December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bomb information ban
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Caught from the radio this morning: > > Toronto (Canada) city council is debating a by-law to ban information >on bomb construction. This after one of the council members was mailed >a faulty (or fake) pipe-bomb. Rough quote: ~This is different than the >gun control issue because there is no valid use for bombs.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bull. They're great for blowing something up..... > >I wonder how much of the libraries' engineering books section they'll >have to burn because of this. > > All. What part of Engineering doesn't have some impact or use in bombmaking/usage? Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

7 6

Re: Bomb information ban
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> All. What part of Engineering doesn't have some impact or use in >> bombmaking/usage? > >Genetic Engineering, of course, my silico-centric friend :-) > Ah, but genetic engineering could conceivably produce people that were genetically predisposed to suicide missions :-) Besides, genetic engineering more properly belongs to biology, does it not, since it isn't sufficiently precise as to permit "true" engineering? >Query: Why is it that, when the usual stream of crypto-conversation >begins to dry up, the topic of bombs comes up? 'Cause they're fun, and go "bang"? ('cept for the hush-a-boom, of course) > Maybe crypto-anarchists >should seek to replace the traditional symbol of anarchy (you know, the >bowling ball with the fuse) with something more moderne. Any suggestions >on what the well-dressed (black trenchcoat and fedora, for tradition's >sake) crypto-anarchist is seen clutching in his hand as he skulks off into >shadows of Blacknet??? A floppy disk? > You know, something that would make a good .gif. >Finger for public key \ ) >Strong-arm for secret key / <-- minor groove ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Thumb-screws for pass-phrase / ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tempting the fates, are we? :-) Dave Merriman > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

1 0

Chomsky (thread from hell)
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I remember Chomsky being quoted (I think in a Mother Jones issue) something to the effect that the opposition to "political correctness" was not legitimate. Apparently, Chomsky finds at least one kind of oppression to be not distasteful. At a Chomsky lecture that I attended, Chomsky described himself as a left libertarian. I surmise that he finds that grassroots oppression by the left to be ok. I realize, of course, that "political correctness" has great mass media & State support. Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers

2 1

Re: Bomb information ban
by GRABOW_GEOFFREY＠tandem.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Toronto (Canada) city council is debating a by-law to ban informatio >on bomb construction. This after one of the council members was mailed >a faulty (or fake) pipe-bomb. Rough quote: ~This is different than the >gun control issue because there is no valid use for bombs.~ Bombs are used by building demolition teams, excavation workers and (believe it or not) there are even a few artists who use explosives to create their particular brand of art. I won't even mention 4th of July fireworks and the creators thereof. Granted, not many people fall into these catagories, but does that mean that the rest of us are entirely un-interested in how they work. A student of physics might be interested in the physics of a falling building... Okay, I reaching, but the possibility exists! G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | "What we demand are rigidly defined | | Oyster Bay, New York | areas of doubt and uncertainty!" | | | -------------------- | | grabow_geoffrey(a)tandem.com | Clipper, SkipJack & Digital Telephony | | | JUST SAY NO!!! | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| |PGP 2.6 fingerprint = AA 9E 35 12 F8 93 72 8D 1C E5 D5 BC 74 BE 49 D3| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Bank on the Net
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Who says there aren't any banks on the net. Check out Busey Bank's (Illinois) homepage: http://www.prairienet.org/business/busey/homepage.htm

2 1

TEMPORARILY OUT OF TOUCH
by ss 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Until I get an account problem worked out with CRL (a day or two?), I won't be getting any e-mail through that service. If you need to send me private messages, you may use either of the following addresses to contact me: ssandfort(a)attmail.com 74172.314(a)compuserve.com Later, S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a > "Cypherpunk victory." > > 1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. ^^^^^^^^^^ I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices). We agree about crypto, but not all tech is crypto. :) ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpCIPqvOblMnt4MdAQEgRgP/XNNQ/T/RvLnd7Rhu8OxCNlXhez8Dqt0h mJfJ172h8QZr0TSr9jxOt6720Z5+lKGZJbP62I5OZEeufifwTXn1Q9Il1Sq4BEWA mUFbs1mu/v88xVReuNXie5e09R7cRa4cZ8W0aGQ2+ceCBTEvJ/z8Cqps93ZucL9j ZDtO93NM78k= =FcUP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 7

