December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Deafening silence [was Re: Need a "warning" graphic...]
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Sten Drescher wrote: <snips> >"Lynne L. Harrison" <lharrison(a)mhv.net> said: > >LLH> IMO, the topics he >LLH> discussed in his State of the Union address gave a clear message >LLH> that he was going to sign this bill. > > He signed the military spending bill, too. And, unfortunately >(because of the bigotry it reflects), being painted as protecting gays >isn't going to be much better than being painted as protecting >pornography. My point is that Clinton _doesn't_ have the same "this >provision is unconstitutional" feeling about the CDA as he does about >the AIDS provision. Further, has anyone else noticed a deafening silence on the subject of a (supposedly) wished-for line-item veto power of presidents? It seems to me that the Dornan and CDA-type provisions of huge bills are line- items, aren't they? JMR Regards, Jim Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> Boycott espionage-enabled software! "Americans hate the IRS, and if the only way they can get rid of it is to elect somebody who is communicating directly with the Planet Xorgon, then so be it." -- Dave Barry [on Steve Forbes] 2/9/96. _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray IANAL _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMR0yS21lp8bpvW01AQE23QP+OZJKOIBGQsRMTiD0cyy+8wreirn9TqAN 0m3RFIuP0P/2LHm9lLxMib23DyEWAGws4C5VfNLAZvPvsZz/WaOv/2+g0RdOwK0Y LFplxhIHpFRVkDZhKTSqTKnbT3tK9OLDTKETfhnoq6KC1OJ2AuS33Xfd+Lay7FGT lYuqjesg8BI= =EHLF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Privacy Without Tears
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Since it wouldn't do me any good to write code (I've _seen_ my code, it's not >pretty), I'm writing in English instead. :-) > >I've started work on what I currently call Privacy Without Tears, a guide to >PGP and related programs pitched specifically at a novice audience. I would >appreciate comments, particularly in the fact-checking line (more on this in >a moment). I'd also appreciate anyone who feels like it passing the URL I'll >give in a moment on to crypto newbies and seeing if they can follow the >instructions and get good results. <snip for brevity> >The URL (for the moment): > >http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce/privacy/privacy.html I've already talked to Bruce through private email and told him I would start working on a peice for Mac users. We are on a quest to get people to use PGP, and it does not have anything to do with platform wars. If you have comments, take it to me in private emails. The point of posting this is a) to let Mac readers of this list know that they can refer to their Mac friends to the link for info and b)because I had an idea after talking to Bruce of a great way to get the word spread even further... If everyone not only has a link to these pages in text, but also has their "PGP secured!", or similar little graphic on their pages, linked to these sites as well, it would save a lot of people a lot of redundant explaining and it would help spread the word about PGP like wildfire to the masses. You could also put a "Click for more info on Pretty Good Privacy(tm)" right next to it to get more people to look. _This_ is the way to get widespread attention to and usage of PGP. The pages on PGP would be linked to each other and to pages on freedom of speech and privacy and the word would go far. By placing a link on your page to the PGP page through the graphic, you will be placing a link to dozens, eventually hundreds, of pages detailing PGP as well as sources dedicated to freedom and privacy. Someone on the list made a comment a bit ago about just having regular old text on the site to say "PGP secures", but people respond to the graphics more than anything on web pages. They want to be able to click everything. This would be the key. In the early days of Christianity in Rome, Christians would sometimes communicate to each other by the use of the small simple "fish" illustration that you see on cars everywhere. This will be our symbols power as well, the communication of a message. 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 ________________________________________________________________ Digitally sign your mail too! -----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

Re: Privacy Without Tears
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Excellent. This is much-needed. Please see >"http://www.c2.org/~bryce/WhatIsPGP.html", and consider >cross-linking with me. Will do - URL squirreled away for when I do the References pages. Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: >> A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" >> idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on >> the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_ >> announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who >> correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of >> rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or >> appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, >> and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital >> cash. >> > >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply >because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and >moraly or ethicaly undefensible. That's a misleading statement: You said, "simply because..." As should be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone killed "simply because" of the fact I "don't agree with them." It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so. >> On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a >> government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck >> of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights >> beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident >> and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various >> acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, >> presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under >> libertarian principles. >> > >Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or >another. That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. I'm amazed that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list. While I don't know precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a REALLY weird definition of that. Somehow, I think that this is where your argument fails, and it fails miserably. >By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to >protect us against. Sorry, I disagree. Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually believe in that. Most people seem to think that they are entitled to protect themselves from violations of rights. The fact that these violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it. Anybody who feels entitled to use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in itself, a violation of my rights. Are you a statist?

