December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: manners....
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:54 AM 11/19/98 +0800, Bernardo B. Terrado wrote: >Well I thought this list was a list of intellectuals, not only good in >hacks and coding and programming and the likes but also well "tailored" >with their manners, I have posted similar mails asking something but I >have never received one like this. At least the less obvious thing to do >is to ignore my message, simply delete it!, is that a hard thing to do? Yo, Bernie - until you started asking for pirated commercial software, I was wondering whether you were trolling by asking newbie questions or just a real newbie who hadn't looked at any of the literature yet. Knapsacks are, after all, broken long ago, and anything written since about 1980 that talks about them will also say that. I'd recommend getting Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" and spending a while with it, then looking for academic stuff beyond that if you want, and also reading the documentation for PGP for practical stuff (in particular, Phil's comments on Snake Oil.) There are also some FAQs out there, such as the sci.crypt FAQ. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Maturity Is Needed
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to: ein >Jim Choate is so stupid that even when he accidentally gets something >right, he quickly "corrects" himself so that he is wrong again: > >> I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less >> than x. >> >> This is incorrect. It should be, >> >> x/log(x) >>Wrong, doofus. x/ln(x) is the correct asymptotic limit. What role could >>logs to the base 10 possibly play? Do you think God favors the number 10? >>What a fool you are!Your observations over the years usually seemed >>thoughtful, and intelligent, and therefore helpful. What an human waste this guy is. It reminds me of the old days of Reputation. A boorish attack reflects more poorly on the attacker than the victim, if it is an inappropriate attack. Even if stupid, or just mistkaen, a comment here is intended toward a larger, instructive purpose. This idiot just wastes bandwidth. Life's too short for this crap. Perhaps it's worth trying to reason with people a bit: Victorian times, like ours today, were a period of huge changes, which meant behavioral changes. It cannot be an accident that manners, good form, and respectable society merged into the legendary image of modern social graces. It was done of efficiency, and, so, of necessity. Inefficient entities decay in capitalism. Manners were needed for efficiency. Only today do they seem quaint, or insulting of class or social station. They were where the action was, among professionals trying to forge new economic relationships. This immature jerk is gonna lose. An Educated Observer

1 0

Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohelsux)
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >>solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >>to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >>the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. >> >>PHM >> >>AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) > >Again, the clueless asshole known as Paul *H.* Merrill jumps up and defends >AOL, incompetently-written web sites, and morons everywhere. > I obviously don't defend morons everywhere -- I didn't defend Mr Anonymous. >Someone told AOL to mail cypherpunks(a)toad.com. AOL could have checked to see >if the originating site was under the toad.com domain. This is trivial. They >didn't. It's rather easy to just require that somebody trying to mail an >address under the toad.com domain submit the request from an address under >toad.com. > I regularly send from one domain while requesting a "something" to be dealt with through another domain. (A little something called work, for instance. Shoot, even the ACM.Org address doen't pass that check but it certainly is valid and unambiguously mine. >In other words, Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types your >address into some system and asks it to send you 512MB of MPEG video, that's >okay because it was solicited. It wasn't solicited by you but somebody >solicited it. > My point exactly -- so when you want to ream someone for the half gig MPEG, ream the requester. >Oops. That's "blatent propoganda." I'd better rephrase. In other words, >Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types YOUR address into fifty >different systems, signs you up for a bunch of mailing lists, and generally >causes you a lot of inconvenience, that's okay because it was solicited. You >don't know who it was solicited by, but somebody obviously did. If you then >object to the sites sending you mail rather than just silently >unsubscribing yourself every week, are you then just 'some clueless asshole'? > The totality is not Okay. But the individual systems that were solicited to send are not at fault, assuming that they give me an out. OTOH the asshole that requested it all is quite another topic. That "spammer" is the one that should be taken to task. >Are spammers now not to be held accountable for their spamming because they >bought a list of addresses from someone who claimed that the people all >asked to be on the mailing list? > there is a significant difference between buying a list and answering a request. Granted that the net effect of having a confirmation message sent to some one person shows little difference, but the methodology and intent are nt the same at all. >Why don't we just sign Cypherpunks up for Ignition-Point, the FP list, the >ACLU action advisories, Sixdegrees, and whatever else we can find? Or should >We just sign up Paul, really, because he doesn't have a problem with this. >In fact I'm sure we could make some 'marketting research' to show that he >might be interested. Hey let's get the entire CDR subscription list and >sign everybody up for FP and ACLU because if you're on Cypherpunks you're >obviously interested in those things. The analogous activities have been going on for many years and they have never been a Good Thing. > >The root of the problem is sites which require email addresses for no good >reason, and/or don't have the decency to perform a simple check to see if >the domains match. They're lazy. They're irresponsible. When confronted, no >matter how civil, they react much like you do, Paul, and they don't want to >be inconvenienced by having to fix their usually badly-designed web sites. > Anyone that believes that a domain check will do anything other than check a domain is delusional. Hey, they even think like the post awful -- one person, one email address. >If I recall correctly Tim has the same opinion and has stated it a few >times as have others so I'm not alone. > >Now I leave you, Paul, so you can go back to your 24 hour vigil and you and >your quick response team can scour the net for attacks against AOL and the >true clueless assholes, and defend them with your last breath. > Why, thank you. But it is not really needed. >Yet Another 'Clueless Asshole' > I never cease to be amazed at how little grasp of the concept of causality so many presumably technically literate people are today. When one wishes to remove a problem, it is a much better approach to attack the cause than to attack the symptom. PHM

