December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by solovay＠math.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric writes: Yeah, the internet technology is changing. ATM is coming. Query: What's ATM? --Bob Solovay

4 3

Re: Misc replies
by qwerty＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greg Broiles wrote, >I second Hal's suggestion to route Detweiler's traffic through Xenon's >remailer. >(Xenon - the point isn't to keep Detweiler off the net. We all know >that's impossible. The point is to keep Detweiler from getting remailers >shut down by abusing them. That's why this is particularly unlike >censorship; Detweiler's goal is to keep all people from using remailers.) Sure, send me YOUR garbage. Why isn't Larry abusing MY remailer? This peer pressure is childish. I no longer really need qwerty as a remailer, and will happily shut it down as soon as YOU people start abusing it. I admit I created a lot of negative feelings out there with my statement that I didn't want to block Larry's addresses. However, say I retract that statement, and say I do not want to block him, but that I AM willing to give into such peer pressure and try TO block him? I now ask you to, with compassion, educate me about how the arguments I express against the MEANS you tell me to use, are not valid. I don't mind blocking the address of some undergrad who is sending silly stuff to Usenet, but must I always have to demonstrate to you things that I cannot seem to convey in words? OK. I shall write a script to telnet to port 25 of a given remailer, and forge mail from various non-existent addresses at Netcom. They will include names like "S.Boxx(a)netcom.com", "Executioner(a)netcom.com", and "Fuckyou(a)netcom.com". What will you do then, block incoming from netcom.com? Yeah right ;-) ! I sent myself mail this way via Hal's remailer. It WORKED. Larry knew how to do this when I was still trying to work my newsreader. Again, as I have said before, it is my feeling that all of our trying to block Larry's current known addresses will only fuel the fire, and next time he will REALLY cause problems. He isn't a stupid guy. And he IS the type of person who if you fight him, he will fight back with more energy than before. So far I am not impressed with the level of sophistication in the words I hear coming from the remailer operators and other interested parties out here. We need an ABUSE filter, not a Detweiler filter, for with current sendmail, we CANNOT block a determined person from abusing the remailers. And it is my belief that trying to do so will renew their fanaticism and dedication to upsetting the remailers. He already seems to have a new anon.penet.fi address. He can have as many more as he wants, brand spanking new, by telnetting to anon.penet.fi 25 and faking his address. I have tried this and it too WORKS. Give me a real solution, one that will not make the problem WORSE. Many of you out here remind me of government bureaucrats, in how you want to try quick very short term fixes, which in the end only backfire and make the problems worse. You think Larry isn't willing to fork over $20 to get a Netcom account and then spend another $50 to buy e-postage, then send out much MORE damning abuses (since you made it harder for him to do damage by quantity alone), this time

