December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PING packets illegal?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Concerning the ITAR ...... what would happen if some Evil Hacker Dude in, say, England, decided to ICMP-ping a host in America? Nothing wrong with that ...... but if those ping packets contained little pieces of something like PGP ...... would the host being pinged be breaking the law? Would all the hosts in the route between that host and the host in England that was doing the ping also be breaking the law? Curious, Michael Ellis <mellis(a)alpha.c2.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSE1owqs/Oe38tFJAQEiVgP+M10Cjf1mCq8L9uAfaxHV/hYpDUSJ5FMA 8j7nYyi4hH8heAak7l2AJXeSyqY1nMexBMoeZnUPbCRiZmrk7h9SSjywXIhV4ITH y6z70NKhoz3p0d3kSeBiPiMuHuz1HAI/5hrECAqY9f+R0kYkK3GvVitb405Ly7kn J0gbHi7pQOA= =NcP+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Re:
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

}>sovereign n. 1. A person, governing body, etc., in whom the >supreme power }>or authority is vested.< adj. 1. Exercising or possessing supreme }>authority or jurisdiction. 2. Independent, and free from external }>authority or influence: a sovereign state. } }Yup. } }>This is not what our government is. } }The United States is a sovereign nation. Do you dispute that ? The }constitution is a binding agreement between the government and its citizens }that determines how that sovereignty will be exercised, the elements in which }the nation will not interfere with citizens, and the duties which it will }carry out. <rm> Yes, I do dispute it, but I'm not going to write why all over again, since you seem to have convieniently snipped the rest of my post, rather than answer it. You are arguing a straw man. I didn't say that the nation isn't soveriegn, I said that the government is not sovereign. Yes, there is a difference. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Bruce Reads The Calendar - cypherpunk gathering correction
by bruce＠aracnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It has been pointed out to me that the 26th is a Monday. Oops. The correct date for the Portland cypherpunks get-together is in fact Saturday, February 24, 1996 Thanks. Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

IP addresses are a scarce resource today. Try getting a /16 allocation (what used to be a class B). There are politics in the process already. Addresses will not be easily 'transferable.' The IETF is discussing a 'Best Current Practices' document that talks about address portability. Basically, it can't happen, because the routers only have so much memory, and the routers at the core of the internet can't keep in memory how to reach every one; there needs to be aggregation. The only feasible aggregation seems to be provider based, ie, MCI, Alternet, and other large ISPs get blocks of addresses. They give them to smaller companies, like got.net, which gives them to customers. The result? The core routers have a few more years. Lastly, 32 bit addressing is going away. IPv6 offers 128 bit address space, and (hopefully) much more efficient allocation, as well as such useful things as hooks for automatic renumbering of address space. Adam Alan Olsen wrote: | >Markets for IP Addresses | > | >The 32-bit numbers used for Internet addressing and routing are a | >limited resource. As this resource becomes scarcer, political | >considerations are likely to creep into allocation decisions made | >through existing administrative processes, leading to suboptimal | >allocations. By granting transferable property rights to addresses, | >allocation decisions can be removed from the political realm into the | >economic realm, so that addresses are