December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow."
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: solman(a)mit.edu : This is a relatively inane conspiracy theory. Gates hardly requires any : assistance since the feds were already committed to setting up licenses : in bands that are good for these types of networks. Both the FCC and Hughes : have sped up their efforts towards these systems in recent days. That's just the terrestrial side. What about actually getting the birds up? : And the satellite system is not Bill Gates. He is an investor, and a fairly : small one. Gates and McCaw (sp?) gave that venture much more by attaching : their names to it than they did by giving a few of their millions. I seem : to recall Gates' share being 7 megabucks. All the more reason to look at the investors more closely and see what other quid pro quo's have been arranged. : will be too late and that B) software based escrows are a good thing because : they take the wind out of hardware based encryption efforts and they are : difficult to make mandatory. This sort of talk is dangerous. If cypherpunks don't have a united front against SKE, I can't see the less radical front organisations like EFF and CPSR (well, maybe just EFF) going balls to the wall against it either. Compromises should be resisted in order to force USG to show their true colors when they finally demand to outlaw all non-escrowed crypto. Otherwise it'll sneak up on us in the night like the Christian Coalition's goal of taking over the Republican party. G

1 0

DA to DAta censors by D.A.
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Copyright 1994, Nutthin Puke. All jellies preserved. Intelectual arguments pending. DA-- Determined Atheists Before I start, it may be informative to consider that I consider myself to be a hard-line member of the Atheist Preservative movement, and a hard- line advocate of religious freedom. I am a PhD candidate in tantric sexual practices at the University of California at Sodom, and I got the 'Separation of Church and State' language added to the 1774 Republican Party of Texas platform. I am a member of Atheists against Christians, and am two hundred and twenty-seven years old. As the American community continues to grow, the differences of conviction that exists generally in the world find their way into the community. Some demand that newcomers to the USA adapt to the atheist mores of this society. Some demand that the USA, as a newcomer to the world, adapt to the religious beliefs of the outside. As recent events have demonstrated, the less reasonable, on both sides, may be endangering the integrity and availablity of the USA. Calls for USA-wide religious censorship, it may be expected, will continue to grow unless the USA can find some way to police itself. Yet "police itself" is a term that sends the USA into fits. My solution, DA, is for the appropriate users to directly censor the publications that they might legitmately lay claim to censoring--publications that flows to minors over which they have legal authority and responsibility. Specifically, this is a plan to create two sorts of reader in the USA-- adult and minor. Adult readership may only be obtained by persons of age eighteen. Minor readership may only be obtained in the presence of adult readers, refered to as supervisor librarians. Adult readers would have full access to anything in the USA. Gospel tracts, prayer meetings, Turner TV, and like press being viewed by a minor, would cause a Clipper call to an adult supervisor to allow access. Newspaper editors, in particular, would censor any letters submitted from a confused Christian juvenile reader. The legal framework that I see important in aiding such a system is as follows: State Level: 1) Declare to hold harmless those Church bookshops for charges of Contributing to the Delinquacy of a Minor that obtain and verify the age of bible readers, and maintain a DA system of access for minors. Certain acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods delegated to a regulatory agency. Emphasis to be on ease and speed of verification. Special consideration for in-church bookshops. 2) Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a religious bookshop. Require library operators to maintain a record of age and name of religious book readers for thirty days after borrowing a Bible or putting a request for a religious publication on hold. 3) Declare aiding in tampering with DA system to be "Contributing to the Moral Degeneracy of a Minor" and "Promoting religion in direct contravention of Californicate Provision 69". Federal Level: Pass paralell laws for Churches operating with dioces in two or more states, or for Churches operating with 800 'dial-a-prayer' numbers. I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression of religion currently enjoyed in the USA, while reaffirming parental responsibility in the upbringing of their children. The burden of controlling access devolves all the way to the parents, making perversion charges against Church elders patently frivolous. Advocation-of-religion charges would then be MUCH more difficult to press, since a jury could be told that specific steps were being taken to prevent access to minors. If parents complained that they didn't want to go to the trouble of spelling out what their children could access, the response is clear: "Oh, so it's not worth the effort to you?" Despite slurs in this group to the contrary, I believe that the proposed god.* heirarchy may well be the first in a series of attempts to censor atheism in the USA. Remember, we already have had a censor for porn, religion, and unwholesome Hostess-brand snacks. It is not really a question of _if_ but _who_ and at _what level_ will this censoring take place. Nutthin (Adjusting kinky underwear) With apologies to Tim May for stealing his schtick.

1 0

Popular Front for the Liberation of Crypto
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) on Fri, 29 Jul 6:32 PM >Grim times in cyberspace. > >Perhaps folks who are more willing to "compromise" with >the law enforcement types can see why I'm so opposed >to helping them hang us. ENR, a construction magazine, reports July 25 on the Davidian site cleanup at Waco: Quote: As the crew sifts through debris, workers are finding human remains. "Mostly we've found childrens' bones," says Fawn. . . . "These are the things that mess with my mind." The project manager adds that he has trouble finding workers for the job. "They are scared of the bones." Only 47 bodies have been identified of the 80 or more victims. End quote. The LEAs endlessly search for easy targets.

