December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re:
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >lefty(a)apple.com (Lefty) says, > >lef> and then treats us to what he purports to be Mr. Nalbandian's phone number >lef> and address. >... >lef> Whoever you are, nobody, you're a hypocrite and a coward. > >Well, it wasn't me, but in any event I dispute this. The use of anonymous >remailers does not make one a coward, any more than the use of a pseudonym >does (or is your given name "Lefty")? Certainly the use of an anonymous remailer in and of itself it doesn't make one either a coward or a hypocrite. However, invading someone's privacy by posting their telephone number and home address is a hypocritical act for anyone who expects others to respect their own privacy. Moreover, doing so anonymously is cowardly. And, yes, my using my long-standing nickname, "Lefty", is _quite_ different from posting anonymously. You can reply directly to me using my email address, <lefty(a)apple.com>, which appears in the header of everything I post; moreover, I am responsible for what I post using that ID. See it up there? You can easily determine who I am from that information. <lefty(a)apple.com> is, in effect, a True Name. <nowhere(a)bsu-cs.toad.com> is not. <nobody(a)jarthur.cs.hmc.edu> is not. >As for the privacy aspect, I believe it may serve the interests of those >who desire privacy to point out privacy lapses. Not all the time, but >sometimes you have to say, "the emperor has no clothes". It is not the case that anybody "pointed out a privacy lapse" here. On the contrary, someone _committed_ a privacy lapse by obtaining and posting Mr. Nalbandian's phone number and address _specifically_ as an incitement for people to harass him. This _is_ an invasion of privacy. Are you somehow failing to see that? >For example, would you object to this: > >an4544(a)anon.penet.fi = Eric Robison <ericr(a)Solbourne.com> >an68863(a)anon.penet.fi = Derek M. Harkins <harkinsd(a)solix.fiu.edu> > * >an51751(a)anon.penet.fi = Joe Baptista <baptista(a)planet.org> > >The anonymous remailer is not so anonymous, is it? Should I have kept >the information to myself, or am I right to publicize it? What you have supplied represents an invasion of privacy as well, in my opinion. If you were to explain how you came by this information, _that_ might be worth sharing, but simply presenting a mapping of anonyms to truenyms is not. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Regarding Mr. Nalbandian's Comments (fwd)
by lassie!jim%lassie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1] If Joe ComputerUser does not know how to use his computer for more than word processing and playing games, at this point, he probably doesn't NEED PGP. If he knows enough to realize what little privacy he actually has, he will go looking for security. With luck, he will run into someone who can steer him towards PGP... Wow, word processer, so i guess that if you are just using a word processer that you don't need PGP? As usual you distance yourself from computer users by placing youself on a pedistal above them. Why is that? Do you feel superior to them? Is it something that was lacking in your childhood? I bet you could code 500 lines a day when you were in grade school. I bet you never have just used a word processer or played games on a computer? Have you? With luck somebody will give me the winning numbers to the lottery next week, too. And with wings pigs can fly. [2] The purpose of this list is not to insure that everyone has a copy and knows how to use PGP (though most of us would consider that a worthwhile goal). As it has been said more and more often, 'Cypherpunks write CODE!'. This is a discussion group about the practicality and implementation of specific forms of cryptography and cryptographic applications (digital money, key servers, etc). [ This is not to belittle the political content of the group, though. ] Groups like the EFF are interested in helping new users to the Internet learn all about it, and are doing a good job of it so far. If you are that concerned about the masses not knowing about cryptography, try sending a note to the EFF (with the caps lock OFF!) and ask them to include a section on privacy, cryptography and PGP in the next version of the Big Dummy's Guide To The Internet. It's a start. Why should I waste my time? You waste your time by writing crypto that WILL be outlawed and take no action to distribute. And as usual people on here can't see farther than Internet. They really can'nt. Must be a pedistal thing. Why write crypto or even purport it's use if you are to deprive the real people that could aid your cause the use use of "PGP" or other sutible non-CLIPPER cryptography. More people are off Internet than on.? [3] Sending badly composed rants to seven hundred people and then publically posting a response to a private message is not the way to be taken seriously. I thought there was only a couple hundred on this list? cool 700! I have no idea what you mean by public post of private message? -- * Spelling errors are intentional and international * Jim Nalbandian netcomsv!lassie!jim%lassie(a)netcom.com Tempe, Arizona, USA N7SZS(a)K7BUC.AZ.US.NA No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain there right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. <-------- Thomas Jefferson --

3 2

Clipper on Science Friday
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's NPR Science Friday show was on Clipper. Flatow's gFrom owner-cypherpunks Fri May 6 14:28:41 1994 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks> Received: by toad.com id AA13801; Fri, 6 May 94 14:28:41 PDT Received: from research.att.com (ninet.research.att.com) by toad.com id AA13790; Fri, 6 May 94 14:28:34 PDT Message-Id: <9405062128.AA13790(a)toad.com> From: smb(a)research.att.com Received: by gryphon; Fri May 6 17:27:20 EDT 1994 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: MBone cypherpunks session... Date: Fri, 06 May 94 17:27:19 EDT Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk I disagree with Perry, at least in the abstract. The mbone is not expensive, if no one is transmitting. First of all, there's no bandwidth reservation; if you're not sending anything, you don't consume anything. Second, the bits are sent only to the networks used by the recipients; a tree is constructed by the mbone routers based on IGMP (sic) packets emitted by the participants. So if IdiotS and IdiotD are having an mbone session, no one else is likely to see any impact... There are two exceptions: the IGMP packets themselves, and the sd announcements. But those are both sent once per minute or less, so they're not much of an issue. For technical information, see http://www.eit.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html; Rich Stevens' book ``TCP/IP Illustrated'' has a good discussion of IGMP, though I don't think he talks about mrouted, the mbone routing and tunneling protocol. Besides -- two of the important mbone tools, vat and wb, support encryption. What could be more ideal? That said, an open party line is probably a bad idea. The email load is bad enough on cypherpunks -- there's a *lot* of noise -- without having to listen to Cypherpunk Talk Radio (more likely Cypherpunk Shout Radio...) all day. But a semi-organized conference format, of a given duration, might work. It would be an interesting experiment to try. --Steve Bellovin

