December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Children and the Net
by kkirksey＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> On Sun, 31 Jul 1994, Mike Duvos wrote: > >> > Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with >> > scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the >> > state of Texas, all the children would have been removed from the >> > compound prior to the raid, and only the adults would have been >> > toasted. > >> Puh-leeze! There has been little to no evidence of ANY abuse of the >> Branch Davidian children. The only thing we know is that Koresh liked his >> mates young but that doesn't mean the rest of hte children were abused >> and, of course, Koresh's kink is quite normal in quite a few places. Are >> you forgetting that the BDs were investigated for child abuse and cleared >> earlier? > >These facts were well documented. Child welfare workers visited the >compound and examined the children. Signs of previous physical >punishment were noted as well as a room devoted to that purpose and ^^^^^^^^^^ >the appropriate paraphernalia. We were talking about physical ABUSE, not physical PUNISHMENT. There is a difference, unless of course you're one of those people that believe that they're one in the same and that parents shouldn't be allowed to physically discipline their children in any manner whatsoever. When I was a child, we had a room devoted to the physical discipline of us children: my parents bedroom. And in that room, specifially the closet, my father kept the appropriate paraphenalia: belts. Do you believe my parents should have been arrested for "child abuse"? I don't. The fact stands that there was no evidence that the children in the compound were ABUSED. The Texas department of child welfare cleared Koresh of all such charges. If you have any documentation to the contrary, I would certainly be interested in seeing it. I don't want to see evidence of PUNISHMENT, only ABUSE. Ken ============================================================================= Ken Kirksey kkirksey(a)world.std.com Mac Guru & Developer - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLj7FhusZNYlu+zuBAQGENgP/V6G/gCuFJ40+AeY0rs++AB73260q9jzk iLScYWfPwQ0JyMd3XJ9K4GW0eVaiV+LmWbAIFXj0FdBOVmzAnpFtw2zWTZep4UMO awrUFsp0UioGi3web3q2cfgxi3Z5YQiaZQN6rvpAeECsXyi+mutG8dQ8HdYgNY1N TRiTwsf+5pk= =86cK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Anonymous code name allocated. // penet hack
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Doug Cutrell writes: > >So, in between my check and yours, Todd posted the cypherpunks hack > >telnet 25 and the anonymous id disappeared. Hmmmmm. I wonder how > >that happened? :-) > > > >Thanks Todd! > > > > Rick > > I'd like to understand what Todd's "hack" means... I assume that he's > talking about telnetting to the sendmail port. But I thought that anyone > could unsubscribe anyone from cypherpunks by simply sending a message with: > > unsubscribe cypherpunks obnoxious(a)jerk.com > > It isn't even necessary to forge the return address, because majordomo > doesn't check. I just pulled majordomo's help file. It's appended below. In my experience, listservers will clear any commands that don't come from the person affected by passing them on for processing by the list maintainer as a security precaution. I had assumed majordomo did this, but I'm not certain. -- Todd

2 1

Chaum ecash
by Joseph Block 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to clutter the list but: I had sent email about beta-testing Chaum's ecash scheme. I've since lost my copy of the original announcement (had a drive crash - joy!) and have never received a reply. Could some kind soul send me a copy of the announcement? thanks jpb(a)gate.net

1 0

One last acronym...
by Joseph Block 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Federal Usurpation of Citizen's Keys Eliminates Real Security " " " " " " Secrecy

2 1

Re: Ethics of Anonymous Remailers (Re: Needed for a computer ethics class)
by jburrell＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >No, but it's something that I often get asked. I would be interested to hear >examples of good things that people are using my anonymous remailer for. Take Pr0duct Cypher, for example. Many believe that what (s)he's doing(*) is a Good Thing, and I've seen him/her using the Cypherpunk remailers to conceal his/her identity. * If you don't know, (s)he's the person who wrote PGPTOOLS, and a hack for PGP 2.3a to decrypt messages written with 2.6. I assume (s)he's doing it anonymously due to ITAR regulations. --- Hey Feds! How's it goin'? (LIke you're not reading the list. :) -- Jason Burrell <jburrell(a)crl.com> Finger for PGP public key. There is no such thing as limited censorship. If you want your freedom, fight now. Don't wait until you've lost it. WWW: ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/ro/jburrell/WWW/home.html

1 0

Re: Anonymous code name allocated. // penet hack
by doug＠OpenMind.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Tue, 2 Aug 1994, L. Todd Masco wrote: > >> > It isn't even necessary to forge the return address, because majordomo >> > doesn't check. >> In my experience, listservers will clear any commands that don't come from >> the person affected by passing them on for processing by the list >> maintainer as a security precaution. I had assumed majordomo >> did this, but I'm not certain. Tod and Robert are right, I was wrong... I just checked this by creating a dummy account from a different address. When I tried to unsubscribe the dummy account from my usual account, I got a message telling me the request had been deferred to the list owner. So it's not *totally* trivial to mess with the list... Doug