1 0

Re: "Rights"
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com wrote: >What happens when there *is* no remedy, when there are no other sites to >go to, when there are no employers who would refrain from violating an >employee's privacy? What then? Easy! Either you do not get on the net or you start your own ISP service. It might cost money. i.e. requires work, but it is feasible. No one, neither company nor individual, owes you to provide you with a link simply because you *wish* it. If it were otherwise, anybody with the ability to produce would become slaves to the ones who don't. Enslavement of Ables for the sole benefit of the Not-Able. It would be punishment for being good. Principles must take precedence over a temporary wish. JFA Selfishness is a virtue!

1 0

Re: Privacy Without Tears
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:53 PM 2/10/96 -0800, Lunaslide wrote: >If everyone not only has a link to these pages in text, but also has their >"PGP secured!", or similar little graphic on their pages, linked to these >sites as well, it would save a lot of people a lot of redundant explaining >and it would help spread the word about PGP like wildfire to the masses. I like that a lot! A nifty graphic would be the old-fashioned engraving of a padlock on the O'Reilly book about PGP. Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: The Communications Decency Act
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deepthroat(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >Why The Communications Decency Act passed, or >Follow the money > > There's been a lot of commentary the last few days about this >bill, this strange creature, seemingly of the 'Christian Right.' Talk >of how and why its unconstitutional, protests; web pages blackened. >But, oddly, no one seems to have examined who pushed the bill through >Congress, or why. >But where >does that leave the big guys? ABC, NBC, CBS?? Can they survive in >this brave new world which the net threatens to be? > > By and large, they looked at themselves, and saw they could >not. At last! Somebody bringing up the topic! I am quite recent on CPunks, but I've been trying to push that point on alt.security.pgp and alt.privacy some time ago. After several try at it, I dropped the subject. I couldn't believe that nobody considered this explanation to the CDA. The thought that many so-called "free speecher" were actually hired by the big media to create a big fuss among net users over the "porn vs religious" issue just to act as a diversion even crossed my mind! JFA

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by Michael Peponis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > The Strange Sounds of Silence > > Has anyone else out there noticed the strange sounds of silence > emmanating from the american print and broadcast media concerning the > rider attached to the Telecommunications Act recently signed by > President Clinton known as the CDA (Communications Decency Act)? > :Are you sure? The coverage has been wall to wall out here (Bay area); :front page above the fold, business pages, computer columns, editorials :and editorial cartoons. Apparently it's the same level of coverage back :in the RTP. :What part of the country are you in? I guess the coverage is different :in the major geek zones like the bay area and RTP It really does depend where you are at, all of the Metropolitin cities such as NY, LA, Chicago, etc are debating it. If you live in a more braindead part of the country, well, as has been stated before, most people think the internet is AOL, what do you expect? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMRzi80UffSIjnthhAQFUzgQAv1+te1qXW4Vm6yODxJW7B1fIl67VBSB3 5ec23filS1N0mK+D2al7F/kzcFmyneypuGL8tq6HiBbuJTzP55cNyucQJwUQ3Ysk jwxRA+GcrzntR3bWdkHNT9DCzrSjJj0DNy2BwAIo8vQlNiKLlUeXmd2wOVvWTHhy qkk5QVeFY4c= =DaB0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Michael Peponis PGP Key Avalible form MIT Key Server,or via finger

