December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

E.Hughes on Lies
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! I don't know why E.Hughes didn't cc: the cypherpunks with the following message. He sent it to an internet mailing list devoted to honest collaborations and Internet project development. >The issue here is epistemology. False. The issue is about truth and the morality of leaders. >>There would be no problem if I asked a tentacle, `are you a pseudonym' >>and it answered `yes'. > >This is exactly like the question "Are you a liar?", to which the >answer is always "no". False. In an honest society, lies exist. You are asserting that they do not. >>But the cypherpunks are setting up a network of >>fake sites and identities and continue to claim, to the very end, `yes, >>I am real' with their fake identities. > >When I am accused of saying "I am real" from the mouth of a fake >identity, and I deny this accusation, there are two models of reality >which satisfy the words exchanged: > >-- I am using a fake identity, and I am lying to deny it. >-- I am not using a fake identity, and am telling the truth to deny it. So tell, me, which is the case? Why do you continue to evade my questions? Either be silent or tell the truth. Cease tormenting me and your followers with your pathetic convolutions of the English language. >When confronted by a barrage of continuing accusations to which no >answer is possible, I prefer to remain silent. I can gain no benefit >from discourse in this situation and can only waste my time and the >time of my correspondent. I prefer that when I ask you if you have done something that directly affects your followers and myself, you tell the truth. I can gain no benefit from people who evade my honest questions or a movement that is led by a corrupt leader whose first instinct is to dig in and entrench himself rather than be honest with the people who respect him. >The usual way to break out of this 'solipsism of the dialogue' is to >invoke a social mechanism, that is, ask someone else. Under a belief >of widespread impersonation, however, all denials are now presumed to >come from the original speaker of the first denial. Thus the >solipsism of the dialogue expands to a solipsism of all dialogues. Solipsism. Interesting term. In my opinion `solipsism' is the philosophy for the height of arrogance. `I am the only one who exists'. I have asked many, and they all have erected the same impregnable steel walls that you have. They refuse to answer my questions with specific denials. Why do you mislead the people who have made you their leader? >>Cypherpunks, please tell me what question I can ask of a psychopunk >>tentacle such that it will not lie and say that it is a real person! If >>you have any honesty or credibility, tell me that question! > >There is no such question, as I argue above. Am I dishonest if I >cannot exhibit the nonexistent? In a society where there is no honor or integrity, and instead there is only corruption and lies, you are correct. No such question is sufficient. I have found that out. I posted my message in the desperate hope that a cypherpunk leader could tell me *one* question he would answer honestly. `There is no such question, as I argue above'. Good day, sir.

1 0

Gov't Report...
by an52436＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thought some of you might find this to be of interest... Mephisto ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

Gov't Report
by an52436＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thought that some of you might find this interesting... Mephisto **Forwarded Message** To: rsaref-users(a)RSA.COM From: KH3(a)CU.NIH.GOV Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1993 16:11:53 EST Subject: New GAO report on Communications Privacy Acknowledge-To: KH3(a)NIHCU.BITNET X-Acknowledge-To: KH3(a)NIHCU.BITNET Sender: rsaref-users-request(a)RSA.COM GAO recently issued a report "Communications Privacy: Federal Policy and Actions", GAO/OSI-94-2, dated November 4, 1993, that may be of interest to members of your group. The report focused on the following issues: - The need for information privacy in computer and communications systems--through such means as encryption, or conversion of clear text to an unreadable form--to mitigate the threat of economic espionage to U.S. industry; - federal agency authority to develop cryptographic standards for the protection of sensitive, unclassified information and the actions and policies of the National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Defense, and of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST), Department of Commerce, regarding the selection of federal cryptographic standards; - roles, actions, and policies of NSA and the Department of State related to export controls for products with encryption capabilities and industry rationale for requesting liberalization of such controls; and - the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) legislative proposal regarding telephone systems that use digital communications technology. I have placed an electronic version of the report named OSI-94-2.TXT in the GAO-REPORTS anonymous FTP directory at NIH (ftp.cu.nih.gov) Joe Sokalski, GAO--Los Angeles kh3(a)cu.nih.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

anyone out there thinking
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

N >witch hunts (maybe in the future we'll be accused by "legitimate" N >government agencies of being the Medusas behind many Tenticles, N >hunted, wrongly, like dogs). We wouldn't have to worry because all we'd have to say is: "Look you mental retards, we can't be "Tenticles" (or even tentacles) of the Medusa because the Medusa didn't *have* any tentacles. She had a head of snakes instead of a head of hair." Duncan Frissell Who has Ray Harryhausen to thank for much of his classical education. --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

