December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

None
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:33 PM 8/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >> Great Barrington, MA -- In a recent >> pronouncement, television evangelist and >> head of the Christian Coalition, Pat >> Robertson, advocated death by stoning for >> crypto enthusiasts. Figures. I've never understood this dumb Christian overlooking of how the world actually functions. You don't "stone" people to death anymore, there's other ways to kill them. Second, this "Pat Robertson" is a fascist. >> Robertson used the news of the July 25th >> Senate Commerce Committee hearing to promote >> his extreme beliefs. A segment on the July 27, >> 1997 broadcast of The 700 Club featured news >> of the Senate hearing. Employing the >> historical event as a starting point, the >> program delved into the possibility of the >> existence of anonymous free speech on the >> Internet. Something that should be spread, rather than destroyed, but narrow minded Christians don't seem to get that. >> While Robertson viewed the Internet with >> suspicion, on a more serious note, he >> launched into a diatribe against those who >> entertain the existence of uninhibited free >> speech on the Internet. He said, in a >> rambling discourse, that if such a thing >> existed, it would simply create demons that >> would lead people away from Christ. Lead them away from opression, to freedom. According to this guy, the people who helped stike down the CDA are devils. Also, this clearly shows that this man is a Nazi. >> According to Robertson, the threat is so >> serious that people who believe in free >> speech should be put to death by stoning -- >> according to "God's word." Fuck him. God's word is fascism, hate, narrow-mindedness, and a Big Brother State. He can take his bible and shove it up his ass. >> "The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, >> but the Word belongs to the Lord," >> Robertson said. Sorry, we own earth, and God doesn't exist. >> "He has given us the Earth. He also warned >> us in the book of Matthew of the dangers of >> corrupting forces such as the Internet which >> can be used for evildoers: First of all, this also proves Christians are incabable of making real world arguments, because they rely so heavily on a 1000-page book filled with lies. >> "'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can >> a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that >> does not bear good fruit is cut down and >> thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their >> fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:17-20)' I'm not going to bother with cryptic messages sent by a god-loving Nazi. >> "And you see, there is only one Word, and >> that is the Word of God: Bullshit. >> "'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word >> was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)'" >> 'For the Word of the Lord is right; and all his >> works are done with faithfulness. He loveth >> mercy and judgment: the earth is full of the >> mercy of the Lord. (Psalm 32:4-5)' Mercy? How merciful is commiting mass-murder because humans don't fit your bill, god? Second off, cryptic responses aren't worth a shit in arguments. The word of the lord is fascism. >> "Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, >> funny-looking computer hacker? No, but I see them all the time in tghe form of men wearing robes with crosses on them, reading from a 1000-page book of lies. >> Of course >> he can, or it can. Of course they can deceive >> people. And if they can lead somebody away >> from the true God, or away from Jesus >> Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't >> matter, you will lose your salvation. It >> doesn't matter how they get you. The >> question is, did they get you, and under >> what guise? As i said, they don't lure you away from god, they open your eyes, and you grow up and stop the nonsense. >> "This is man in rebellion against God, who >> refuses to take God's Law. And God says, >> 'My covenant says you won't do this. And if >> I find anybody in Israel,'-- "which is his >> pure nation" -- 'If I find anybody in >> Israel that's doing this sort of thing, >> then I want you to take him out and dispose >> of him." That is fascism. Nazi fascism. >> "It's a clear violation of God's word. >> Stone them." That's a clear violation of my rights, shoot that Christian prick. >> Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer publisher, >> commented: "As the founder and chairman of >> the Christian Coalition -- a group >> dedicated to becoming the most powerful >> political force in America -- Robertson's >> extreme ideas need to be taken seriously, >> for they not only negate pluralism, but >> condemn to death those who dare to believe >> differently." Which is fascism. Nazi fascism. This loser makes Communism sound good, considering it outlaws religion. This post has moved me considerably. Some parts of his speech requires a response that words could not adequately describe. This speech of his outlines in entirety the Christian Agenda. Enslaving, murder of those different, intolerance, fascism. If Christians try to stone anyone, they should be shot right away. Freedom-Thru-AtheismMonger "Your god is DEAD!!! And no one cares!!! If there is a hell, I'll see you there!!!!!" - Nine Inch Nails, "Heresy"