1 0

This is not "This-is-not-punks" either
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:11 PM 2/10/96, Mixmaster wrote: >Lemeur Alexanderpunks, or perryrants vs. perryisanasspunks, >or CDAisdumbpunks, it's CYPHERpunks. Could everyone please >get closer to back on topic, there is work to do. Rant at >congress, not here! >XYZ Is anyone stopping you or anyone else from talking about quadratic residues, or Fiat-Shamir protocols, or the IETF proceedings? I didn't think so. People talk about what is on their mind. This week it's the CDA, a while back it was Jim Clark, and at various times we have talked about a truly vast number of subjects. Sometimes we talk about C code (not often), often we repeat ancient conversations about random numbers and steganography, and very occasionally we get into a new topic. This is not surprising, echoing as it does the patterns of conversations in real life. The scolding by people who think things are "off-topic" is not constructive. If they think people should be talking about some topic they consider more appropriate, let them start talking about it. Crypto is a hard subject, the technical part of it. If the list confined itself to this subject, very little discussion would take place. A Wei Dai might announce a new package every few months, someone might ask whether IDEA is better than Blowfish every couple of weeks, and maybe a Hal Finney would note that his analysis of RC4 is complete. Not much discussion, given the "depth" of these subjects. (And isn't sci.crypt a much better place for these discussions anyway? Why have the Cypherpunks mailing list at all if the only "appropriate" topics are those that duplicate what is already going on in sci.crypt?) Finally, I am always struck by how the most consistently scolding folks here ("Can't we get back to crypto?") are also the ones most prone to going off on their own rants when the mood hits them. Perhaps this is what they fear--the fear that someone else will say something that *must be rebutted* and thus cause them to go off on their own rant! Instead of ignoring the words that bother them, they declare that a topic is not suitable. Worse, they even engage in what psychologists call "magical thinking": they confuse cause and effect and claim that the actions of others will "cause" bad things to happen. We see this is the stupid comments along the lines of "I hope you're happy when the NSA wins, all because you made the list talk about Vince Foster instead of DES!!!!" People will talk about what they want to talk about. The way to shift the focus to what you think should be talked about is to write interesting and persuasive posts, not decry the topics others think important. The best way not to have the list "sidetracked" is to not respond to things you think are off-topic. Another version of this plaintive wail about topicality is the repetition of that comforting mantra "Cypherpunks write code." Overused in the extreme (though based on good ideas, that actually implementing systems is more interesting and more world-changing than merely discussing theory), this is used by people who wish others would shut up about some subject. As a way to have the last word. Sort of like writing, "As I've just finished explaining to you dullards in this 5-page post about why the Jacobins were actually proto-Libertarians, I must repeat that "Cypherpunks write code." So I now ask must ask you to accept what I have written on the French attitude toward libertarianism and get back to what this list is really about. If you continue to argue with me, you will be doing the NSA's work for them." (There's that magical thinking again.) (Why anyone would want others to shut up is beyond me...this is what filters are for. Anyone who can't filter out messages, either directly or by deleting them quickly, probably isn't in a position to "write code" anyway, so what's the issue? No, what I really think the issue is for these "control freaks" (to use the accepted term) is that it simply grates on them that other people are not more like themselves, are not interested in the same things they are at the same time they are. And they think that by scolding others they can force them to change their ways. Guess what? It doesn't work.) I was recently accused in private mail, and maybe public mail as well, by someone of "diverting" the list into a discussion of the Hiroshima bomb and its moral implications. I disagree. When Rich Graves asked originally, "Who holds up the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as great victories against tyranny?" I said "Since you ask, I do. A land invasion of Japan would've likely cost half a million American lives, and perhaps a million or more Japanese citizen lives, according to comprehensive studies I think are on the mark." This simple response--admittedly not related to DES or IETF or even Netscape--elicited flames, charges of racism, counter-arguments, and such. So? While I chose to sit out most of that flame war, you didn't hear me wailing "Can't we just get back to talking about Diffie-Hellman?" This is what filters are for. And what ignoring threads is for. I repeat, if you want others to spend more time talking about the things that you think need talking about, then set an example and begin the conversation. Don't just childishly wail about what others are talking about isn't "on charter." --Tim May, who will continue to write about what he wishes to write about Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: A Rant about Senator James Exon
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:15 PM 2/9/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >P.S. As many of you may already know, a "rant generator" can be found at >http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint Yes! A Mass Rant-Spam! I'm inspired! Too bad we can't break the CDA in the process... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0