December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download
by Dr. Jai Maharaj 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:21 AM 7/31/97 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote: > Dr. Jai Maharaj <jai(a)mantra.com> writes: > >|> ...where on this scale do you start to object to my actions: >|> 1) I use a killfile to ignore certain messages. >|> 2) I program my personal newsserver to discard certain messages. >|> 3) A group of us, by consensus, program our common newsserver... >| >|Unanimous consent? >| >|> 4) A system admin, with due notice to users, programs a >|> newserver..... >| >|What constitutes "due notice" in the present context? > >Postings in news.announce.newusers. That's ridiculous. One shopping for an ISP, without access to the Net, is not in a position to read a notice in a newsgroup. It makes sense that censorship and forgery advocates would also suggest means of hiding the truth. Again, if an ISP were to advertise "Newsgroups censored through forgery" -- in electronic, print and broadcast media, or wherever advertisements are placed or material made available to investors, then that would be "due notice". Jai Maharaj jai(a)mantra.com Om Shanti

2 1

I did get the infamous IRS letter after all
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I check eff.org only rarely. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Received: from tcs_gateway1.treas.gov (tcs-gateway1.treas.gov [204.151.245.2]) by eff.org (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA23349 for <declan(a)eff.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 15:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tcs_gateway1.treas.gov id AA19660 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for declan(a)eff.org) Fri, 18 Jul 1997 18:47:02 -0400 Received: by tcs_gateway1.treas.gov (Internal Mail Agent-2); Fri, 18 Jul 1997 18:47:02 -0400 Received: by tcs_gateway1.treas.gov (Internal Mail Agent-1); Fri, 18 Jul 1997 18:47:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:29:08 -0400 From: IRS Inspection <irsnwpr(a)net.insp.irs.gov> Message-Id: <199707171629.MAA02733(a)net.insp.irs.gov> To: Interested-Parties(a)net.insp.irs.gov Subject: Something of Interest United States Attorney Western District of Washington FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 18, 1997 JAMES D. BELL PLEADS GUILTY TO OBSTRUCTING THE IRS AND USING FALSE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS United States Attorney Kate Pflaumer announced that JAMES DALTON BELL, 39, pleaded guilty today in the federal court in Tacoma to two felony charges. BELL, a resident of Vancouver, Washington, pleaded guilty to obstructing and impeding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and to falsely using a social security number with the intent to deceive. United States District Court Judge Franklin D. Burgess presided over today's proceedings. The charges stem from an investigation initiated in October, 1996 by IRS Internal Security Inspectors into reports that BELL was gathering the names and home addresses of IRS employees. In previous court hearings, IRS Inspectors testified that BELL had obtained the names and home addresses of 70 IRS employees as part of "Operation LocatIRS." In the eight page plea agreement signed by BELL, he acknowledged that he had gathered the names and addresses of the IRS employees in order to intimidate them in the performance of their official duties. During the course of their investigation, IRS Inspectors discovered that BELL was advocating a scheme called "Assassination Politics", whereby persons would be rewarded with "digital cash" for killing certain undesirable people. BELL identified these undesirables as government employees, such as IRS employees, who would be intimidated from enforcing internal revenue laws for fear of being assassinated. In the plea agreement, BELL admitted that he suggested using "Assassination Politics" as an enforcement mechanism for the "Multnomah County Common Law Court", and that this was part of his effort to obstruct and impede the enforcement of internal revenue laws. In affidavits previously filed in this case, IRS investigators identified BELL as a participant in the "Multnomah County Common Law Court", which was described as a self-appointed anti-government extremist group which purports to hold "trials" of IRS and other Government employees for the performance of their official duties. The affidavits indicated that in January, 1997 the "Multnomah County Common Law Court" held a "trial" of IRS and other Government officials. In the plea agreement, BELL also admitted that on March 16, 1997, he conducted a chemical "stink bomb" attack on the IRS office in Vancouver, Washington, using the noxious chemical mercaptan. In affidavits filed with the Court, IRS Inspectors tied BELL to two previous mercaptan attacks against non-government targets: one being a lawyer's office in 1984, and the other a vehicle in 1989. The IRS investigators also linked BELL to two purchase orders for noxious chemicals, one in 1994 and one in 1996. According to the plea agreement, the attack on the IRS office resulted in a cost to the government of $1,359, and caused a number of IRS employees to have to leave work. In an affidavit previously filed in this case, IRS Inspectors indicated that the mercaptan attack may have been linked to the February 20, 1997 seizure of BELL's vehicle by the IRS for unpaid taxes. As part of the plea agreement, BELL also admitted that he used several different social security numbers in order to hide assets from the IRS and thus to impede the IRS's ability to collect taxes he owed and to prevent the IRS from levying his wages. Federal agents had previously executed two search warrants on BELL's residence. On April 1, 1997, IRS agents seized computers, documents, and firearms during a search. In a follow-up search, the Environmental Protection Agency seized a variety of dangerous chemicals which had been discovered during the execution of the IRS warrant. BELL was arrested by IRS Inspectors on May 16, 1997. BELL continues to be held in custody based on a May 23, 1997 ruling by Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold that BELL posed a danger to the community and was a flight risk. BELL faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the obstruction charge, and five years and a $250,000 fine for using a phony social security number. The IRS received assistance in the investigation of BELL from the Portland Police Bureau, Oregon Department of Justice, Oregon State Police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Vancouver, Washington Police Department.