1 0

Re: Emergency File Wipe Algorithim Re: Emergency File Wipe Algorithim
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When a running computer is seized in some sort of law enforcement raid, what are the chances someone would think to backup the contents of a RAMDISK drive prior to powering it down?

4 3

e$: More fun with cash: Senate Bill 307
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone heard about this bill? Comments? Cheers, Bob Hettinga >From: glasgow(a)geoserv.isgs.uiuc.edu (Mary.Glasgow) >Subject: Senate Bill 307 2-tier Money System >Date: 31 Aug 1995 13:54:45 GMT >Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana >Summary: Senate Bill 307 2-Tier Money System >Keywords: Senate Bill 307 2-Tier Money System > >In the Senate of the United States, January 30, 1995, Mr. Leahy introduced >the following bill, which was read twice and referred to the Committee on >Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. > >...for purposes of brievty, I will quote only from sections (c) Currency >Exchange and (d) Domestic Use and Nondomestic Use Currency. > >(c) Currency Exchange-- > (1) Plan--Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this >section, the Secretary shall devedlop and begin implementation of a plan to >require the exchange of all existing $100 denomination United States currency >held within and outside of the United States for $100 denomination domestic >use and nondomestic use United States currency issued in accordance with this >sectin. > > (2) Exchange Requirements--The plan established under paragraph (1) shall >require the currency to be exchanged-- > (A) at financial institutions regulated under United States law and >subject to United States currency transaction reporting and other money >laundering deterrence requirements; or > (B) at financial institutions that the Secretary finds, because of >treaty obligations, other provisions of law, or other agreements, are >required to report significant transactions in United States currency to >the United States Treasury, and abide by such obligations. > (3) 6-Month Exchange Period-- > (A) In general--During the period beginning on the date that is 12 >months after the date of enactment of this section and ending on the date >that is 18 months after that date of enactment, the Secretary shall permit >the exchange of circulating $100 denomination United States currency for >equal numbers of the domestic use and nondomestic use $100 currency issued >in accordance with this section at institutions described in paragraph (2). > (B) Non-Negotiability--Except for claims pursuant to subsection (e), >beginning on the dat that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this >section, the United States Treasury shall not recognize $100 >denomination >United States currency issued prior to the date that is 12 months after the >date of enactment of this section as constituting a negotiable claim against >the United States Treasury, and such currency shall not constitute legal >tender for any debts, public or private. > >(d) Domestic Use and Nondomestic Use Currency--Beginning on the date that is >18 months after the date of enactment of this section-- > (1) domestic use currency, issued in accordance with this section shall >be recognized as constituting a negotiable claim against the United States >Treasury only when presented within the United States, and shall constitute >legal tender for any debts, public or private, only when presented in the >United States, but such currency may be exchanged for equal values of $100 >denomination nondomestic use currency (or other United States currency) only >at financial institutions regulated by United States law and subject to >United States currency transaction reporting and other money laundering >deterrence requirements; and > (2) nondomestic use currency shall be recognized as constituting a >negotiable claim against the United States Treasure, and legal tender >for >any debts, public or private, only when presented outside of the United >States, but such currency may be exchanged for equal values of $100 >denomination domestic use currency (or other United States currency) at >financial institutions regulated by United States law and subject to >United States currency transaction reporting and other money laundering >deterrence requirements. > ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Shipwright Development Corporation, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 323-7923 "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf(a)clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

