December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Siegel and Lewis
by dmandl＠bear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: <raph(a)netcom.com> > > I just got off the phone with Peter Lewis, reporter for the New > York Times. He is unaware of any grand consipracy to regulate the Net, > but then again if there was one, I don't think they'd tell him. > > His piece that ran Saturday was badly mangled by the editorial > process, especially since it ran on page one. Those articles get to be > mangled by a whole new set of people who otherwise wouldn't get to > touch it. I think Lewis has basically good intentions, and does do his > homework before writing a story. I have a good friend who writes for the Times. Last time I spoke to him, he was frantically trying to get in touch with the Business editor because a piece he'd just written had been hacked to bits, with several inaccuracies introduced. He probably couldn't reach the guy, and I bet the mutilated version got printed (I don't know for sure, since I don't read the Times). This is standard. It's almost a rule that whenever there's a story on a subject you're familiar with there'll be major inaccuracies. So what does that say about all the others? > Yecchh. Now I know why I don't rely on daily newspapers for my news Well, that's one reason, anyway... --Dave.

1 0

Re: Regulatory Risks
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan asks > So if the feds intend to regulate cyberspace, what specific sorts of > regulations are possible at this point? > Forget laws, what is *technically* and institutionally feasible? > Can they just throw out TCP/IP and mandate X25? Can TCP/IP be "tamed?" > How can they control private virtual networks that piggyback on the basic > network structure? "Our chief weapon was surprise", and of course Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The most effective thing they could do would be to deploy a digital signature system that you _have_ to use to pay your company taxes or file your individual tax returns on-line, and go from there to requiring it for other business transactions with the government. Subsidized servers, of course. It's worked with Social Security Numbers, and if they control on-line signatures for business, then they can control access to the nets for a large fraction of the population. Along with it, require that banks use the signatures for electronic banking, which is a bit easier since banks are heavily regulated and the Federal Reserve would probably be happy to help. Besides, it gives the Post Office something to do in a post-paper world. They obviously can't prevent piggyback networks, but they _can_ make it economically infeasible for medium-large companies to run them. For instance, declaring internet providers to be common carriers, and doing a "digital telephony bill" to require them to use IPng authentication on packets and traceable headers on news and email systems, with the risk of de-licensing and confiscation for non-conformists. It's nice that the largest backbone provider is now NOT the NSFnet, but a commercial provider (though I'd obviously prefer AT&T to Sprint+MCI :-), but they're still the Phone Company, and could be forced to accept regulation. Meanwhile, at the user end, the Enemy could start using confiscation on any computers caught running remailers or encryption - even if they can't stop us Nasty Evil Black-Marketeering K0deZ Dealers, they could make it too risky to do at work or school, which means your own money is on the line if you get caught calculating in the Black Numbers. I doubt they'll be able to ban convicted lawbreakers from using computers entirely for much longer (heck, I wouldn't be able to use my microwave oven any more, much less drive my car), but they could still try. Bill

1 0

Regulatory Risks
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So if the feds intend to regulate cyberspace, what specific sorts of regulations are possible at this point? Forget laws, what is *technically* and institutionally feasible? Can they just throw out TCP/IP and mandate X25? Can TCP/IP be "tamed?" How can they control private virtual networks that piggyback on the basic network structure? Just questions. No answers. DCF ************************************************************************* ATMs, Contracting Out, Digital Switching, Downsizing, EDI, Fax, Fedex, Home Workers, Internet, Just In Time, Leasing, Mail Receiving, Phone Cards, Quants, Securitization, Temping, Voice Mail.

4 3

Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:00 PM 1/4/95, Name withheld on request wrote: <A laughable pseudo-legal screed from a church started on a bet in a bar.> This may be interesting. Practically the entire revenue stream for the "Church" of "Scientology" comes from "sales" of this "literature". If someone publishes it on the internet anonymously, the revenue accounts of the Co$ may become "Clear". Ahem. Meanwhile, theology and philosophy departments everywhere are fighting for funding to put most of the legitimate canon in their fields on the net for free... > Thomas M. Small ^^^^^ Cheers, Bob R. Nott ^^^^ ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

British Hacker Article
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From The Independent (London) Tuesday 3 January 1995 - Front Page [Banner Headlines] BRITISH BOY `RAIDED US DEFENCE SECRETS' by Tim Kelsey A 16-year-old Briton allegedly hacked into some of the US government's most sensitive computers and was able to watch secret communications between US agents in north Korea during the crisis over nuclear inspection last spring. After reading them, he put them onto a bulletin board of the Internet, an international computer network accessible by 35 million users. _The_Independent_ has learnt that Scotland Yard has arrested the boy and has sent a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. Officers expect to be told whether he can be charged this month. In what US officials have conceded is one of the most serious breaches of computer security in recent years, the boy accessed several defence department systems for at least seven months without detection. The systems he obtained access to included those for ballistic weapons research, and aircraft design, payroll, procurement, personnel records and electronic mail. The boy, who was arrested in Tottenham, north London in July, was, according to US officials, one of a number of people who broke into US defence computers in the latter months of 1993 and the early months of 1994. But it is understood that he was responsible for most of the damage. In all, more than a million user passwords were compromised. The US Defence Information Systems Agency admitted in a private briefing, which has been confirmed, that the hackers had affected the Department's "military readiness." The boy was first detected in March 1994, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) was appointed to investigate. The OSI is a special task force, based at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington DC. It mounts special "raids" on classified computer sites to test their security. A spokesman said yesterday that the boy, who was nicknamed "Datastream" by friends on the Internet, needed "more knowledge than the average home computer owner would possess" to hack the computers. It is understood that he invented a "sniffer" programme which searched across hundreds of computers attached to the Internet for passwords and user names. He was finally caught because he left his terminal on-line to a US defence computer over night. Another British hacker, aged 22, who is acquainted with "Datastream", read some of the messages accessed by him. "They contained information about firing sites in North Korea and stuff like that. Field intelligence. He kept detailed logs of communication traffic. He really couldn't believe his luck. The Americans thought he was a spy but he told them he was just doing it for fun. The OSI said in a statement: "It is unknown if any hacker actually read, copied or took any other action with the Korean files or any other sensitive data. The Korean files were on the Girths Air Force Base computer system and therefore the could have been accessed. It is our opinion that the hacker who accessed the Korean file system learned of its existence form a bulletin board system or another hacker. It is possible the hacker could have read the Korean files." Scotland Yard's Computer Crime Unit is able to prosecute the boy under the terms of the Computer Misuse Act, which allows for crimes committed overseas by Britons to be dealt with in UK courts. A spokesman confirmed that a report had been sent to the CPS. The Internet, designed in the 1960s by US Defence engineers to enable them to communicate quickly by computer, is now available to anyone who pays a small fee. --- Keyboarding by Lois Roth ************************************************************************* ATMs, Contracting Out, Digital Switching, Downsizing, EDI, Fax, Fedex, Home Workers, Internet, Just In Time, Leasing, Mail Receiving, Phone Cards, Quants, Securitization, Temping, Voice Mail.