3 2

Pauline Hanson's One Nation newsletter
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Issue 1.1 Date: 1st August 1997. Welcome to the first Pauline Hanson's One Nation electronic newsletter. The objectives of the newsletter are as follows: ------------------------------------------------ To keep you informed on developments within One Nation. To seek assistance from you, where you are willing or able to help. To seek your comments and feedback on surveys that we may run from time to time. In this first issue we are listing the key One Nation web pages that will be of interest: The Hanson Phenomenon (main jumpstation) http://www.gwb.com.au/hanson.html Official Home Page of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party Press Releases http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation/press/press.html Thank you to all those who have offered support and volunteered their services. The fight to put Australia back on track has just begun and it will take all the support that we can get at the grass roots level to make it happen. One Nation contact details: --------------------------- We will providing you with details on state branch contacts in the short term. If you wish to contact One Nation please: Phone: (02) 9976 0283 or (02) 9976 0284 Fax: (02) 9976 0285 Pauline Hanson's One Nation Pauline Hanson

1 0

Re: Rep. White introduces Internet Protection Act
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan writes: > This is important. After all, the FCC's charter gives > it jurisdiction over all electronic communications -- ^^^^^^^^^^ > though the commission has opted not to exercise its > authority in cyberspace. Here's a fun little thought experiment: Considering the hairsplitting that takes place everyday in courtrooms these days, an arguement could be made that since virtually the entire net these days is optical fiber, there are no 'electronic' communications taking place. Does the FCC charter mention photonic communications as well? At what point does the charter allow them to interfere? Here's some steps on the way... * A mime, 'working' outdoors in daylight. The communication is entirely by photons, and the light source is non-electronic. (I know that many people would like to see mimes suppressed for the good of humanity, but bear with me). * A mime, working by electric light. Does the fact that electricity is involved in creating the light make the communication 'electronic'? I don't think so. (IANAL) It (the mime) is certainly modulating the (electronically generated) light, just as an optical transducer does. * A mime, illuminated by an electric light, and viewed through a fiberscope. There's certainly no new 'electronic' components introduced at this step, so sending modulated, electronically generated, photonic messages through an optical fiber would not seem to constitute an 'electronic' communication. * A mime performing inside a sealed box, illuminated by electric light and viewed through a fiberscope. Once again, no new 'electronic' components have been added. * The mime, finally realising that the box is airtight and unopenable (I told you to bear with me :-), signals for help by sending Morse code down the fiberscope with a flashlight. The other end of the fiberscope enters a similar box, where another mime flashes back "Great 'walking against the wind' technique, but I can't help - my box is sealed too." Is this an electronic communication? This is getting pretty close to the situation of two computers connected by fiber optics - the communication mode is even digital. The boxes are silent, consume electric power, and communicate via optical fiber. I don't think the FCC's jurisdiction extends inside the boxes, where all the 'electronic' portions of the system reside. Just some idle speculation... Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

3 2

adults only
by candy＠mail.mail-promo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FREE 5 MINUTE PREVIEW!!! See and talk to girls or guys on your computer screen. Not a video! Not prerecorded! This is live!!! Our models will obay your every cummand, we're willing to prove it by giving you a free 5 minute preview. Give it a try, it's free! - CLICK HERE