Re: Electronic Revolution and Guerilla Warfare?
by Kelly.Goen＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Interesting Post David, some rather disjoint comments follow: > > From: merriman(a)metronet.com (David K. Merriman) > Subject: Electronic Revolution and Guerilla Warfare? > > What with the governments of several nations around the world starting to > get a bit heavy-handed with their populaces, I was wondering how a > modern-day revolution could take place in a crypto-repressive society, and > how the citizenry could sufficiently rattle/displace such a government so as > to regain control over their destinies. > > For the purpose of discussion, I'd like to propose the following > "environmental variables": > > majority of the population unable/unwilling to do more than complain. > > minority of the population not sure of how to fight the process, but > willing to support those that do know. > > some number (small) of those capable of crypto or other electronic mayhem > depart the country in a short period bridging the implementation of > repressive government controls and laws. > > There are varying permutations of the crypto/electronic-capable, and the > force-capable (ie, hackers-only to bomb-makers-only, and anything in between). > > said government uses all means at it's disposal to try and apprehend those > attempting to resist, as well as intercept communications, prevent damage to > it's infrastructure and physical entities. I would suggest initially that one examine the e-book "Terminal Compromise" by Winn Schwartau and also Information Warfare by the same author. In addition one also may want to obtain a project planner package and actually plan every scenario out along with costs and estimated effects. This would increase the accuracy of your gaming study. One may also wish to include items such as Blacknet in their gaming study as well as a complete and functional blackmarket. Tim's FAQ gives a good review of the tech in crypto and remailers available. Note also for purposes of short term games, knowing ones opponent(i.s. dossiers built up using information brokers and pressure on weak points) tends to be vastly more effective then official routes of change. After all its the oppositions preferred technique. Keep in mind that various hackers have tried this in a haphazard way and gotten caught at it... > > at the start of government "hostilities", all intra-national anon > remailers are seized or shut down, and access to international ones is > *heavily* monitored or blocked (yeah, I know, but we're gaming here!). > > national identity medium (card, wristband, etc) in place and mandatory. > > travel, currency, and information transfer restrictions (ie, no more "How > to build a Backpack Nuke" or "How to hack the Tax Gestapo central computers" > books :-) I expect E-publishing and Data havens for such documents will appear almost immediately after such laws. Backpack nukes unless they are for EMP arent too interesting but EMP/HERF generators are in terms of the attack potential against an information infrastructure. "Information Warfare" looks at this and other issues. Is it happening already??? "I can neither confirm nor deny this rumour". Does our government look at these issues... I point the interested user to a90-217 SBIR, an early I-Warfare project " Electronic Countermeasure: Computer Virus" a project to create military viruses and research into vectoring via RF/induced signal. > > What problems would those willing to fight such government oppression be > likely to face? How to deal with those problems? How to organize and > exchange personnel/information? How to not get caught? How to avoid > detection? What means/methods of, um, dissonance against such a government > would be more/less effective? Under what various permutations of > electronic/physical bushwhacking would the process be successful or not? > Duration? Other than the obvious crypto/cyber/military disciplines, what > other professions or specialized knowledge would be useful under what > conditions? What blatantly obvious thing(s) have I left out? Check out loompanics press... they have many such titles useful to your research... also checkout Paladin Press and Loompanics press. look at spy-cell organizations with crypto/remailer substituted for the comm links and dead drops, information brokers help detect infiltration. Laptop mobile IP with encrypted links and on-line info-brokers allow one to continuously evaluate current local conditions. The one thing always lacking for me in many of these Crypt-anarchy posts "Overthrow the government". is a lack of attention the least principles of logistics, economics and proper planning. You can be sure the opposition is paying attention to such details and has a huge advantage because of this. > > Dave Merriman > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. > Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. > Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to > *love* Big Brother. > cheers Kelly