1 0

Re: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohels
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----Original Message----- From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> To: paul h. merrill <paulmerrill(a)acm.org>; cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com <cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 12:20 AM Subject: Re: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohels >Do you even bother to read the posts you try to flame? Read the last part of >that. > Yes, I do. I do not buy the domain check idea due to the unworkability in a changing and multi-faceted society. I do not buy the concept the anyone that sends a piece that you don't want is a "spammer" (there really are enough of them out there already without diluting the Title through misnomers.) I do not buy attacking symptoms and ignoring causes -- and in this case Causers. PHM >Paul H. Merrill wrote: >> >>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >>solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >>to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >>the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. >> >>PHM >> >>AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) >> >>Anonymous wrote: >>> >>> This does wonders for my opinion of AOL. Even the administration has no clue. >>> >>> AOL administration spammed the Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> list, using >>> an address for Cypherpunks which has been defunct for over a year now, with: >>> >>> >Thank you for registering for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! >>> > >>> >Your registration for screen name aohelsux has been received. >>> > >>> >Please reply to this message within 48 hours to complete >>> >the registration process. Simply reply to the present message >>> >and type 'OK' as the text of your message. >>> >>> P.S. "Well they just responded to an address someone gave them," like >>> certain advocates of AOL, lamers, and Microsoft we have on the list have >>> said, is not an excuse. It's easy to set up domain validation. The spammers >>> just don't care.

1 0

CABLE TV DESCRAMBLER........Now Only $7.00 !
by BADJEEP97＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is really cool! PREMIUM CHANNELS........Descrambled! EASY to assemble plans for only $7.00 ! YOU WILL BE WATCHING all your FAVORITE PAY STATIONS featuring MOVIES, SPORTS. Adult entertainment, and any other scrambled signal NEXT WEEK! You can EASILY assemble a cable descrambler in less than 30 minutes! You have probably seen many advertisments for similar plans......... BUT OURS are BETTER! We have compared it to all the others and have actually IMPROVED the quality and SIMPLIFIED the design !!! ** We even include PHOTOS! ** OUR PLANS ARE BETTER! We have NEW, EASY TO READ,EASY to assemble plans for only $7.00! We have seen them advertised for as much as $29.00 and you have to wait weeks to receive them! WHAT THE OTHERS SAY IS TRUE! Parts are available at "The TV HUT" or any electronics store. Trademark rights do not allow us to use a national electronics retail chains' name but there is one in your town! Call and ask them BEFORE you order! They are very familiar with these plans! You will need these easy to obtain parts : 270-235 mini box 271-1325 2.2k ohm resistor 278-212 chasis connectors RG59 coaxial cable #12 copper wire Variable capacitor They may have to special order the variable capacitor, But WHY WAIT for a special order? WE have them! WE have secured a supply of the capacitors directly from the manufacturer and We WILL include one with your plans for an ADDITIONAL $10.00 only! All you need now is the EASY TO ASSEMBLE plans to show you how this educational device in 30 MINUTES! It is LEGAL, providing of course you use these plans for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES only. See first hand and LEARN how this SIMPLE circuitry works! If you intend to use these plans for any other purpose DO NOT ORDER them. IT'S FUN TO BUILD! We're sure you'll enjoy this project! This is a unique opportunity for hobbiest of ANY skill level to learn simple circuitry! Learn how easy descrambling is! $ 7.00 for plans only $10.00 for variable capacitor only $17.00 for The easy to assemble plans and one variable capacitor! Please send check or money order payable to: Kraftworks P.O. Box 11752 San Rafael, Ca. 94912 WE pay postage and handling! Please allow 14 days for delivery. This is a one time only mailing! You have already been placed on our remove list and will not receive another offer from us! Thank You

1 0

ATF funding voice recognition research
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ATF - Proof of concept task - Prototype automated firearms licensing and verification system which integrated voice recognition and reverse voice recognition, telecommunication, Internet to query ATF database across LANs and WANs http://www.0-1.com/y_ats.htm The company doing the research seems to be a beltway-bandit ("minority owned" mil-welfare) type place. They're also evaluating sniffers for DISA... "Semtex --better than duct tape"

1 0

salon article reply
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

dear Mr. Lasica: your article is mostly fair and accurate but fails to delve into some obvious and basic issues. 1st, check out david brin's recent book on privacy.. you cover only a tiny facet of the issues, of people that argue privacy should be protected. consider a very interesting alternative view.. 2nd: it is easy to take any digital image of a naked woman and paste the head of any other person on top of it, to the point that it is indistiguishable from a real picture. tell this to the mother of the daughter who's naked pictures were posted. 3rd: you fail to mention anonymity/pseudonymity, the starkly obvious solution to all the pseudo-problems you raise. your article is fairly mild but reflects the constant refrain of journalists to phrase every news story as some kind of looming or scary crisis. the issues you speak of have been debated among cpunks for years with more insight. not expecting you to know abut cpunks, but you coulda done a teeny better on that article. a decent article nonetheless on important issues.. please purchase a few clues from the nearest cpunks and try,try again. take care

1 0

old posts saved/archived/privacy article, salon
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

salon article on how old posts are saved on the net, and how it affects privacy. "I felt helpless and violated" sez one poor hapless chic http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/

1 0

enemy of the state movie
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

fun wired article on new movie "enemy of the state" with privacy /cpunk implications. bamford quoted, info on NSA, rotenberg, spy satellites, etc. http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/16507.html happy xgiving folks I am thankful for cyberspace <g>

2 1

Anon Mail Server?
by James Hillenbrand 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What is a good server that I could send mail through anonymously.. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -------==== James Hillenbrand ====------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ICQ NUMBER (UIN) : 7621556 PERSONAL E-MAIL : JamezHill(a)Audiophile.com ALT. E-MAIL : MegaHertz(a)Audiophile.com HOMEPAGE : http://www.ThePentagon.com/DaMaGe NOTES : Pumpin' BASS lower than you can hear and louder than you can stand! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0