allocated to those who value them | >most. This project seeks to develop consensus in the Internet community | >for a move to market-based allocation, and investigates alternative | >designs for an electronic market to coordinate the exchange of IP | >addresses. | | This proposal bothers me. I do not see any positive results from this | proposal. (Or at least the negatives will far outweigh the positive.) | | Here is what I see as the results of such a plan... | | Getting an IP address will become prohibitivly expensive except for the | largest megacorps. Instead of solving the limitations of the current | system, this plan will cause people to "invest" in IP addresses in the hope | that the price will go up. IP addresses will become part of a corporation's | invenstment portfolio. This will result in less usage of IP addresses, not -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, sunder(a)dorsai.dorsai.org writes: > > On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Mark Allyn (206) 860-9454 wrote: > >> What do you mean by a speech bubble? >> >> "write in a speech bubble to the president dude" >> >> Does this mean a transparent plastic bubble over his head?? > > Like in comic books. i.e: I got a dollar bill yesterday with a rubber-stamped speech baloon saying "I Grew Hemp" next to George's head. First one I'd seen, so the transmission layer isn't too crowded. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy(a)cybrspc.mn.org PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey(a)cybrspc.mn.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSFXjxvikii9febJAQHaDAP9HQ/Iqw0CLNmSEBXcduwK9Wa0WaY6N026 bYU9fpvKMd16JBuRQ7wvQ6/l9QUwY9KF6J/LEnrbKC3bdEl3E09kqCg0VyL0QJYq 4y8b4QqvfzIt/yecOSVRyo4v3pCZXKeqaHvWq8wJnnYanzpMUXHGLmBL6FohJzi+ SvoHC5qlp9M= =S05W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 12, 1996 23:23:59, 'ethridge(a)Onramp.NET (Allen B. Ethridge)' wrote: > >The Guardian Angels have decided to enter cyberspace and make it safe for >us all. They have a FAQ on the web - http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ >. How is this relevant to cypherpunks? From their FAQ: > > >"9) What kinds of changes would the Guardian Angels / CyberAngels like to see? > >a) We would like to see an improvement in User identification. User ID is >impossible to verify or trace back. The very anonymity of Users is itself >causing an increase in rudeness, sexual abuse, flaming, and crimes like >pedophile activity. We the Net Users must take responsibility for the >problem ourselves. One of our demands is for more accountable User IDs on >the Net. When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals. In a >riot you see rioters wearing masks to disguise their true identity. The >same thing is happening online. We would like to see User ID much more >thoroughly checked by Internet Service Providers." > See: _Computer underground Digest_, "CyberAngels in Cyberspace," #8.04, 01/13/96 (my original piece on the CyberAngels) _Computer underground Digest_, "CYBERANGELS," #8.06, 01/21/96 (the CyberAnels official response) _Computer underground Digest_. [ENTIRE ISSUE]. #8.13, 02/06/96 (the readership responds) CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Also, I have been corresponding with folks at _Wired_ who are picking up the story, for their March issue I believe. On Feb 13, 1996 00:46:05, 'joseph(a)genome.wi.mit.edu (Joseph Sokol-Margolis)' wrote: >not sure if this is the right place. >I agree with allen, about the issues of 'nym. But looking at other aspects >of these cyberangels I'm unsure how to feel. On one hand they seem resonable, >protecting only the children. ... The CyberAngels want to do *far* more than "protect only children." --tallpaul