1 0

Re: The Terrorists are coming! (fwd)
by CatAshleigh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:12:39 -0700 (PDT) From: CatAshleigh <yusuf921(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> To: Subject: Re: The Terrorists are coming! I was originally going to e-mail this to the people who made the comments, and would recognise what they had said, so I didn't preserve the distinction of who said what, but after re-reading I think it's directly related to Big Brother's attempts at limiting our privacy the >> are my comments, the > are responces and the ones without any >> at all are my counter porposals. sorry if there's any confusion > > first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only > > country with nukes in the middle east is Israel) country > > with a nuclear program is pakistan, and they're years away from anything > > that could be stolen. > > True, but only because they haven't gotten their hands on any yet. It is > well known in certain international arms circles that Kadaffi or Hussein > would absolutely *love* to have their own means of producing nuclear > weapons. And they aren't alone. We built Hussein, and I believe that Kadaffi was still struggeling to build chemial when we bombed him in '86, or so, but I believe I could be mistaken. > > some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims > > as terroists. > > I don't think so. Most of the world's terrorists (with the exception of the > IRA and a handful of others) are recruited and trained by folks in the > Middle East. It may be true that they have gotten more than their share of > publicity in the past, but the fact remains - the Middle East is *the* > training ground for that sort of thing, and there isn't a fundamentalist > over there who wouldn't like to shove a suitcase nuke up Bill's ass. Every orginization which exists in the middle east has a purpose, Hezbullah's purpose is the liberation of Palestine, using nukes would be counter produtive, like in the movie "red dawn" USSR invaded, but USA wouldn't use nukes on it's own territory, because that would make it worthless land. think critically, 1) What would be gained by nuking the US? there are more Muslims here then there are Jews 2) the objective of "terror tactics" is to destroy a lot of property with as few injuries as possible, something akin to "counting coup" to demonstrate that "IF their intention had been to kill people, alot more bodies would be found, which (ie more fatalities) is easly accomplised by simply packing the bomb with shrapnal. could you be more specific about which "fundamentalists" you're talking about? > Haven't you heard? America *is* THE ENEMY to a majority of the folks over > in that part of the world. If you don't believe me, travel to that part of > the world carrying an American passport and see what happens. OY! please don't make generalizations. Iran had a popular revolution and overthrew the Shah (it's well documeted that he tortured prisoners in his jails) and replaced it with a democratic parlement, and implemented Islamic law, the USA urged Saddam Hussein to attack them and refused to extridite the Shah to be tried for his crimes. Would you expect any less after that? Who else called the USA a satan? the "ENEMY" is dictators who suppress the people from democratic elections and the countries who back them. therefore keep your eye on Egypt, but they're not very conserned about the USA because there's not much the USA can do to interfere there. > In message <Pine.3.87.9408011942.A12890-0100000(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> > CatAshleigh writes: > > > first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only > > How do you know? > that's common knowlage, when Iraq got close to developing them, Israel bombed them. the only country the usa is throwing a hissyfit about is Pakistan. (and N. Korea) > Ahem. Uzbekistan is Muslim, and is also the third or fourth largest > nuclear power, and also is in a part of the world where there is a > long tradition of ... how do I say it gently ... greasing the palm. > I spent quite a while next door in Afghanistan and am familiar with > the culture. > the 5 largest nuclear powers are 1) USA 2) Russia 3) china 4) India 5) Israel (believed to have about 100 warheads) Uzbek was part of the USSR, and that's where they deposited some of their permanent sites, Uzbek refused to return them when the federation broke apart because they (they're smart) don't trust the russians farther then they can throw a nuke at them, after all they wanted nothing to do with USSR and were forced into the USSR by the soviets invading. Nukes are their insurance, they're not going to be parting with those any time soon. China is who they should be keeping an eye on. Smaller weapons certainly, such as stinger missiles, but that's capitalism :) A large part of the former USSR was Muslim and there were strategic and tactical nuclear weapons scattered all over the place (tactical weapons are used as mines, fired from artillery pieces, carried by short range missiles, and dropped from fighter bombers). If none of these is unaccounted for, it is a genuine miracle. It was my understanding that only the USA was incompetent enough to develop "tactical" nuclear weapons where any grunt can drop them and KABLEWY > Also, there has been quite a lot of press coverage here in the UK of > the defector from Saudi Arabia who claims that (a) the Saudis backed both > the Iraqi and the Pakistani nuclear programs and (b) the Saudis at > least have some nuclear materials. > The "defector" is an idiot, saudies were too busy building infrastructure to waist money backing other people's weapons development. The Saudies backed Iraq because they were fighting Iran and saudies aren't too fond of Shi'a. It might also be noted that the USA is similarly guilty. > > second of all there are more deaths caused by lighting on golf courses, > > ask any insurance agency. > > Also not true. The total number killed directly and indirectly in > Japan alone by atomic bombs is certainly over 100,000. I can't believe > that that many people have been killed by lightning on golf courses! > <BUZ> that's deaths from lightning on golf courses verses "terrorist attacks" I should have made that more clear, sorry. I'm glad that you mentioned that though, lets remember that it was the USA who was the "terroist" who bombed the civilians at Nagasaki and Heroshima (terrorist as defined in the dictionary) > > some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims > > as terroists. > > Pork barrel? by inflating the NSA, and CIA, more people in your department, more job security. > -- > Jim Dixon > ---------- > > > The only other people who are called terroist are the IRA, and I don't see > > the FBI scrambling to protect Great Britian's consulet in DC when a > > car bomb goes off in London > > Here in the UK we read about lots of terrorist groups, not just the IRA: > ETA in Spain ... At least not called terrorist in USA papers, in fact only the British news agencies call the IRA terrorists, american papers seem to take a neutral attitude to the situation. my paragraph was in responce so automaticaly equating "nessisary step-ups in security against terrorists" as a codeword for "spying on arabs and muslims" by the FBI and CIA. > Maybe you should subscribe to a London newspaper. > The internet is better. > --- > Jim Dixon > > Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig

1 0

Reputations/Credentials
by cwalton＠earthlink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:17 PM 9/4/94 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >The objective is to go to a system where good conduct is >enforced by the non material and unquantifiable value of >reputations, rather than a system where good >conduct is enforced by coercion. > >Credentials are not reputations. Any attempt to make reputations >more precise, objective, and knowable, will turn them into >credentials, which are incapable of achieving the desired >effect. I'm afraid I don't understand what you guys are talking about. My wife and I bought a car on Saturday. We drove it away, based on what the dealer's computer printedout from his TRW inquiry. My personal credit (tied to my Social Security Number)is terrible. My wife's is pristine. We used hers. (Is this "transference of reputation? Could *I* use a couple different SSNs for different "reputations"?) They asked about how much $$$ she makes, how long we've lived in our house and looked at the record of payments on other loans. They took a copy of her driver's license (credentials?) and TRW calculated a "risk factor" for us. It was a specific number, between 1-1000. This sounds like a reputation kept by a third party (escrow agent?) to me. My actions (good conduct) will be based on (enforced?) by the non material and semi-quantifiable value of the TRW credit report, not coercion (I want more stuff in the future). TRW seems like a "reputation reporting agency". I can take a copy of that print out into another bank and get another loan if I wanted. Is that a "credential"? What's the difference? and what are the implications of the difference? Give me a better model to illustrate what you think would be better or worse. Drug dealers only need cash and a gun to make transactions while they keep totally anonymous. Futures traders need a credit line and a government registered agent to work through and have *no* privacy, but more money than I'll ever make. >By calling a credential a reputation, we imply that it automatically >has value. Of course it does not. But this is like saying that a credit card has no value. While this is technically true, in reality, where I live, I can turn that credit card into food, gas, stereos and computers. If I don't pay my bill at the end of the month, they won't give me anymore stuff. Reputations *and* credentials both have nothing to do with the value, worth or character of a person, but I don't think the car dealer cares if I kick my dog, only if I pay my bills. PS- I lost the note about Sandy's Privacy Seminar. Did I miss it? ***************************************** Conrad Walton cwalton(a)earthlink.net ***************************************** Without JOY there can be no STRENGTH. Without STRENGTH, all other virtures are worthless. Edward Abbey

3 2

ID Card Hearing 8/3/94
by David Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

National ID Card Hearing 8/3/94 Barbara Jordon, Chairwoman of the US Commission on Immigration Reform will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow on the Commissions recomendations on verifying workers are eligible. Drafts of Ms. Jordon's testimony reveal that the Commission has backed off its initial proposal to require a national id card. Rather, the Commission will recommend a pilot program for the 5 states "most harmed by illegal immigration." It appears that this "pilot program" is only an attempt to limit initial opposition to the proposal with a future plan to implement it to other states as possible. In fact, when the national id proposal was first floated, the plan was to implement it step by step. Assuming that this will include Florida, California and Texas, a sizable percentage of the US population will be affected by the proposal. The Hearing will be held in Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216 at 10:15 am

1 0

Re: Anonymous code name allocated. // penet hack
by rarachel＠prism.poly.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't think I have a code allocated, unless I accidentally replied to some message from penet... If (suppose) I had one allocated, what would happen with the tuna spam? Would anything alert me that it was tried?

1 0