1 0

Re: Misc replies
by qwerty＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'll try this again; Netcom has this nasty habit of just dying for 10 minutes at a time right in the middle of my pasting e-mail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greg Broiles wrote, >I second Hal's suggestion to route Detweiler's traffic through Xenon's >remailer. >(Xenon - the point isn't to keep Detweiler off the net. We all know >that's impossible. The point is to keep Detweiler from getting remailers >shut down by abusing them. That's why this is particularly unlike >censorship; Detweiler's goal is to keep all people from using remailers.) Sure, send me YOUR garbage. Why isn't Larry abusing MY remailer? This peer pressure is childish. I no longer really need qwerty as a remailer, and will happily shut it down as soon as YOU people start abusing it. I admit I created a lot of negative feelings out there with my statement that I didn't want to block Larry's addresses. However, say I retract that statement, and say I do not want to block him, but that I AM willing to give into such peer pressure and try TO block him? I now ask you to, with compassion, educate me about how the arguments I express against the MEANS you tell me to use, are not valid. I don't mind blocking the address of some undergrad who is sending silly stuff to Usenet, but must I always have to demonstrate to you things that I cannot seem to convey in words? OK. I shall write a script to telnet to port 25 of a given remailer, and forge mail from various non-existent addresses at Netcom. They will include names like "S.Boxx(a)netcom.com", "Executioner(a)netcom.com", and "Fuckyou(a)netcom.com". What will you do then, block incoming from netcom.com? Yeah right ;-) ! I sent myself mail this way via Hal's remailer. It WORKED. Larry knew how to do this when I was still trying to work my newsreader. Again, as I have said before, it is my feeling that all of our trying to block Larry's current known addresses will only fuel the fire, and next time he will REALLY cause problems. He isn't a stupid guy. And he IS the type of person who if you fight him, he will fight back with more energy than before. So far I am not impressed with the level of sophistication in the words I hear coming from the remailer operators and other interested parties out here. We need an ABUSE filter, not a Detweiler filter, for with current sendmail, we CANNOT block a determined person from abusing the remailers. And it is my belief that trying to do so will renew their fanaticism and dedication to upsetting the remailers. He already seems to have a new anon.penet.fi address. He can have as many more as he wants, brand spanking new, by telnetting to anon.penet.fi 25 and faking his address. I have tried this and it too WORKS. Give me a real solution, one that will not make the problem WORSE. Many of you out here remind me of government bureaucrats, in how you want to try quick very short term fixes, which in the end only backfire and make the problems worse. You think Larry isn't willing to fork over $20 to get a Netcom account and then spend another $50 to buy e-postage, then send out much MORE damning abuses (since you made it harder for him to do damage by quantity alone), this time with real religious zeal, since now he has gotten you guys to finally fight back, and as you must realize, he takes this all VERY seriously. And after all, isn't our installing ABUSE filters what Larry is trying to tell us to do in the first place? I do not find this an unreasonable request. It is a wonderful solution that avoids accountability problems, after the fact, upon someone posting an abusive message to Usenet, since they are unable to post such an abuse in the first place. Why don't we appease Larry? How? The answer is painful and obvious: Moderated remailers. You already have to trust the remailer operator with your privacy. E-postage is a fun idea especially for ME ;-), but the logistics and loss of traffic are real problems. Besides, I can't charge as much for a Netcom remailer, as it is not as secure as some others. Is it not unfortunate that an AI program cannot ever hope to accomplish what the human eye and brain can do in a millisecond? Hit a 'd' key in responses to abusive mail. Send me such a script! Until Usenet is fully moderated, and realize that MOST people on Usenet do NOT feel like pandering to "those cowards and irresponsible people afraid to use their real names". THAT is the attitude out there. There must be moderation, if only for remailing to Usenet. Since such moderation is unlikely in the next year, for all of Usenet, the moderation must lie within the remailers. Yes, anon.penet.fi has survived without this, but Julf keeps people's REAL addresses on his hard disk, and keeps FULL logs (not content though). Still, it is possible for Larry to send out a hundred Usenet posts, by forging e-mail to anon.penet.fi. Fortunately for Julf, he is busy enough upsetting us. If full moderation not be practical, then fairly smart scripts for detecting abuse could do SOME good. Certainly a barrage of posts to Usenet could be detected and blocked. But that only causes someone to post more damaging posts in fewer numbers. "I am afraid of knowing the truth, for when you offer it to people, they call you mad." -=Xenon=- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLWI1bASzG6zrQn1RAQHPEwP/Wf/jCuEV6sE9vs89NvC25T1ejBrr6nxq +65zorNvaSpaTYJraH5kD7NHSerXX5XlNKllG10RoqwnpjwQ56FCsVQzqDrkYH+9 DXk5VP2ay0B0DFIRxgTGXhl4fXi6K6bjiS4dRi4AxvnOeZaGlzTQMu1CGJJZ1pNk Cv+P0X/rYcw= =tO7R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Big Brother PostScripts
by Robert A. Hayden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to some help, I have the Big Brother PostScript but have reduced its size so that it is about 1" x 1" or so (no ruler, just a guest). This is a perfect size for printing on stickers, letterheads, etc. If anyone wants a copy, please drop me a line and I'll be happy to mail it to you. If someone at cpsr.org wants to put it up for FTP, please also contact me and let me know where to upload it to (or if you want me to email it to you.) [As a side note, I'm thinking of breaking into the lab some night and putting these stickers on all of the workstations. Just thinking about it, not actually going to do it :-)] ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden(a)krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> In the United States, they \/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> first came for us in Colorado... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++ n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

1 0

PRIVACY: Disinformation
by nobody＠jarthur.claremont.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Consider me a hypocrite BUT.... consider the following... My AMPS cell phone is easily intercepted... yes I know I often listen to others calls on my scanner and frequency counter... myself. :) As I am one who is being investigated and tapped I often discuss Totally Fallacious and Unverifiable conspiracies (protected by crypto you see)... Given also I have had PLENTY of contact with the OPFOR(opposing force i.e. LE Mind Set)... I know ANYTHING is believeable to that mind set as long as enough crumbs(i.e. evidence is found... email seems to be sufficient dor this at least to start investigating). Make it VERY unprofitable to investigate... As far as Digital Banks go ... Yes there has always been Cashing your Check and then buying everything cash. Its INCONVENIENT AS HELL... Believe me I Live this way... Having Anonymous Electronic Credit Cards issued by the First Cyberspatial BAnk <First_Cyber(a)cyberspace.nil> and being either a Visa or MC with NO way transactions tracable to me would be a BIG convenience... Look at the recent Soft porn Bust....(by enrtapment with kiddie porn no less) The IRS is now getting hit with falacious Electronically Returns/Refunds... How about filing the next 2-3000 in the name of your favorite Judge, DA, Investigator, Senator, Representative....All fraudalent returns... with even the possibility of profit... I figure the resulting shitstorm when the IRS Revenue Officers and Criminal Section Investigators start on Federal Judges, Representatives and the like will consume MOST of the federal bureaucracy time.... Turmoil