3 2

Re: Cyphernomicon, and a section on Escrow and Reputations
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I finished my first release, a megabyte-sized file done in MORE, a powerful >outline processor (which enabled me to maintain notes, make >cross-references, and generally manage such a huge writing project). I >released it last year, and put it in my anonymous ftp account at >ftp.netcom.com, in the directory /pub/tc/tcmay, as the file CP-FAQ. Netcom >is often very crowded, though. After several tries I was not able to get this. Has anyone made it available in an alternate location? Dar (list newbie) =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 <--- 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html My preference for attached files are in this order: AOL, Mime, Binhex4, PGP, UUencode ===========================================================

3 2

Re: Breaking Legal News.... (fwd)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The American legal system has spun out of control. I don't argue that she >should not have the right to sue...everybody does. But a judge can quickly >dismiss a case on a matter of law. According to the Mercury-News, the suit has been dismissed. <http://www.sjmercury.com/news/breaking/docs/016909.htm> -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)c2.net 510-986-8770 x 309 voice ** please note phone number has changed ** 510-986-8777 fax

1 0

Re: A problem with anonymity
by terrell＠sam.neosoft.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>To: TCMAY(a)GOT.NET, CYPHERPUNKS(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: A problem with anonymity >From: monty.harder(a)famend.com (MONTY HARDER) > > > But if the escrow agent is anonymous, we simply recurse, moving now to >the question of whether anyone can trust the Anonymous Escrow Agency not >to take the money and run. > >TC> (I mention banks because, when you look at it closely, today's banks can >TC> quite easily claim that a customer made a withdrawal when he didn't. That >TC> they don't says more about the nature of persistent businesses than about >TC> any government oversight or security features. This is a side point, but it >TC> bears keeping in mind that the real world of banks and businesses, etc., is >TC> not fully secure, either. And yet it mostly works pretty well. The reasons >TC> for this are interesting to consider.) > > A bank has $$ invested in impressive-looking buildings, (so that >vanishing into the ether and setting up shop elsewhere is rather >difficult) and several officers whose TrueNames are registered with the >appropriate agencies, so that they may be sued if they pull this >crap. > > While individual stockholders might appreciate the anonymity (and >protection from legal action) of owning stock in a bank or escrow agency >(might just combine the functions, while we're at it), they demand >onymity of the officers with whom they entrust the keys to the >corporation. >Monster(a)FAmend.Com * > > The real secret is that for most banks the individual transaction is << than the total stream of transactions. Defaulting on a single transaction will show a profit that is miniscule compared to the over-all earnings at stake if the bank's credibility is jeopardized. When banks have gotten into trouble it is frequently when they allow one customer or one transaction to represent a significant share of their business. You have a high probability of being able to trust an escrowee with your $1 if you know he intends to collect commissions on holding $1million for others based on his "trusted" representation. Buford C. Terrell 1303 San Jacinto Street Professor of Law Houston, TX 77002 South Texas College of Law voice (713)646-1857 terrell(a)sam.neosoft.com fax (713)646-1766

1 0

my crypto rump session abstract
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(the one that david sternlight misinterpreted to mean that we had proven that clipper has no back doors): M. Blaze, J. Feigenbaum, F.T. Leighton, "Master Key Cryptosystems", Crypto '95 "rump session" abstract, August 1995. Available as: ftp://research.att.com/dist/mab/mkcs.ps -matt

