December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Tuna fish and spam sandwich
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 15:37:44 +0300 >From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)penet.fi> > >But the whole current server is getting to be a horrible patchwork. I am >working on a total redesign/rewrite, as well as upgrading the machine and >the connection, to eliminate the delays and allow PGP. But to do all that, >I am going to need sponsors/support. Preliminary discussions started >with a couple of organisations. I will donate to this cause. Will you publish or email me an address where I can send a check? tw

1 0

Re: Just say NYET to kneejerking
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9407291348.AA04027(a)snark.imsi.com> perry(a)imsi.com writes: > > Graham Toal says: > > I must admit that I'm disappointed. I figured that I would > > take some hits, but for people to only scan a post before reaching > > for the lighter... > > > > Don't be such a condescending shit. We read your post clearly enough, > > thank you very much. Typical control-freak crap. If you want your > > little xtian kids to be namby-pamby'd on the net, > > I believe Graham is being rather rude. > Agreed. You may love sailing and decide to live near a busy harbor. But if you have children, you will probably want low fences between them and the water. When they get older and have better judgement and motor control, they will also be able to step over the low fence. This is the way that most human beings handle their children, with restrictions that disappear gradually as the children grow up. The Internet is a wild and exciting place. You want your children to get to know it. But you would also like a way to build little fences between them and some things that they are just too young to deal with. How do you do it? -- +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Jim Dixon<jdd(a)aiki.demon.co.uk> | Compuserve: 100114,1027 | |AIKI Parallel Systems Ltd + parallel processing hardware & software design| | voice +44 272 291 316 | fax +44 272 272 015 | +-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

3 2

Re: anon.penet.fi troubles
by sidney＠taurus.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.sf.ca.us> wrote (in e-mail to this list, not to Julf, by the way): >There has been a rash of discussion about unusual messages from >your server on cypherpunks recently, I received this one today; [...] >X-Envelope-To: an111447 Checking the subscriber list, I see that an111447(a)anon.penet.fi is subscribed to cypherpunks. It is near the end of the list returned by Majordomo. Does that mean it was recently added? This has happened before. If someone uses anonymized mail to subscribe to this list, then all mail which anybody sends here is going to be sent to the anonymized address. Anyone who has an id on anon.penet.fi who has not set up a password and has sent mail to a mailing list such as this one that has an anonymous subscriber has revealed their identity to that subscriber if they included their sig in their message. Anyone who did not have an id who sends a message to this list will end up being assigned one. I thought that somebody did something the last time this happened to fix the problem, at least regarding the cypherpunks list. Or was that just before one of the mailing list crashes, so the problem went away by itself until this person recently subscribed? Does it seem to much of a coincidence that an111447 subscribed at the same time that the alt.test tunafish spam appeared? -- sidney <sidney(a)apple.com>

1 0

Re: Just say NYET to kneejerking
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe Graham is being rather rude. Deliberately so. I would hate to cause offense by accident. G

1 0

Re: NYET to censors, REPOST
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: nzook(a)fireant.ma.utexas.edu : Specifically, this is a plan to create two sorts of accounts to the net-- : adult and minor. Adult accounts may only be obtained by persons of age : The legal framework that I see important in aiding such a system is as : State Level: : acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods : delegated to a regulatory agency. Emphasis to be on ease and speed of : 2) Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS. Require : BBS operators to maintain a record of age and name of account holders for : 3) Declare aiding in tampering with NYET system to be "Contributing to the : Delequency of a Minor". : Federal Level: : Pass paralell laws for BBSs operating with local numbers from two or : more states, or for BBSs operating with 800 numbers. I see a lot of call here for legislation and government control. Keep your fucking religion out of my face, Zook. If you want censored-kiddynet, create your own one privately out of funds donated by Good Christians, but take your state control and stuff it where ypu stuff your crucifix. G

1 0

Anonymous message failed (wrong password)
by daemon＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The message you sent to the anonymous server could not be processed, as your password (in the X-Anon-Password: header) didn't match the one stored in the server. Either you have made a mistake, or somebody has used your account and changed the password. If the latter is the case, please contact admin(a)anon.penet.fi. Contents of failed message: ------------------------- X-Envelope-To: an111447 Received: from relay2.UU.NET by anon.penet.fi (5.67/1.35) id AA20854; Thu, 28 Jul 94 22:44:56 +0300 Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxanv11527; Thu, 28 Jul 1994 15:47:30 -0400 Received: by toad.com id AA20384; Thu, 28 Jul 94 12:00:25 PDT Received: from well.sf.ca.us by toad.com id AA20148; Thu, 28 Jul 94 11:59:05 PDT Received: (from talon57@localhost) by well.sf.ca.us (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA16258 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Thu, 28 Jul 1994 11:53:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 11:53:34 -0700 From: Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.sf.ca.us> Message-Id: <199407281853.LAA16258(a)well.sf.ca.us> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: "Just say NYET to NYET" Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk The message in question was sent by me to cypherpunks(a)toad.com from my account at talon57(a)well.sf.ca.us and nowhere else. It looks as if someone is redirecting mail improperly. Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0

Re: FW: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May I don't proprose to "prevent" any company from exploring key escrow. I just don't see why law enforcement, intelligence agencies, etc. have anything to do with this, and I am very worried by the arguments I hear about "legitimate needs of law enforcement" and "export laws." ..................................................... So what about this statement you made earlier: > >Putting Microsoft's feet to the fire, getting them to commit to *not* >including any form of software-based key escrow in any future releases >of Windows (Chicago or Daytona) could be a concrete step in the right >direction. Ditto for Apple. > >I'm sure we can think of other steps to help derail widespread >deployment of this infrastructure. I have the same concerns, I just don't see how it would be possible to cause a company to "commit" itself to not doing this, i.e. preventing the company from including SKE in its products. Blanc.

