December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by jrk＠sys.uea.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I also noticed the cypherpunks list show up at nyx.cs.du.edu as a Usenet newsgroup called mail.cypherpunks. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Blair (I think) writes: > I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that a very > basic net connection, with minimal services (access to government records, > public domain postings, and similar information) should be provided either free > or at a very minimal cost. It is not difficult for me to envision a day when > paper based sources of info (newspapers, magazines, etc.) may be impossible > to recieve in paper format, and when participation in our political system > will depend on having access just as much as it depends, for all practical > purposes, on having a stable residence. Groups which cannot afford net > connection in the future may very likely become a politically excluded group. > Its important that we set the precedent now that these basic services not be > dependant on a certain minimum economic standing. This is what I understand > "fair access" to mean. But how is this any different from providing subsidized or free newspapers or news channels to the population? How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel? Or C-SPAN, which is in fact subsidized by the cable companies? If we decide that the government needs a subsidized channel or network to make avaiable its laws, its debate, its position, then we have just created a publically-funded propaganda channel for them. (Earlier, I took a position that making government docs available by ftp, gopher, WWW, etc., would be a good thing. I still do, but I worry that the channels would just be platforms for government bureaucrats to pitch their policies and plans. I have no doubt that when the commercial networks are reluctant to carry speeches and press conferences by Clinton, that he'd really like to have subsidized channels that _had_ to carry him. Of course, few would watch, but that's another topic.) So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed. (I don't want to drift into sarcasm about this, as I think Mike Godwin and others are making serious points. But bear in mind that the purported needs for communicating with the public are often the justification for "State Radio" and for the UNESCO-sponsored proposals to restrict the "private press" in many countries. Put it this way, do you really want President Robertson or President Perot to have his won subsidized channels of communication? Perot can of course _buy_ a couple of networks, but that's not the same as an official network.) CNN, the Clinton News Network. --Tim May P.S. I cancelled my entire cable t.v. subscription several weeks back. Too much shit, too little quality, too confusing a monthly bill. I have a sneaking feeling we're going to have about 500 channels soon, with a couple of hundred of them available cheaply enough. -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

3 2

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May asks if we cypherpunks should oppose the NII. I think we probably should, but not on cypherpunks. A suitable list for discussing this topic is 'com-priv(a)psi.com' which addresses the political and economic issues of the commercialization of the pure and pristine Internet. The US Federal government already has a huge infrastructure of networking. For example, the VA has two independant nationwide networks. On connects the administrative folks that handle VA loans, college benefits, etc. and the other connects the VA hospitals. The DOT has a huge net for air traffic control. The Federal Courts have their own network. Interior, thru USGS has a huge network, with BLM and other agencies trying to make it bigger. Social Secutrity has a net, Agriculture has a net and a large payroll center in New Orleans. I think 'punks are smart enuff to see a pattern here. Followups via email are fine. Otherwise I'm moving this to com-priv. Pat -- former consultant to VA, DOT, SSN, Treasury, Interior, Courts, etc. Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)netcom.com Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Dr. Dobb's editorial on PGP
by Dave Hart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The December Dr. Dobb's Journal has an editorial on the current PGP legal wrangling. I'll quote the last sentence: More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees us the right to speak in an encrypted way and insidious attempts to douse public access to cryptography, cloaked under the guise of software-export investigations, appear to stifle these rights. -------------------------------------- DaveHart(a)microsoft.com The opinions expressed are personal and do not necessarily agree with the opinions of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has its own opinions, one of which is "disclaimers are a good thing".