Authorized cash?
by hfinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recall a few months ago there was some discussion of having David Chaum come out and work with some cypherpunks to get them started on an implementation of digital cash. Did anything ever come of that? Chaum has a patent, I've heard, on the "blinding" that is an important part of at least the simpler cash proposals. If he were willing to authorize a cypherpunks cash system it would remove one legal hurdle to its implementation. Does anyone know whether he might be willing to do this? Hal

2 1

No Subject
by hazman＠cco.caltech.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unsubscribe hazman(a)cco.caltech.edu

1 0

Re: Data Fellows announces F-Secure SSH Tunnel&Terminal
by Tom Helenius 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello Petri and others, I think you haven't fallen off the tracks. We have now (very soon) SSH 1.1 clients. Instead of SSH 1.1 we call the product SSH Tunnel&Terminal. This way we want to emphasize that SSH is a very nice tool for remote and mobile workers. Most of the details about SSH 1.1 you can find in the press release. Regards, Tom At 01:44 AM 7/25/97 -0700, Petri Laakkonen wrote: >Hi guys, > >I'm afraid of that US sales has fallen off the tracks. We need to catch up >ASAP. > > >At 07:58 PM 7/24/97 +0200, Tom Helenius wrote: >>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>23 July, 1997 >> >>Data Fellows announces F-Secure SSH Tunnel&Terminal >> >What's this product all in all ? Has this now replaced F-Secure SSH or is >this one additional derivative of SSH a'la ISP SSH ? SSH 1.1 - Easy to use product for remote/mobile workers. It can do all the same that SSH 1.0 does and it is more optimised for telecommuting. >Are the features same as for the most recent SSH clients/servers ? HOw does >this product differ from SSH ? > >Any data sheets ? Probably we should update SSH 1.0 sheets. >Is the software > >a) shipping >b) downloadable from the web ? Should be in a couple of weeks. >>The remote worker can use e-mail, Internet browser, database tools and all >>the usual applications at home, on the road or in any place with Internet >>access. The big difference, though invisible to the remote worker, is that >>all data communication between the server in the office and the remote user >>is flowing through an encrypted tunnel. >> >Does this configure itself automatically for most popular office apps as >discussed some time earlier, or do admins still need to do the installation >manually for each computer or count on users doing this themselves ? You still need some knowledge to make the initial configuration. After that it is very easy. I don't know about the automatic deployment tool. >>F-Secure SSH Tunnel&Terminal provides strong encryption of data and thus >>sets a new standard for secure remote working. Existing solutions like >>Cisco Systems L2F, IETF L2TP and firewalls dont provide strong encryption >>and authentication, which makes these solutions insecure against >>eavesdropping and IP spoofing attacks. In addition to encrypted tunnels, >>F-Secure Tunnel&Terminal also provides secure terminal connections to UNIX >>hosts and secures UNIX X11 applications. >> >What would be F-Secure Tunnel's added value over MS pptp ? MS PPTP does not provide strong crypto. With the SSH tunnels we are almost directly competing against PPTP. Of course PPTP is not available for win3.x and Mac. I'm preparing some info about PPTP, at least for our partners. The problem is I'm not sure what to say and how. >>The automatic deployment tool enables straightforward company-wide >>installation and updates. >> >Interesting. Tell us more about this ? This is very interesting. I have to admit I don't know what this really means. Let's find out on Monday. >> >> >>F-Secure SSH Tunnel&Terminal is available for win3.1, win95, winNT and UNIX >>operating systems worldwide in the end of July, 1997. >> >How about our friends from Cupertino (e.g. Apple) ? This seems to be an error. We are doing the Mac also. Sorry. >Thanks for the additional info in advance, > >Petri > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Petri.Laakkonen(a)DataFellows.com, World Wide Web: http://www.DataFellows.com > >Data Fellows U.S headquarters has moved ! Our new contacts as of March >24th, 1997 are: > >Data Fellows >675 N. First Street, Suite 605 >San Jose, CA 95112 >phone (408) 938-6700, fax (408) 938-6701 > >********************************************************************* >* F-Secure * >* Award-winning Security for Peace of Mind * >* from the Desktop to the Internet * >* * >* http://www.DataFellows.com/ * >******************************************************************** > -- Tom.Helenius(a)DataFellows.com, World-Wide Web http://www.DataFellows.com