2 1

NYET and international data services
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Even in the NYET proposal were implemented, it wouldn't accomplish it's own objectives. The existence of international data services, not under the purview of the cabal of governments administering a hypothetical mandatory rating system, would provide an end run around any attempt at censorship. The only alternative would be to shut down international data links. Whatever material someone might find objectionable will still exist, because the proposal doesn't call for its suppression, merely its labelling. That objectionable material will go outside the bounds of the system, and right back in. In order to be effective, the system would have to prevent telnetting to arbitrary international sites. Do you really suppose China would participate in a Western-values (of any sort) madatory rating system? Please. And I, for one, would be happy to run data services out of China, and the Chinese would be happy for the foreign exchange. I have, in fact, considered putting up just such a service in Tiajuana, right across the border from San Diego. I might even be able to use radio or laser links to cross the border, and not even deal with international telecom arrangements. Someone wants a non-US web page? I could sell them one. They don't tell me their name, and I can't tell anyone else. If someone is offended, they get to sue in Mexican court. Internationalization solves most problems of local restriction, de facto. You won't be able to do mandatory ratings of any kind because every jurisdiction, even the USA, is a local jurisdiction. Eric

1 0

Re: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May "If Microsoft has never met with NIST/NSA or Denning or TIS on this matter, and was only pursuing SKE research on its own initiative, without any incentives or threats from the government, then I will withdraw my speculations and cheer Microsoft on." ................................................... And then you can say: Blanc was right all along; I really had nothing to worry about. Signed: Tim C May "We need to see a public debate on software key escrow, regardless of Microsoft's involvement one way or another. And we shouldn't wait until the press conference is held to announce the program!" ....................................................... I would like to see more explanations on key escrow, myself. To me, the issue is control: who gets it, who excercises it, who will try to prevent an individual from their right to exert it. How does the mere existence of a system of key escrow necessitate that no one will ever again have the means to secure their privacy? I do understand the difference in the situation of an individual in a corporate environment using a given software environment, vs the individual at home with their own pc trying to access the internet & send email. But you all write code: you have ideas on how to deal with this, right? Do you think that having created a means to an end, that it will be impossible to retain ownership and control of it? In the present political atmosphere, there are many ownership issues being threated. The government's position is to take away the means to an end, thereby preventing the whole problem of having to think about who has the right to use it or not. Do you think that preventing companies from implementing their own key escrow schemes, this will eliminate the problem of having to fight with the government over the keys? Blanc

3 2

Re: NYET and international data services
by Pierre Uszynski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric Hughes remarks: > Even in the NYET proposal were implemented, it wouldn't accomplish > it's own objectives. [...] international data services, > [...] would provide an end run around any attempt at censorship. Right, clearly, and I would add national underground links that would appear if such regulation was implemented. I'm always amazed when people think for even one second that effectually regulating an internet based on the existing protocols is possible. In particular, the existing internet has enough redundancy and activists to keep it going, legal hassles or not. Unfortunately, what is just as clearly (to me :-) possible, is an ATTEMPT at regulation, with its accompanying enforcement effort, no matter how ludicrous. With this would come the same waste in good will, money, lives, trust in the goverenment, and trust in fellow citizens that came from the previous attempts at regulating alcohol, drugs, taxes and intellectual property to cite only the most blatant examples. If legal and corporate bullies make it difficult to run key servers in the US, use the ones that run outside. Same for anonymous remailers. Same for erotic or pornographic picture servers. Same for erotic texts, the other way around from Canada or, say, Islamic countries: You can run these with little hassle in the US (although it's certainly not the best place to do so). The same thing for intellectual property laws: not all countries have the same copyright, patent or trademark laws. And if you are in France and want to run English language services, do it from the US, or England, or Finland, or Germany, or ... :-( And why would a networked bank stay in the US once the bugs are ironed out, or even before that for that matter? In fact, even US law enforcement people are reported to be doing that currently from the US, using foreign companies to collate data on US residents that they are forbidden from collating in the US (sorry, reference not handy). Recently, TV crews were shocked, simply shocked to discover that you could access from the US "disgusting pictures" stored on a Danish computer <shrug>. Unfortunately for the US subscribers to this list, as things stand, there are very few reasons to run any kind of internet businesses from the US, apart from current physical location of the principals. I predict many of the less employee-intensive ones will simply emigrate. I fully understand that it's easier to run the software from a local site, with physical oversight, but you should balance the legal hacking necessary with the programing hacking. Really, in many cases a foreign site in a country where the activity is legal would mean much fewer hassles, and added peace of mind (notwithstanding the ironically similar tendencies of Israel, certain Islamic states, and the US to want to prosecute foreigners for activities performed in foreign countries...) Give up on your reluctance with dealing with foreign countries, and don't give yourselves more headaches than necessary. > I have, in fact, considered putting up just such a service in > Tiajuana, right across the border from San Diego. I might even be > able to use radio or laser links to cross the border, and not even > deal with international telecom arrangements. Someone wants a non-US > web page? I could sell them one. They don't tell me their name, and > I can't tell anyone else. If someone is offended, they get to sue in > Mexican court. I'd encourage people who are aware of foreigner-friendly and privacy- aware internet access systems, suitable for such legal or financial arbitraging to post pointers to this list. They are relevant because of the privacy aspects, the use for setting up key-servers, banks, reputation systems, and whatnots, and the cryptographic aspects of maintaining businesses through mostly remote access. (French, US permanent resident... aaAAAaarrRRRrrggGGgghhHHhhhh ;-) Pierre. pierre(a)shell.portal.com

1 0