein > > LONDON (IDG) -- European countries should cooperate with the U.S. to > create an Internet that is regulated by the industry rather than by > governments, said Ira Magaziner, senior adviser to U.S. President Bill > Clinton for Internet policy development, at The Wall Street Journal > Europe's Fifth Annual CEO Summit on Converging Technologies. > > "We are trying to come to an agreement with the European Union where > they recognize our approach," said Magaziner, a speaker at the > conference here today. > > He outlined the importance of the Internet to the U.S. and world > economies and said that it was not up to governments to attempt to > control Internet use and commerce. Magaziner attributed one-third of > all economic growth in the U.S. to the building of the Internet. But, > he warned, "if goods are overtaxed or overregulated, it's hard to do > business. The private sector should lead." > > Governments are ill-equipped to handle the Internet, because it > changes too rapidly, it's too decentralized and too international, > suggested Magaziner. > > "The digital age moves too quickly for government action," he said. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies > On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote: > > > > If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like > > to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and > > concealed it take one step forward. Shall we make hypocrisy in high > > office impeachable also? > > A better question is: If Clinton is guilty of perjury and other felonies, > should he be impeached? > > If you don't think about lying about sex and related issues under oath > should be a crime, well, then change the law. But right now any form of > lying under oath is perjury, whether you like it or not. As rare as it is, I agree with Declan here. If Clinton would lie under oath about a non-crime (ie sex between consenting adults) what would he do if faced with a real issue? He should have said "Yeah, I had sex with her. What business is it of yours?". ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: radio net (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 9/9/98 8:39 AM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com) passed this wisdom: >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 00:51:49 -0700 >> From: "William J. Hartwell" <billh(a)ibag.com> >> Subject: Re: radio net > >> I think a radio network linked to the Amateur networks sending secure >> packets, >> using tunneling or maybe just encrypted traffic (There may be some FCC >> rules regarding this. > >The FCC prohibits the transmission of encrypted data via analog or digital >signals by amateurs. The FCC prohibits the use of transmissions encoded specifically to obscure the content of the traffic (which is exactly what our reason for using encryption would be), in essence they prohibit using encrypted transmisions. However, by wording the ruling that way they leave the door open for things like the ham radio satellite command channel uplinks being encrypted for security reasons ... but to do so they must, upon request, be able to provide the Friendly Chocolate Company with their keys. Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."

1 0

Re: IP: [Fwd: new threat to privacy]
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ummm ... not to sound skeptical, but were did -this- thing come from? looks like a crock to me. here, guys: have at it, here's my email address. ps: can you spell "agent provocateur" ---- (I'm not sure *I* can...) At 11:43 AM 9/12/98 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > >--- begin forwarded text > > >Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com >X-ROUTED: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:35:58 -0500 >X-TCP-IDENTITY: Bucsplace >Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:30:29 -0400 >From: oldbat <bucsplace(a)cchat.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: IP <ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com> >Subject: IP: [Fwd: new threat to privacy] >Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com >Precedence: list >Reply-To: oldbat <bucsplace(a)cchat.com> > > > >From: "Bill Prince" <webprince(a)SPAMmindspring.com> >Newsgroups: misc.survivalism >Subject: new threat to privacy >Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:14:54 -0400 >Organization: MindSpring Enterprises >Message-ID: <6t9bu9$spm$1(a)camel15.mindspring.com> >NNTP-Posting-Host: user-37kbbqr.dialup.mindspring.com >X-Server-Date: 10 Sep 1998 20:14:01 GMT >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0518.4 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0518.4 >Path: >news.dx.net!news.accessus.net!news2.rdr.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.i ntern >etMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!ne ws.bb >nplanet.com!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail > >There is another powerful tool for surreptitiously intercepting >data, but it is only available to law enforcement and the >military. Called DIRT (Data Interception and Remote >Transmission), it was released in June by Codex Data Systems. >http://www.thecodex.com/dirt.html > >Investigators need only know your e-mail address to secretly >install the program. Once they do, investigators can read your >documents, view your images, download your files and intercept >your encryption keys. DIRT was developed to assist law >enforcement in pedophilia investigations, but future uses could >include drug investigations, money laundering cases and >information warfare. > >- - >Bill Prince | Orlando, Florida | >Linuxori te salutamus! >Take out the SPAM to email me! >- - > >--- end forwarded text > > >----------------- >Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> >Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' > > >