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

}Is ok. I suspect that we are narrowing on a similar position. Would like }to see a time when net communications make "representatives of the people" }obsolete" since majority voting on any issue can be "anytime,anywhere". }Doubt that it will happen soon. <rm> I too would like to see a purely democratic process rather than a representative one. And I also agree that it won't happen soon. The question is, what do we keep of govt? How would the group propose electronic voting on legislation should proceed? What sort of technical solution could be arrived at to allow everyone in the country to vote on specific legislation and how would they get access to that legislation? I think _this_ is a cypherpunk topic for sure. }Take CDA (please) - obviously draconian and unconstitutional. Think how }much more difficult it would be to overturn if worded more reasonably. }Then ask if that was intentional 8*). I have to believe that Exon truly meant to castrate the net, but in his own zealous wording, made it easier to turn the law over. I think it is reasonable to hope that that will be the effect. Our doing our part to make enough noise about it will only help our cause. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:28-0500 From: The White House <Publications-Admin(a)WhiteHouse.Gov> To: Public-Distribution(a)CLINTON.AI.MIT.EDU Subject: 1996-02-13 VP Gore Unveils On-Line Service for Businesses THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Vice President ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release February 13, 1996 VICE PRESIDENT UNVEILS NEWEST ON-LINE SERVICE FOR U.S. BUSINESSES Gore Says U.S. Business Advisor Key To Governing In Information Age Vice President Gore today (2/13) unveiled the a new and improved "customer-designed" version of the U.S. Business Advisor. The "Advisor", which was first presented at the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business, underwent a six-month redesign that addressed the specific needs of the business community. The improved "Advisor" will provide users with one-stop electronic access to more than 60 different federal organizations that assist or regulate businesses. This on-line service, which directly links American businesses with the federal government, was originally developed by the Vice President's National Performance Review in cooperation with federal agencies and the business community. Today, at the annual convention of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) in Tyson's Corner, VA, the Vice President officially placed the new Advisor on the World Wide Web (http://www.business.gov) "By employing state-of-the-art information technology, the Advisor is improving communication between American businesses and their government," the Vice President said. "Because this version was developed with the support of the business community, the Advisor serves our customers on their terms. Both Fortune 500 companies and start-up businesses will benefit from this improved service." The Advisor provides an interactive environment where businesses can: file documents electronically with the government; retrieve documents, applications and other information; get answers to commonly asked questions; obtain names and contact numbers of business agencies; acquire news on specific business topics; and send feedback. The improved version of the U.S. Business Advisor was unveiled today as the Vice President delivered the second of three speeches on technology and the future of America. The "Technology Trilogy" began Monday (2/12), in Baltimore, MD, where the Vice President spoke to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The final speech is scheduled for tomorrow (2/14), in Philadelphia, PA, where the Vice President will visit the first programmable computer, also known as the ENIAC.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:22 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >I do hope the religious right keeps fighting against GAK. However good >their intentions may be on *that* issue, it is transcendently obvious to >anyone who has been following the flux on Capitol Hill that they were >behind the recent push to regulate the Internet. Not obvious to me. While the religious right clearly supported the push to regulate the internet, the main push seemed to me to come from the existing mass media, primarily the three big TV channels. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:36 PM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 8:15 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >>That may well be true, but speaking as someone who's worked on U.S. >>Presidential campaigns, that kind of protection is expensive, >>time-consuming, intrusive, and unlikely to be extended. > >I assume that both Declan and Jim Bell agree that people high in the >government will be immune because they already enjoy this level of >protection (limitation one). So the only people we can hit are the cannon >fodder, not the ones who gave the orders. It has always been this way with >war. Actually, I think the primary targets will be either the middle level manager types, or the ones who have attracted a substantial amount of bad publicity by "following orders." Lon Horiuchi (the sniper who shot Vicki Weaver) for example, would be a excellent example of a person who'd try to claim, "I was just following orders." Okay, maybe he was, but so was Adolph Eichmann. Once the tax collectors/enforcers were targeted, the rest of the government wouldn't be able to operate, and would collapse. >If, after a couple of the Waco people had been hit, I was given the >responsibility to protect them I would proceed as follews: > >(1) Gather them and their families onto some Army base and step up the >patrols. Now I have them safe. And, of course, you've just ruined their lives. Think about it. By doing this, it is made absolutely, completely, and abundantly clear to them that THEY are considered "the enemy" and that their lives are forever put at risk. Previously, government employees could hold their heads up high and be proud of their "public service." Now, if they're discovered, they have to disappear. Does this treatment sound familiar? Their job description and circumstances will more closely resemble that of a Mafia enforcer than a proud public servant. They'll have to teach their children to lie about what their parent does, rather than risk getting exposed. Who, exactly, would want to work for the government under such circumstances? Remember, we're not just talking about a tiny fraction of their number; if the most egregious ones were hidden the ones that were less secure would be killed in their place. Remember, the only reason the government can even afford so many employees is because taxes are collected; what happens when literally every IRS agent resigns to avoid the bullet or bomb? The remainder, the "less bad" ones, couldn't be paid. At that point, government collapses. >(2) Train and release them thru the witness protection program. Cost >$20,000/person (if I remember the article John Young posted a pointer to >correctly. (Thanks John)) This is probably about the same as the cost of >their training, so it makes economic sense. Except that you can't do this for every government employee, and who's going to want to work for the government if it is made clear to them that someday they'll either be killed, or discovered, or they will have to "go underground" to survive. Not a very good prospect. And what happens if they think there's a fairly good chance that my system will succeed? Most people want to be able to retire with a pension; what's the prospect for collecting a pension from a demolished government?!? > >(3) Make sure that the names/faces of the cannon fodder in future actions >are not available to make it harder to target the guilty. > >Bill Then they'll target the "names," the ones who show their faces. See how this works? If the only way you can maintain the government is to keep them all absolutely anonymous, then that government has FAILED. Furthermore, this system's anonymity allows disgruntled public employees the chance to collect money by "turning in" their bosses to the public's ire; if the personnel list for the government is nominally a secret, it will "leak" eventually and those on the list will be followed, confirmed, and targeted. I'm not a betting man, but if I were forced to place a bet, your position doesn't have a prayer.

1 0