1 0

sarcastic quote
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde Seems an appropriate quote for today. ObRhetoricalClipper: How do the key escrow agencies confirm that the LEAF presented with a warrant is from a line that was legally tapped? Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Gatewaying to Netcom fixed....
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The gatewaying of the List to Netcom has apparently been fixed, or soon will be. The message below describes what happened. This still does not explain the similar situations which others reported (unless they were just reporting purely local gatewaying). -Tim > Newsgroups: cypherpunks.list > Path: netcom.com!netnews > From: netnews(a)netcom.com (USENET Administration) > Subject: Re: Test of this list... > Message-ID: <netnewsCG97IJ.524(a)netcom.com> > Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) > References: <tcmayCG8oBv.uq(a)netcom.com> > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 02:13:30 GMT > Lines: 36 > > In article <tcmayCG8oBv.uq(a)netcom.com> tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: > > > >I'm writing this as a _post" to a new newsgroup that appeared on > >Netcom yesterday, "cypherpunks.list." > > > >Who created this newsgroup? Do postings here appear on the e-mail list > >itself? (Hence this test.) > > > >I'm not sure that gatewaying our semi-private mailing list, containing > >candid remarks about smashing governments with strong crypto (as just > >one example), is such a great idea. It just makes it easier for "Them" > >to monitor us and for flamers to disrupt the group. > > > >Oh well. > > > > It was newgrouped at Netcom because it was showing up as one of the > top ten non-existent groups that were were nevertheless receiving > articles for. > > I just checked with the admin of the site that we were receiving > the articles from. It turns out that someone downstream of him > had gatewayed the mailing list into a newsgroup, but it was > supposed to stay local to that site! A minor configuration error > let the articles leak back upstream until they reached Netcom. > > The admin of the site gating the list to the newsgroup will be > patching the leak ASAP, so the list activity should dry up > in a day or two. At the end of the week, I'll close the group > down and that should be the end of it. > > Dont'cha just LOVE those funny leetle config files? ;-) > > > -- > Netcom Newsfeed Support -- (408) 554-8717 -- netnews(a)netcom.com >

1 0

Re: Is Clipper Almost Dead? (was: Clipper and Tipper on Route 666)
by Clark Reynard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: >I say we increase our attention on the Data Superhighway and try >to kill it as well. Does anyone wish to second the notion? I do. I think it would be very important if we could attempt to sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club" anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video. If you don't believe me, watch it. They almost seem to agree with us entirely on the issue of cryptography. Perhaps it's time for a _new_ group; the cyphermonks. I nominate St. John the Divine as a patron saint. ---- Robert W. F. Clark PGP Key Available Upon Request rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu clark(a)metal.psu.edu

5 6

unsubscribe 9307905p@ntx.city.unisa.edu.au
by 9307905p＠ntx.city.unisa.edu.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ARRRRRRGGH.... Unsubscribe me. Im drowning..... 9307905p(a)ntx.city.unisa.edu.au --- F.R.J. Cichy B.CS U of SA, Australia

1 0

Usenet: 'Resistance Is Futile'
by Philippe Nave 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Regarding the recent question of whether the cypherpunks list is being gatewayed to Usenet: 1) So what? I have always assumed that anything distributed to a group of _any_ kind may wind up scattered all over the globe and may turn up in unusual places. If the data is sensitive, encrypt it! 2) [Disclaimer: I know just enough Unix to get in trouble..] From what I understand so far, all it takes is one cypherpunk and some magic mail routing code to bounce cypherpunks list postings anywhere else on the planet. If this cypherpunk bounced the traffic off an anonymous remailer, you would never even be able to tell who was feeding the other system. Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be no defense possible against this activity. 3) I agree with the concern expressed by Tim May that we may be opened up to 'disruptive flaming and puerile argumentation.' The only way to avoid this problem [as far as I can tell] is to limit postings to members of the mailing list. That's a tough one. Let us hope that our coffee shop is not overrun by screaming children... ........................................................................ Philippe D. Nave, Jr. | The person who does not use message encryption pdn(a)dwroll.dw.att.com | will soon be at the mercy of those who DO... Denver, Colorado USA | PGP public key: by arrangement.

2 2

Re: Private and Public
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- Forwarded mail from pmetzger(a)lehman.com >From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Tue Nov 9 09:15:40 1993 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Received: from relay2.UU.NET by mail.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id JAA12727; Tue, 9 Nov 1993 09:15:36 -0800 Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA04858; Tue, 9 Nov 93 12:13:54 -0500 Received: by toad.com id AA17446; Tue, 9 Nov 93 09:03:39 PST Received: by toad.com id AA17443; Tue, 9 Nov 93 09:03:11 PST Received: from lehman.com ([192.147.66.1]) by toad.com id AA17438; Tue, 9 Nov 93 09:03:06 PST "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> said: >Since Mr. Merritt has insisted, I will take a foray into this issue. I >would suggest, however, that this is not the forum for this discussion. Ok...I'll desist after a brief comment: I actually don't disagree with any of the major points you make when you put it that way -- although some of the other things I call minor points you might call major points :-) I think I do have some quibbles which would probably turn *into* serious disagreement, but even I would say that raising those things would take us far afield, so I'll leave it at that. P.S. This is ad hominem...tsk, tsk: >Mr. Merritt, this discussion is much like that of a Catholic peasant >in 1500 trying to understand an atheist, with me in the role of the >atheist. Doug

1 0