1 0

Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> These confidential materials being posted were stolen from > my client. There is reason to believe that the materials > which are uploaded by these users may also be downloaded by > other users, What makes him think that anyone (except thetans which spend all their money to scientology anyway) wants to have this "material" and wastes any diskspace or bandwith for ? Hadmut

1 0

Anonymity and talk.politics.chinal
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many of the messages in talk.politics.china are anonymous. They use anon.penet.fi Many of these messages are in Chinese, not ASCII. This is an obvious example of legitimate use of anonymity. In addition this example makes an association in peoples minds between suppressing anonymity, and discouraging dissent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: San Francisco Editorial
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:44 PM 01/03/95, Hal wrote: >The scary thing about cancels is that some proposals have actually been >directed at anonymous posts themselves. Someone anonymously posted >what purported to be a grisly transcript of the last seconds of the >doomed Challenger crew as they fell to the ocean. This caused a great >hue and cry and some calls for banning anonymous posts and/or >retroactively cancelling them. This led to some very amusing events >which Detweiler has chronicled in his FAQ on anonymity, the net result >of which was that the idea was discredited. But the emergence of >CancelMoose is not an altogether positive event in my view. I too have mixed feelings about CancelMoose. But it must be noted, that while it's possible for CancelMoose to be used for Evil Purposes, it hasn't. This isn't a trivial point. The net collectively (well, it wasn't really collective, but I suggest if this individual anonymous CancelMoose hadn't existed, someone else would have done it) responded to something that it's nearly universally agreed upon is bad; C&S-style spamming. That is an example of an anarchist non-hierchical system _working_, despite the lack of rules. And the widespread cancelling of anonymous posts, or posts from communists or whatever, _hasn't_ happened. And if someone tried it, I bet it wouldn't work for long, something would be done to stop it. An anti-cancelbot that reposts anything cancelled by the Evil Censoring Cancelbots, or something. (Why haven't C&S thought of this themselves? Would really create havok with all the cancels and anti-cancels and re-cancels, etc.) I dont' think Martha Siegel really understands what's going on (not a surprise). She is speaking out against a lawless anarchist net, and saying we need more rules. Because she's mad at people cancelling her posts, mainly. But it seems completely obvious that if we _did_ have rules, they would prohibit the kind of really horrible spams she and her husband have been undertaken. Because 99.99% of the net agrees that those spams are really bad. But, like I said, such rules aren't even neccesary. The net collectively reacts. And there will be a counter reaction, C&S will figure out how to get around the cancelbots, or the cancelbots will be used for Evil, or whatever. But I believe firmly that that would cause yet another counter reaction of some kind. And so on and so on. The net will stay at equilibrium.

1 0

who?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

does anybody know what the email address is for the good samaritans? tia ps, how come mail i send to jpiunix.com is getting bounced, are they down?

6 9

Re: warning letter from...
by erc＠s116.slcslip.indirect.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Speaking of Scientology... Forwarded message: > Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny > Subject: Do we face Mount St. Helens twice a day? > From: wb8foz(a)netcom.com (David Lesher) > Keywords: topical, funny, parody, computers > Approved: funny(a)clarinet.com > Message-ID: <S7ae.2a78(a)clarinet.com> > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 12:20:02 EST > > AP: BILL TAKES ON ORAL & JIM > > Bill Gates, Incorporated announced that the Corporation has > purchased a controlling interest in the Church of Scientology, > effective today. The amount of the transaction was not > disclosed. > > A corporate spokesman reading from a prepared text called > "premature" reports that the next version of the company's > mainstay product, referred to as "Windows_2001" in the trade > press, will incorporate an E-meter pop-up box. > > The spokesman did vehemently deny that BGI had really intended > to purchase the Roman Catholic Church, but had drafted the > contract with Microsoft Word on a Pentium, thus causing the > error. > > "We got what we wanted. We see a great potential in the > Church's auditing techniques, and plan to use them to > investigate methods of producing more uniform structured > thoughts, err, code." > > BGI is privately held. > RCC stock closed down 1/8, in light trading. -- Ed Carp, N7EKG Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com 801/534-8857 voicemail 801/460-1883 digital pager Finger ecarp(a)netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key an88744(a)anon.penet.fi ** PGP encrypted email preferred! ** "What's the use of distant travel if only to discover - you're homeless in your heart." --Basia, "Yearning"

1 0