1 0

Is cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com broken?...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From MAILER-DAEMON(a)telekom.de Sat Sep 12 12:50:46 1998 > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:53:07 +0200 > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)telekom.de> > Subject: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail > Message-Id: <9809111653.AB07969(a)fw9.telekom.de> > To: owner-cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > 554 sendall: too many hops 19 (17 max): from <owner-cypherpunks(a)ssz.com>, to owner-cypherpunks(a)ssz.com > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- > Received: by fw9.telekom.de; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA07969; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:53:07 +0200 > Received: from einstein.ssz.com by fw9.telekom.de (smtpxd); id XA05182 > Received: (from bin@localhost) by einstein.ssz.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA00752 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:16:26 -0500 > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > From: myemail(a)any.where.com > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Received: from somewhere by smtpxd > Message-Id: <199809101721.DEK5253(a)myserver.com> > Date: ×ò, 10 ñåí 1998 17:21:34 > Subject: Exhibitions in Russia > X-Uidl: 870483789,239 > To: cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com > X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com > X-List-Admin: ichudov(a)algebra.com > X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)ssz.com > Precedence: bulk > X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com > X-List-Admin: list(a)ssz.com > X-Loop: ssz.com > X-Language: English, Russian, German > > Dear cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com > > Me prepared pages they will be useful all > http://people.mosexpo.ru > Exhibitions in Russia > Food > http://www.mosexpo.ru/gurman > Telecom and Networks > http://www.mosexpo.ru/telecom > http://pc-expo.mosexpo.ru > http://unix-expo.mosexpo.ru > http://www.mosexpo.ru/svyaz98 > Flowers and Seed > http://www.mosexpo.ru/flowers > Fishing > http://www.mosexpo.ru/fishing > and more in http://www.mosexpo.ru > > To delete itself from list enter come in on server http://www.mosexpo.ru/rus > there Remove mailing list > info(a)mosexpo.ru > 7-095-974-7568 > > > > > This is a demo version of Dynamic Mail Server - > the leading Internet marketing promotion tool - > More details at: http://www.dynamicmail.com/ > ----------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Re: Clinton's fake apologies
by jimg＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote: > > > > If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like > > to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and > > concealed it take one step forward. Shall we make hypocrisy in high > > office impeachable also? > > A better question is: If Clinton is guilty of perjury and other felonies, > should he be impeached? IANAL (feel free to weigh in here, Unicorn), but I heard on one show or another that lying under oath is perjury only if it's material to the suit. Since the Jones case was dismissed, it was argued that even if he lied then, it wasn't material and thus wasn't perjury -- they claimed that nobody had every been convicted of perjury for lying in a case that was dismissed. Of course he's saying he didn't even lie: like Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys, as espoused in their legal treatise "Waitret, please waitret, come sit on my face", he believes that "Eatin' ain't cheatin'." YMMV. In any case, despite these legalisms, I'm not convinced that perjury in any case should be considered treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. The Founding Fathers could have been more specific about what was impeachable, and they chose not to be, leaving it intentionally ambiguous. Despite those arguments, this stuff really isn't about perjury: it's about the Republicans' case of nixon envy... Clinton's peccadillos are a far cry from Watergate (or Teapot Dome or Iran-Contra), but it's the best chance they've had since the Crook was dumped. > If you don't think about lying about sex and related issues under oath > should be a crime, well, then change the law. But right now any form of > lying under oath is perjury, whether you like it or not. If he did commit perjury, would that be an impeachable offense? I claim it's up to the House to interpret just what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, since it isn't spelled out in the Constitution. Disclaimer -- I'm not a Democrat, and I'm annoyed with Clinton's behavior on crypto issues. If I appear to be defending him, it's inadvertant -- I just feel he should be attacked on material points rather than whatever sleazy stuff Starr has found under his rocks. Jim

7 6

Re: Access to Eudora Export Controlled Archives
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Eudora Export Control Team wrote: > Be sure to keep this username and password to yourself. If someone You know, this kind of crap never ceases to make me chuckle. Mail a list with thousands of people, which is archived all over the place, and add in "Be sure to keep this username and password to yourself." This is very effective export control.

1 0

Deletion test
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deletion test ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

2A (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:00:12 -0400 > From: David Miller <dm0(a)avana.net> > Subject: 2A > The thought I had (actually, it was explained to me), about the > BoR is that, you know that in contracts/law, if there is a conflict > within a text/body of law, that which was legally written last > overrides the earlier statement. (e.g. the fine print is always > at *the bottom* of contracts). Think: a law is passed saying > that something is legal, now another one is passed saying that it > is illegal... Which law wins? The second one, obviously, so long > as it was legally passed. Contract law is civil law, the Constitution isn't civil law it is the charter defining how the government is supposed to work. If we accept this then no part of the Constitution is safe because it could be over-ridden this way, clearly not what the founding fathers intended in practice or principle. > Well, same with the BoR/Admendments. As AMENDMENTS, they override > the main body of the Constitution, if there is a conflict. This > is plain, simple, contractual law, and holds anywhere that people > negotiate contracts. > > Consider: The main body of the C says that the Senate can ratify > treaties, such as the UN resolution to confiscate privately-owned > small arms. Yet there is the 2A. Which wins? The 2A because it > is the overriding law of the land, higher than the authority of > the main body of the C to give the Senate that power when there is > a conflict between parts of the law. > > Conclusion: The UN should get your guns and ammo one bullet at a > time. This is lawyer bullshit, the 10th states very clearly, as well as the last sentence of the inter-state commerce clause, that the Constitution has to be taken in toto. The legislators and courts don't get to pick and choose. Furthermore, since the amendments dealing with prohabition were passed prior to the 16th they set a precedence that requires that subsequent amendemnts must specify what they are changing, the 16th doesn't do that. One could argue on that alone that the 16th as currently worded is invalid since it didn't meet prior precedence and by extension wasn't passed legaly. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

voice from the past
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Secrecy of Secrecy Without the freedom to expose the system proposal to widespread scrutiny' by clever minds of diverse interests, is to increase the risk that significant points of potential weakness have been overlooked. A frank and open discussion here is to our advantage. http://www.rand.org/publications/RM/RM3765/RM3765.chapter2.html Chapter 3 has an excellent picture of a binary key on a hollerith card... http://www.rand.org/publications/RM/RM3765/RM3765.chapter3.html

1 0