1 0

AT&T phone logs
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been told by someone I believe that the phone companies are ...uh... encouraged to keep call records for *at least* 3 years. bdolan(a)well.sf.ca.us

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was recently helping a new start-up phone company get in operation]We As part of the initial acquisition process of a DCO/CS (Stromberg Carlson) based switch facility which the start-up was acquiring from a previous failed company we went on a swwitchroom tour... There tucked in a back corner and hooked to the "hacker" and fraud intercept trunks of the CS was a intercept operation... the previous consultant (who was giving the tour) bragged of having listened to Hot Ladies etc (usual sort of Drivel) Talking to the former owners I find the former switchroom tech(not this guy) was fired for this type of offense... this company and its sucessor used to carry my long distance traffic... NO MORE!!!... with clipper... this will become a pernicious typr of action ... impossible to stop... BTW the company and its sucessor is SF Bay Area Based... :)

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Extremely high activation potentials caused Xenon to ionize: ## "I am afraid of knowing the truth, for when you offer it to ## people, they call you mad." But if they call you mad, it says nothing about your possession of truth. Goddamn converse-is-not-the-contrapositive-ignorant, I-couldn't-possibly- be-wrong-claiming, solipsism-tending, basic-logic-error-making, self- deceiving, to-his-own-authority-pointing, self-esteem-up-propping ranters!

1 0

Politics, Religion, MUDs, MOOs, the Internet, the Past, and the Future
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is some cogent text from James Burke, a guy right at the top of my `man-I-wish-I-was-that-smart' list. He is noted for his television series "Connections", "The Day the Universe Changed", "Tomorrow's World", and "The Burke Special". After the last physical cypherpunks meeting, thoughts of MOOs and whatnot floating through my head, I chanced on a Discovery Channel broadcast of "The Day the Universe Changed" and when it was over, rushed right out to get the book. His comments about computers (particularly considering he made them in 1984-5), and the kind of future they can allow mixed in my head with all the things cypherpunks normally plan for and dream about and filled me with a sense of "Wow! This guy is dead on (and even still ahead of us in his thinking)." James Burke The Day the Universe Changed (companion to the public television series) 1985, Little, Brown, and Co. ISBN 0-316-11706-4 *** the first sentence from the Preface *** You are what you know. *** the last five paragraphs in the book *** The knowledge acquired through the use of any structure is selective. There are no standards or beliefs guiding the search for knowledge which are not dependent on the structure. Scientific knowledge, in sum, is not necessarily the clearest representation of what reality is; it is the artifact of each structure and its tool. Discovery is invention. Knowledge is man-made. If this is so, then all views at all times are equally valid. There is no metaphysical, super-ordinary, final, absolute reality. There is no special direction to events. The universe is what we say it is. When theories change the universe changes. The truth is relative. This relativist view is generally shunned. Is is supposed by the Left to dilute commitment and by the Right to leave society defenseless. In fact it renders everybody equally responsible for the structure adopted by the group. If there is no privileged source of truth, all structures are equally worth assessment and equally worth toleration. Relativism neutralizes the views of extremists of all kinds. It makes science accountable to the society from which its structure springs. It urges care in judgement through awareness of the contextual nature of the judgemental values themselves. A relativist approach might well use the new electronic data systems to provide a structure unlike any which has gone before. If structural change occurs most often through the juxtaposition of so-called `facts' in a novel way, then the systems might offer the opportunity to evaluate not the facts which are, at the present rate of change, obsolete by the time they come to the public consciousness, but the relationships between facts: the constants in the way they interact to produce change. Knowledge would then properly include the study of the structure itself. Such a system would permit a type of `balanced anarchy' in which all interests could be represented in a continuous reappraisal of the social requirements for knowledge, and the value judgements to be applied in directing the search for that knowledge. The view that this would endanger the position of the expert by imposing on his work the judgement of the layman ignores the fact that science has always been the product of social needs, counscioulsy expressed or not. Science may well be a vital part of human endeavour, but for it to retain the privilege which it has gained over centuries of being in some measure unaccountable, would be to render both science itself and society a disservice. It is time that knowledge became more accessible to those to whom it properly belongs. *** end of quoted material *** Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

2 1

stickers
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Re: big brother stickers, Robert Hayden wrote: > Uh, how do you do dat? Well, I was able to use Word for Windows just now and drop a bunch of them on a page at once (they're postscript; import them as an .eps), resize them at will, and print the page out. If you wanted to make your own laser-stickers or whatnot, I could see this working for you. Of course, a nicer program (one more suited for the task) would be preferred, but .. :) Matt Thomlinson Say no to the Wiretap Chip! University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Internet: phantom(a)u.washington.edu phone: (206) 548-9804 PGP 2.2 key available via email or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0