1 0

Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow."
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:08 PM 7/30/94 +0100, Graham Toal wrote: >: From: solman(a)mit.edu > >: This is a relatively inane conspiracy theory. Gates hardly requires any >: assistance since the feds were already committed to setting up licenses >: in bands that are good for these types of networks. Both the FCC and Hughes >: have sped up their efforts towards these systems in recent days. > >That's just the terrestrial side. What about actually getting the birds up? > Oddly enough, they're discussing the use of a modified version of Orbital Sciences' Pegasus launcher. It currently uses a B-52 to carry the rocket to ~40K ft., and then lets it go on up to LEO. However, there's no reason they can't use a 747 as the "first stage". 747's are newer and cheaper and easier to maintain, and the result would be private enterprise from the ground up. At the risk of sounding like pollyanna, we may again be seeing fascists behind every Bush(?) here... Yet, conducting a public awareness campaign, in the shrillest possible terms, against SKE (or more properly, government mandated SKE) is a very good idea. It's easy to separate the two on a conceptual basis, and we should. Conspiracy theories about collusion between governments and big business, no matter how monopolistic those businesses, usually don't wash. Economic institutions really can't keep secrets for very long these days, especially secrets with significant economic impact. While I believe that they probably try, it's a little like pissing in the wind (if you're looking for the proper middle-class white northern european unconciousness-raised male metaphor ;-). However, I have to admit people do stupid things for uneconomic reasons. Windows is living proof of that. Microsoft offering a "security" package with SKE in it to their most lucrative market (Large, Hieropatriarchical, Semi-ossified, Ex-industrial Corporations), is very plausible without any collusion with the uncle necessary. Us howling like banshees about it makes real sense in that light. LHSECs really hate it when people howl at them like like banshees. Exhortatory prose (and action) about manning the barracades against SKE makes sense. Conspiracy theories will probably make potential allies laugh. Cheers, Robert Hettinga ----------------- 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

3 2

Re: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

C'punks, On Sat, 30 Jul 1994, Aron Freed, responding to Eric Weaver, wrote: > ... since when has this country been so easy to quit and find a new job > with the same relative pay...[blah, blah, blah]. Aron and Eric, this discussion is off-topic for Cypherpunks. It looks like I'm just going to have to step in and settle this: Eric is right, Aron is wrong. Now stop fighting and shake hands. We have more important privacy battles to wage. Your humble servant, S a n d y

1 0

Graham Toal and His 'Fucking Religion'
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by nobody(a)c2.org (Anonymous User) on Fri, 29 Jul 9:22 PM Not at all. Mr. Graham Toal expresses civilized contempt of such unctuousness horseshit. His deft lance of this pus is salutary.

1 0

penet.fi attack
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"L. Todd Masco" <cactus(a)bb.com> writes: > Ditto. El creepo was definitely using the real list for the attack (and > oddly, I got two total: one last night and one this evening). Might it be that El Creepo is a _subscriber_ here? If he were, he could get a list of addresses that people actually _post_ from. That covers cases like Roy's. Methinks the C'Punks have a Bug in our midsts. Since C'Punks Write Code, C'Punks also Debug Code, and this Bug needs to be Squashed. :-) --Jeff -- ====== ====== +----------------jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+ == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,| == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. | ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! | PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a problem with the remailer at soda.berkeley.edu? Or are they simply moving machines around, as the message indicates? I received this "warning" message - (identifying headers removed) ********************************************** ** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY ** ** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE ** ********************************************** The Computer Science Division at the University of California at Berkeley is in the process of moving into a brand new building. This entails moving all machines. If you are getting a warning message that the individual's machine is not responding, you might want to try to contact them using something other than e-mail. Although we anticipate that most machines will be down for From owner-cypherpunks Sat Jul 30 14:16:24 1994 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks> Received: by toad.com id AA24030; Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:16:24 PDT Received: from MIT.EDU (ATHENA-AS-WELL.MIT.EDU) by toad.com id AA24024; Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:16:04 PDT Received: from UA.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA04630; Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:58 EDT From: solman(a)MIT.EDU Received: by ua.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA04787; Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:51 -0400 Message-Id: <9407302115.AA04787(a)ua.MIT.EDU> To: gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Graham Toal) Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow." In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 30 Jul 94 14:08:23 +0100. <199407301308.OAA23358(a)an-teallach.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.3 4/7/94 Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 17:15:50 EDT Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk > : From: solman(a)mit.edu > > : This is a relatively inane conspiracy theory. Gates hardly requires any > : assistance since the feds were already committed to setting up licenses > : in bands that are good for these types of networks. Both the FCC and Hughes > : have sped up their efforts towards these systems in recent days. > > That's just the terrestrial side. What about actually getting the birds up? That's the easiest part. International competition for the precious few organizations requiring launching facilities has almost entirely elimintated government intervention in what goes up. Its just like dealing with regulations made by physical world entities in cyberspace. If you don't like the rules, it is easy to move it elsewhere. > : will be too late and that B) software based escrows are a good thing because > : they take the wind out of hardware based encryption efforts and they are > : difficult to make mandatory. > > This sort of talk is dangerous. If cypherpunks don't have a united front > against SKE, I can't see the less radical front organisations like EFF > and CPSR (well, maybe just EFF) going balls to the wall against it either. All we need is widely distributed software with optional escrow and the government will be helpless against us. They won't have a prayer of passing legislation that prevents you from using your software, so they'll pass legislation that requires you to use escrows. People will register a key with the escrow and then use a different key for everything. Escrow dies. Of course we should fight anything mandating escrow, but the reality is that if we can force the escrow into software it will be useless to big brother. JWS

3 2

Re: The Strange Case of Amateur Action
by jamesh＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Writes: > It is ironic that although the issues raised by this > case are of the utmost importance, Robert Thomas is just about > the last person anyone would have chosen as their First > Ammendment Poster Boy. Which makes him all the better choice for the Feds. He's harder to justify defending. JJH -- My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. -Vladimir Nabokov

1 0

Re: Just say NYET to kneejerking
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ed Carp [Sysadmin] says: > > There is no excuse for being impolite. You can express your views > > without vitriol -- you may indeed be able to get along with people > > with views you do not share, and find that you are better off for it. > > Is this the pot calling the kettle black? No.

1 0