1 0

He's dead Jim (Chomsky)
by nobody＠cass156.ucsd.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Amazing, absolutely amazing! Perhaps we should stop reading Chomsky (if we ever did) and read James A. Donald--he obviously has not only a grasp of what it is people *really* mean, but also has the spurious arguments to back himself up! The Chomsky quote of the day: > In my opinion, not only mainstream intellectuals but also others > who produce a constant stream of lies, distortion, racist screeds, > etc., should be permitted freedom of speech. The state should not > have the power to stop them. The same freedom extends to > hypocrites, like faculty senates who choose one particularly and > usually quite marginal example because career and power interests > are served thereby, while ignoring vastly more significant and > awful cases because the opposite is true. And Congress, of which > the same is correct. In this, James A. Donald finds: >To put this in its proper context, Chomsky also believes >in socialism, in the sense of the "people" controlling the >means of production, distribution, and supply, and in >particular, the "people" running the mass media. What? Non sequitur! No where in Chomsky's quote do we find any remote resemblance of a reference to mass media; neither to production, distribution, nor to supply (nor to economics of any kind). If I had to piece this together, Mr. Donald erroneously finds the quote: "The state should not have the power to stop them" to mean that Mr. Chomsky is advocating that the "people" *should.* Mr. Donald continues: >In my previous writings on this thread I have shown >examples where Chomsky carefully chooses words so as to >convince us that freedom of speech is not freedom, and >that control of speech is freedom. Wrong again. In his previous writings, James A. Donald *tried to show* that Chomsky "chooses words so as to convince us that freedom of speech is not freedom, and that control of speech is freedom." Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's personal bias), Mr. Donald's "arguments" were nothing more than simple speculations which lacked cohesiveness. He continues: >You will notice that Chomsky has carefully expressed >himself in the manner that is least likely to make us feel >favorable to freedom of speech. [snip] No, what I *have* noticed is that obviously Chomsky "has carefully expressed himself in the manner that is least likely to make" James A. Donald feel favorable to freedom of speech. I have no problem with the manner in which Chomsky has expressed himself--then again, I also see that Chomsky's quote is directed at more than one issue. Continuing... >The intended effect is to make us feel that such "extreme" >freedom of speech is a bit excessive and not really >necessary or desirable. > >In the above quote Chomsky implies that freedom of speech >is divisible -- he implies that we can suppress wicked, >obnoxious, and obviously false ideas, without closing down >everyone's ability to communicate political thought. Unfortunately, I think that James A. Donald is again missing the point. Let me help...it is just those "extreme" views which must be protected. Chomsky does imply that freedom of speech is divisible, but he also implies that freedom of speech *should not be.* Furthermore, Chomsky neither states nor insinuates that "we"--and I assume that James A. Donald is refering to "the people"--can "suppress wicked, obnoxious, and obviously false ideas" of any kind! What he does say is that those persons who form the power structure of this country--the mainstream intellectuals and the state--have the power to suppress ideas and speech. (Remember, Chomsky says "should not," instead of "does not" in reference to the state's power.) >Let us also look at the examples he gives of people abusing >freedom of speech. Notice that every example that he gives >are powerful and priviledged people who plainly need no >protection, never the weak and vulnerable silenced by the >powerful and arrogant: > >> hypocrites, like faculty senates who choose one >> particularly and usually quite marginal example because >> career and power interests are served thereby, while >> ignoring vastly more significant and awful cases because >> the opposite is true. And Congress, of which the same is >> correct. > > >Let me give a counter example to Chomksy's implied argument >that it is safe to silence dissidents, and that dissidents >are powerful and priviledged servants of capitalism. That's really an amusing twist of logic: 1) I have never heard anyone call a hypocrite a dissident, and 2) I have never heard Congress being referred to as a bunch of dissidents! Because Chomsky refers to faculty senates and Congress, James A. Donald automatically assumes that Chomsky views them as dissidents. A more logical approach would be to hunt for what role both faculty senates and Congress play in Chomsky's quote--i.e. the role of hypocrites who *are extended* freedom of speech, as opposed to racists and other ideological unsavories who "should be permitted" freedom of speech but are not. Chomsky does not call these people dissidents, just as he does not call mainstream intellectuals dissidents; none of these groups, because they are powerful, privileged, and *mainstream*, may qualify as dissident. Furthermore, how in any way, shape or form, can it be safe to silence dissidents if they are powerful and privileged! ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ >I did not see this quote: I am relying on Todd for the >accuracy of this quote, but I have seen plenty of similar >hypocritical smears against liberty by Chomsky. The above >piece of catty nastiness is classic Chomsky, and I could >easily dig up a dozen similar examples of the kind of >support that he gives liberty. Apparently, Mr. Donald did not *read* this quote as well. It would be quite, quite horrifying to have James A. Donald "dig up a dozen similar examples." Quite, quite horrifying. >Is he a fool, or is he a monster? My question exactly. For those interested in what Chomsky really has to say, good or bad, ftp to the Chomsky archives at: ftp.cs.cmu.edu (128.2.206.173) user/cap/chomsky/ (note that there is no slash at the beginning of the pathname). On the Web: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu:/usr/tp0x/chomsky.html _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ I detest what you write, _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ but I would give my life _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ to make it possible for _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ you to continue to write. _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ --Voltaire _/ (in a letter to M. le Riche)

3 2

BofA & the CIA
by Lewis McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: $ Banks already collude (BCCI was not a fluke, just a CIA $ front bank, like Castle Bank, Nugan Hand Bank, and Bank of America). Stephen Williams writes: $ I happen to be contracting in the Bay Area for Bank of America till $ Feb/Mar... See: http://www.bankamerica.com Does this make you a CIA plant ? -L. McCarthy "I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem" -Offspring Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog

1 0