1 0

Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Love wrote: > On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to >take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. >People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the >basic goal is hardly immoral. Indeed, many think it is immoral not to >protect children. Yes, yes...one man's morality is another's immorality. Each of them thinks of himself as "being in the right" and sees the others as wrong or even "evil" (witness the anti-BoyLover zealotry). Different subjects but the same bullshit. See the futility of it yet, Jamie? If parents find pornography objectionable for their children, then they must take ultimate responsibility to keep pornography away from their kids. If they are not willing to do this, then they should not have had the children in the first place. It's up to them to take care of their kids. Not you, not me, not the government, and not some "voluntary" ratings system. CyberAnalFistFuckingActionMonger

2 1

Denning backs away from GAK
by Eric Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Encrypt expert revises views Authorities crack codes on their own" By Simpson Garfinkel, special to the Mercury News "A key academic supporter of the Clinton administrations position in the debate over controls on encryption software has found that the scrambling techniques widely used today have not shielded criminals from law enforecement authorities. As a result, she is backing off from her long-held belief that controls on strong encryption are essential to fight crime" http://www.sjmercury.com/business/compute/encrypt073097.htm -- Eric Murray ericm(a)lne.com ericm(a)nabletech.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

12 14

We pay You if we can't get you a VISA/MC!
by 23908678＠17105.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! If you have bad credit, no credit, even bankruptcy, you can still obtain one or more VISA or MasterCards with NO SECURITY DEPOSIT or SAVINGS ACCOUNT REQUIRED! And NO CREDIT CHECK. Our Credit Matching service has helped hundreds of people become bankcard holders, and we can help you too! In fact, we if we can't get you approved!! This is that second chance you've been waiting for! Don't miss out! <A HREF="http://www.cybermaxx.com/visanow">CLICK HERE TO APPLY FOR YOUR UNSECURED CREDIT CARD!</A> You've nothing to lose! Our web page also provides you with a FREE LIST of companies offering merchant cards and banks that offer secured cards. (No monthly fees, no deposits, NOT MLM, and NO inquiries to your credit file). We thank you for your business! (This is a one time mailing. You won't hear from us again unless you request so) <<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<><< Tired of unsolicited email? Click here! <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><9><4><9><0>

1 0

RE: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is all nice and good, but the question is who is Chris Lewis, what is his connection to northern telecom, what the hell do you mean by forgery, are you implying the technology that entrust has in it's secure kernal is stolen? Keeping in mind that using public domain algorithms is not theft, and also keeping in mind that they have a patent license from public key partners, which allows them to use the "rsa" patents, and keeping in mind that a fully featured certificate system is much more than just a cryptography product. Is the law being broken here? Is there a breach of ethics at Entrust? To restate.....what's wrong with what entrust is doing? Everyone has had such a good time talking about spamming and cancels, but I'm really interested in how Nortel is somehow committing a forgery. Also looking around the dejanews stuff about lewis, he seems to be a spam cancel freak yes, but no pedophile. Dimitri, you seem to be a pretty smart guy...enlighten me on this whole thing. Do you mean that Nortel has a hand in the forging of spam cancels? Or do you mean that they have a hand in forging software? Chris DiBona -----Original Message----- From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM [SMTP:dlv@bwalk.dm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 1997 6:22 AM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org Subject: Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download > Entrust Technologies (www.entrust.com) has made Solo available for > download, free for 30-day evaluation & edu/non-profit. For Win95/NT. > A mere $49 Cdn (~35 US) for commerical usage... > > For e-mail / file encryption, digital signature > > Solo uses 128-bit encryption, which is CAST-128, the royality-free > algorithm invented at Entrust/NorTel. It also uses 1024-bit RSA public-key > cryptography and has DES, Triple DES available. > > Also follows FIPS 140-1 validated security kernel. It is compatible with > other Solo clients (of course), Entrust/Lite and Entrust. I ask everyone on these two forums to inform Northern Telecom Forgers / Bell North Forgery Research / Entrust that we will boycott their "security" products as long they continue to employ the child-molesting pedophile Chris R. Lewis - the biggest forger on Usenet. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 2