2 1

Re: FW: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gosh, I think I posted this to cypherpunks earlier... Check to see if your site has a tunnel.... If you have multicast packets coming over your subnet, you can access them via sd and other tools... To ftp them, ftp to: ftp.ee.lnl.gov The audio (vat), whiteboard (wb) & session directory (sd) tools are on ftp.ee.lbl.gov in conferencing/{vat,wb,sd}/*. The most widely used video tool (nv) is available on parcftp.xerox.com in pub/net-research. -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Evil Pete says: >> > >> >What is the point here? The MBONE isn't like usenet. Sessions aren't >> >free. Personaly, I'd say that frivolous use of the mbone will alienate >> >people. >> >> just cause everyone does not have phone does not mean we shalt not >> use telephones. >> >> just cause everyone does not have email does not mean we shalt not use email > >You completely misunderstand. The MBONE is a very scarce resource at >the moment. Setting up teleconferencing sessions that aren't, say, >multicasting a conference (like, say, a Cypherpunks meeting) but are >just being used to let people do what they do on mailing lists at >500,000 times the cost in network bandwidth isn't social. > >Perry > Perry, I think you are not quite clear on how the MBone works. It uses the bases of broadcasting a session once which can be received by the many. Only a few of those many will get involved with the session in the since of retransmitting... There are some WWW sites that have alot of MBone info which you might check out. Urls: http://www.research.att.com/mbone-faq.html http://eitech.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html http://www.eit.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html http://info.arl.army.mil/ACIS/ACD/MBONE/index.html http://info.brl.mil/ACIS/ACD/MBONE/index.html http://www.gatech.edu/aimosaic/faculty/catrambone.html enjoy! -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry, Actually I think that Steve (smb(a)research.att.com) described it best. Please note his post about the MBone structure. I am going to drop this debate with you as I don't want to use up needless bandwidth. :) cheers, -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

some animals are more equal than others
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the news: A judge has dismissed drug charges against a daughter of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, saying police had conducted an illegal search. ...police found a gram of cocaine in her car. ... On Thursday, Criminal Court Judge Michael Toomin ruled that the officers didn't have probable cause to conduct the search. *EXCUSE ME!* Since when have the cops and judges cared about legality of searches? Am I confused? Wasn't Bill in Chicago two weeks ago explaining why we needed to do illegal searches to root out drugs? Oh, I forgot. He meant the searches for *US*. Not *THEM*.

1 0

Re: some animals are more equal than others
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>*EXCUSE ME!* Since when have the cops and judges cared about legality >of searches? For about thirty years now. You might recall kind of a major uproar when Ed Meese proposed throwing out the probable cause restrictions on searches several years back. >Am I confused? Well, frankly, it looks that way to me. >Oh, I forgot. He meant the searches for *US*. Not *THEM*. Get a grip. This isn't the first search that was thrown out for lack of probable cause. Call your local ACLU chapter. They can tell you all about it. Or do you feel that she should have been treated especially harshly for being the daughter of a Congressman? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn writes > >I took it upon myself to poke around a bit and this is what I came up with: > >The phone number and address are indeed belonging to one Jim Nalbandian >in Tempe, AZ. They are listed, published, and publicly available. I >guess the bottom line question is when is privacy the burden of the >user? Is it Mr. Nalbandian's obligation to take steps for privacy? How >much at fault can "nobody" be at for publishing information that Mr. >Nalbandian could have shielded for pennies? Would it be your position then, that, say, any woman who doesn't happen to have an unlisted phone number is fair game to have her name and number written in a toilet stall in Grand Central Station with the notation "For a Good Time, call..."? You wouldn't feel that to be an invasion of privacy? (If indeed it is the same >Jim Nalbandian) Mr. N's signature held his state and city of residence. >It is no great accomplishment for anyone to look up his published >information. Posting it to the net might have been "sleazy" in the eyes >of some, but no worse than circumventing copyright laws with the "Information >Liberation Front." In fact one could argue that "nobody"'s actions were above >this sort of criticism. (I should note that I do not express any >personal opinion on the ILF one way or the other). Sorry, but we clearly disagree here. I view it as a clear incitement to harassment, and, in my opinion, _that_ constitutes an invasion of privacy. >In short Lefty: Privacy comes to those who seek it. No. Privacy is, or should be, the right of all. I don't have to do anything special to enjoy my rights to free speech or free assembly. I should not have to take special measures to enjoy my right to privacy, either. If I don't lock my front door, that doesn't imply that anyone can walk into my house. To do so would _still_ be an invasion of privacy. >Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for: None. This misses the point entirely. Even the indigent have a right to privacy. >"nobody" saved us all the $0.75 a long distance information call costs. >Multiply that in the aggregate and you have some nice money. > >I think it worth noting that Mr. Nalbandian hasn't posted since "nobody"'s >letter. A considerable social gain in my view. Perhaps Mr. Nalbandian will >take an interest in privacy now, another considerable social gain. "Hey! The ends _do_ justify the means!" -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

2 1

Putting new PGP on company machines.
by Andrew Purshottam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone asked the company shysters about the legal status of MIT-PGP? I'd really like to have and use pgp at work, but have hesitated about putting it our machines here, as we are so prim and proper (in public) about intellectual property. Andy

3 3