1 0

When did he get traded to the Black Hawks?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > At 05:33 PM 8/22/97 -0400, you wrote: > >> Great Barrington, MA -- In a recent > >> pronouncement, television evangelist and > >> head of the Christian Coalition, Pat > >> Robertson, advocated death by stoning for > >> crypto enthusiasts. > I've never understood this dumb Christian overlooking of how the world > actually functions. You don't "stone" people to death anymore, > there's other ways to kill them. Second, this "Pat Robertson" is a > fascist. I'm a Frisbeetarian. I believe that, when you die, your soul goes up on the roof, and you can't get it down. Nonethemore, I take umbrage at much of the recent Christian-bashing taking place on the cypherpunks list. Bash Pat Robertson, 'make fun' of Jesus, but please, stop painting with the wide brush. If I claim to speak for the cypherpunks, then I would expect to be roundly booed and set upon by Mongers with long teeth and shot at by whoever May choose to do so. I expect the same for Pat Robertson when he speaks for Jesus. He's an asshole! However, the cypherpunks mailing list serves a purpose for giving us a forum to discuss and debate issues that are important to us, and the Christian faith does likewise for those who think evolution is a Satanist plot, and Jesus plays goalie for the Chicago Blackhawks. (Jesus Saves! {But Gretsky puts in the rebounds.}) > >> While Robertson viewed the Internet with > >> suspicion, on a more serious note, he > >> launched into a diatribe against those who > >> entertain the existence of uninhibited free > >> speech on the Internet. Uuuhhh...forget what I just said. Let's kill this fucker and anyone who tunes him in on "the day of the sun." > >> According to Robertson, the threat is so > >> serious that people who believe in free > >> speech should be put to death by stoning -- > >> according to "God's word." This sounds like a misrepresentation of Robertson's beliefs, by someone who has an axe to grind, but now that I've got the adrenaline flowing, I don't give a shit. Let's kill him! > Fuck him. God's word is fascism, hate, narrow-mindedness, and a Big > Brother State. He can take his bible and shove it up his ass. That costs extra... At least, in the places I frequent, it does. > Sorry, we own earth, and God doesn't exist. If God is Love, and Love is Blind, then Ray Charles must be God. > >> "He has given us the Earth. He also warned > >> us in the book of Matthew of the dangers of > >> corrupting forces such as the Internet which > >> can be used for evildoers: Why do people say things like this, without giving pointers to the relevant URL's? If I'm going to avoid sinful web sites, then I need to check them out first, so that I know what I am avoiding. Being the forgiving type, I would also feel obligated to keep checking these evil web sites out on a regular basis, to see if they have repented, yet. > First of all, this also proves Christians are incabable of making real > world arguments, because they rely so heavily on a 1000-page book > filled with lies. God (pardon the expression), but you have a negative attitude. There are many valuable things one can learn from studying the Bible. e.g. Q?: Who was the smallest person in the Bible? A!: The guard who fell asleep on his watch! Q?: Which stretches further, rubber or skin? A!: Skin. The Bible tells of a man who tied his ass to a tree, and walked over a mountain. > >> "'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can > >> a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that > >> does not bear good fruit is cut down and > >> thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their > >> fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:17-20)' So, if your brother has a boyfriend... > >> "And you see, there is only one Word, and > >> that is the Word of God: > Bullshit. I've been wondering what that word was. "Bullshit..." I like that word. Does that make me a Christian? > >> "'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word > >> was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)'" Hey! I just typed 'God.' 'God.' Look! I did it again. Watch this... Bullshit! I'm starting to like this Christian religion thing. > Second off, cryptic responses aren't worth a shit in arguments. That's because you don't take the time to understand them. Remember, "Patience comes to those who wait." > >> "Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, > >> funny-looking computer hacker? Well, I've never actually *met* Bill Gates, but... > >> Of course > >> he can, or it can. Of course they can deceive > >> people. And if they can lead somebody away > >> from the true God, or away from Jesus > >> Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't > >> matter, you will lose your salvation. It > >> doesn't matter how they get you. The > >> question is, did they get you, and under > >> what guise? Well, you have to consider the Support package before you really pass judgement. What kind of Jock strap are we talking about, here? > >> "This is man in rebellion against God, who > >> refuses to take God's Law. And God says, > >> 'My covenant says you won't do this. And if > >> I find anybody in Israel,'-- "which is his > >> pure nation" -- 'If I find anybody in > >> Israel that's doing this sort of thing, > >> then I want you to take him out and dispose > >> of him." > > That is fascism. Nazi fascism. Come on, you're overreacting. Everything is disposable these days. > >> "It's a clear violation of God's word. > >> Stone them." "Everybody must get stoned." - Bob Dylan > >> Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer publisher, > >> commented: "As the founder and chairman of > >> the Christian Coalition -- a group > >> dedicated to becoming the most powerful > >> political force in America -- Robertson's > >> extreme ideas need to be taken seriously, > >> for they not only negate pluralism, but > >> condemn to death those who dare to believe > >> differently." How differently does one have to believe to just get "spanked?" (I'm not into hard-core.) > This speech of his outlines in entirety the Christian Agenda. > Enslaving, murder of those different, intolerance, fascism. Jesus! (pardon the expression) Do these people put out a magazine? Color glossies? Is there bondage involved? If so, I would be willing to convert. > If Christians try to stone anyone, they should be shot right away. Not if they pick out the seeds and stems, first. > Freedom-Thru-AtheismMonger > "Your god is DEAD!!! And no one cares!!! If there is a hell, I'll see > you there!!!!!" - Nine Inch Nails, "Heresy" I bought a futures contract on "Nine Inch Nails." If they are not "Eleven Inch Nails" by this time next week, I lose my ass. I know this post doesn't make much sense, but it's Friday night and I haven't got a date. Is anybody out there getting laid tonight? Could you send me pictures? I'm desperate. The posts to alt.boring have slowed to a crawl. I'm running out of Pop Tarts. Still no word from the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes. And the way this relates to cryptography is... ...uuuhhh...John Gilmore is a cocksucker! (Bet you thought this whole damn post was going to be off-topic, didn't you?)