1 0

Enough is enough
by jazz＠hal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Look, there's one advantage to not banning LD from the list; he generally posts under his own or his well-known anonymous names, which makes it easier to filter them. Recently, though, either he or someone else has started reforwarding his rants through a remailer, which I cannot filter on (unless I go to content filtering, which I'd prefer to avoid). If someone other than LD is forwarding his rantograms via remailers, Please Cease And Desist. If it's Detweiller himself, well, he's obviously not going to listen to me. (Of course, I haven't been accused of being a tentacle; I must not be important enough.) Jason

1 0

Re: Spreading Technology (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Spreading Technology > From: shadow(a)krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:23:37 PST > >>What did Einstein say? "God does not play dice with the Universe"? > > This comment was made in reference to the Uncertainty Principle and > > Einstein's perception of the indeterminancy of quantum mechanics. He > > supposedly said it so many times that Neils Bohr, who was more > > philosophically inclined to accept the contradictions in modern physics > > than Einstein, once became so exasperated that he admonished Einstein to > > "stop telling God what to do!" > > And after the experiments that pretty much killed the "hidden > variables" interpretation, one physicist reportedly commented "Not only > does God play dice, he sometimes throws the dice where they can't be > seen." Bohr's objection was one of religion, not reality. His objection was one of familiarity breeding contempt of God. It was Stephen Hawking who made the quip about not seeing the dice. The SU(5) theory was arrived at by political contrivance in 1927 when the Solvay Conference was called to resolve the various theories that happened to be flying fast and furious at the time, instigated by DeBroglie. Because several of these theories were completely in agreement with experiment it was becoming impossible to make progress because of all the possibilities. The question asked was "what theory shows the most promise for continued research and acceptance of requests for operating capital." The SU(5) was arrived at by majority vote and not experimental verification. Einstein's objection to the Uncertainty Principle was the same as David Bohm's. In fact most physicists at the time were opposed to it, the famous Schroedinger Cat was meant to be an objection to the theory and in particular to show how unrealistic it was. If you happen to be willing to do away with the standard SU(5) theory then the Uncertainty Principle goes away, a good example is to look at David Bohms 'many worlds' theory as it has no uncertainty principle involved. Bohm was black-balled by the conventional physics community because he would not accept the SU(5) even in principle. It has only been in the last 15 years or so that serious review of Bohm's work has taken place. Alfven and others have used it and other approaches to bring many of the basic tenets of the SU(5) and the Big Bang into question. Interesting aspect is even his most strident opponents admitted their objection to his theories were based on emotion and mental attitudes and not on any failure regarding experimental verification. He was and is considered one of the greatest modern physicists, on a par with Einstein and et ali. You might check out David Bohm's last book before he died, The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory D.Bohm, B.J. Hiley ISBN 0-415-06588-7 ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

FTP site for t-shirt design
by Christian Void 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I forgot to put this in the last post... Our t-shirt design, as well as any other designs people come up will be available at netcom.com: ~pub/cvoid/cypherpunks. All files should be in *.gif format. Christian Void /T71 | "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I | V/M/Research, Inc. cvoid(a)netcom.com | ever had anything to do with it." | P.O. Box 170213 Tel. 1+415-807-5491 | -Erwin Schrodinger (1887-1961) | SF, CA 94117-0213 * PGP v2.3a Public Key Available Via Finger *

1 0