Thomas Leavitt on why online news sites should not self-label
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************ From: leavitt(a)webcom.com Subject: FC: CNET editor endorses self-labeling, "news site" standard (fwd) To: chris_barr(a)cnet.com Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Cc: declan Chris, What is your response to DeClan's comments? My own is that restricting use of the labeling system to "bona-fide" news sites is a self-serving action, consistent with a desire to create barriers to entry and establish restraint of trade, and would likely result in an organization co-opted by industry leaders, like other "regulatory" institutions. Furthermore, I think generic endorsement of the validity of rating systems, and of collaboration with government in encouraging them and other companies in making not having them result in invisibility (instead of merely presenting people with the option to choose filtered or unfiltered content from a search engine, perhaps based on a browser header or equivalent communication of intent/desire), is very threatening to the integrity of the 'net and free speech. In fact, the whole mania for ratings, the V-chip, tv ratings, etc. is extremely alarming to me. Look at how the Hayes' code crippled Hollywood, and the entire industry for decades. Ratings and censorship, etc., are very damaging to creativity and freedom of speech... media that endorse and accept them inevitably wind up being corrupted and failing to realize their potential. Ratings endorse (and provide a means for) the basic impulse to impose ones views about the appropriateness of content on another. Look at the nut cases parading around our local libraries, protesting that "Dangerous Addictive Materials" are being made available to children because the library refuses to install filtering software (every implementation of which I've heard about is horribly unselective and politically/culturally suspect). They reflect the same impulse that lead an elected member of Congress to state that "the Constitution is a barrier to religious freedom" (something which days later, still shocks me) since it prohibits granting religion access to state resources, in acknowledgement of the preferential treatment likely to be given to particular branches (and the inevitable conflicts that would result). Do you really want to get in bed with this kind of mentality? Is it appropriate for a journalistic institution to be making these kinds of judgements? I don't see the L.A. Times providing age and appropriate guidelines at the beginning of every story. The image of a child running down the road, skin burning with Napalm, is horrifying, and potentially traumatic, to a child. At the same time, how many careers, how many idealists and crusaders have developed as the result of seeing the unvarished truth, at a young age? Do you really want to be responsible for enabling a parent to deny their child the potential for this transformative event? Isn't there a conflict of interest here? What if you find that 40% of your content gets blocked by various filters, and the organization down the street has 5% of their content blocked, and as a result, is making more money that you are? Won't this produce a race to the bottom, a tendency towards "palatable", generically unoffensive content that is not affected by your self-imposed filters? Would a writer or editor whose interests/style/topics of choice result in 80% of his or her articles falling under broad layers of your filter have the same success as a writer/editor who wrote about nothing but happy puppy rescue stories? The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that journalists and media have no business involving themselves in any way shape or fashion with rating of content. This is a formula for pablum... network news is already bad enough. And your proposal, desire, etc., would impose this requirement on an entire industry. No "bona-fide" journalist would be free of this conflict of interest. Every article, report, photo, would be influnced by the question "how will this be affected by the filters... will I be able to sell this if it is... will I reach the audience I wish to reach with my message/story, if I present it this way". Is that what you really want? Regards, Thomas Leavitt [ Jesus, DeClan, this is far worse than I thought it would be when I started out writing this letter. ] > Since the Supreme Court said the online world should be > as free as print, and no self-labeling system exists > for magazines or newspapers, why should the Net be any > different? Why isn't the Net community opposing > "mandatory voluntary" self-labeling systems as > staunchly as newspapers and magazines would fight a > similar requirement? It's best to ask these questions > of Christopher Barr (chris_barr(a)cnet.com) editor in > chief of CNET, who endorsed such a proposal in his > column below. > > Barr says that he wants to ensure "that > only real news organizations claim [the] privilege" > of rating as news sites with RSACnews. But who decides > what's a news site? Is CNET? pathfinder.com? epic.org, > which the government treats as a news site when responding > to FOIA requests? The Drudge Report? How about the NAMBLA > News Journal? > > My report on the possible perils of such systems is at: > > http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html > > -Declan > > **************** > > http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html -- WebCom (sm) Thomas Leavitt--leavitt(a)webcom.com Voice: (408) 457-9671 x101 Executive Vice President WebCom Home Page <URL:http://www.webcom.com/>

1 0