1 0

alpha.c2.org nymserver source code
by ghio＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have packaged up the source for the nymserver I run on alpha.c2.org, and written a brief description of how to install it. E-mail me if you want it.

1 0

Re: pseudonyms & list health
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > hence, what I am suggesting is that one > of the "stable attractors" that TM is always talking about > may be a reality in which people pool most of their accomplishments > under a single nym. furthermore, they will wish to avoid conflict > with other nyms in respect to attribution. > isn't this, functionally, the equivalent of the supposed > anti-cypherpunk "true names"? An interesting point. I have long wished that there would be a form of "credential certificates" which people could give as special signatures on other people's public keys. Then using Chaumian credential technology it would be possible to anonymously transfer these credentials from one pseudonym to another. This is not a perfect solution, of course. Much reputation is informal and simply resides in the opinions held in people's minds. But perhaps if a more structured solution like this became widespread it would help to prevent the "concentration of reputation" which Vlad describes. Along with the usual flames, I occasionally get messages saying nice things about postings I have made, and I sometimes save these in a file called "praise". Here are some excerpts: > Again, thanks for posting some useful information that > actually has *direct relevance to crypto*. > I really enjoyed reading this. It was well written and comprehensive. > Thanks for sharing it. > Nice post! I certainly appreciate these kinds of comments, but it would be even more useful if such messages were expressed as the kinds of certificates I am describing. I wonder whether people would be willing to use a program which would let them issue such "reputation signatures" of various kinds, and display the signatures which were present on keys. Discussion of such schemes has often bogged down in considering the various categories or types of credentials people might want to give. This is somewhat analogous to the "rate-the-net" schemes we have talked about where a similar issue arises if we try to mark pages with a whole range of characteristics so people can judge whether they should let their kids read them. Perhaps the solution needs to be found in simplicity. SurfWatch (as I understand it) gives a simple "thumbs down" to selected web pages. Maybe a simple "endorsement" would be useful as a reputation credential without trying to identify exactly what it is about the person you are endorsing. I could see such a system initially being piggybacked on PGP keys (the signatures would not be understandable by PGP though), although for Chaumian credential transfers the keys have to be specially structured and that would require a new approach. Who would be willing and/or interested enough to use such a system if it existed? Hal

5 4