December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim rites: >The viewer sets her preferences: a 5-5-5 would let everything through, etc. >The developer of the chip claimed he could mass produce the chip for a buck, >and this may be where all those estimates of "$1-2 per set" have come from. Am in favor of this since it puts the control in the hands of the property owner. One question would be "how often is the V-rating code transmitted ?" (are the kiddies protected from channel-surfing ?) Do suspect that the $1-$2 cost could be met *at the manufacturing level*. Do also see the need for regulation to put it in. It was required for UHF channels else no one would try to build one. I am also thankful that is was required for closed-captioning even though my TVs are not new enough (have a $99 discount-house box on the TV in the family room. Makes many shows more relaxing. Only annoyance is that we have to be even faster on Jeopardy since the caption appears before the players speak. Motorcycle helmets (required in Florida as is seat belt use) are another matter. Requiring the lights to be on is different - that makes the bike easier for others to see. Helmet and seat belt laws are purely economic in nature: the state wants them to reduce the load on the state supported medical structure, motorcycle manufacturers (and auto manufacturers) support them to keep insurance rates low (high insurance rates affect sales). In this case the laws are "special interest" and have nothing to do with the individual though the rationale is often "for your own good" (have been wearing seat belts and helmets for many years - have a scar on my forehead that took fourteen stitches where the Snell approved Bell Magnum helemet *split* under the impact - sudder to think what the effect would have been without it. Similarly, I do not like air bags since I worry about second and side impacts. Still was an easy way out for the manufacturers to appease the insurance companies (see above). Getting a bit far afield from cyphers though. Bottom line is that the V-chip seems like a good idea to me so long as the 5-5-5 setting is the default and there are no "backdoors". Warmly, Padgett

1 0

"Rights"
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A day or so ago, I reasoned incorrectly that university students and >employees were free to encrypt mail they sent through their student or work >accounts. This was in response to a statement that the govt could retain >at least some control of internet traffic through the universities and >businesses. I would credit the person who called me on it, by I do not >remember who it was. It seems that, at least for employees, it is totally >up to the employer. Is something I have been saying for years & has nothing to do with "free speech", rather it is "property rights" and in the USA they always *must* win because when you get down to it the US is based on property rights. One of the most basic is that "citizens are not the property of the state". "We hold these truths...all men are created equal" referred to the separation of nobility from the "common man". Is part of the reason Amurricns may not be titled. However computers and networks are not people, they are property. All are owned by someone who exercises control over them. To say "you must let me use yours as I wish" is to deny "all men are created equal" (and coporations enjoy the legal fiction of being an entity. Some time in the future we may have to consider other beings (porposes ?) but not yet just as at one time slaves and "injuns" were conveniently denied. Now if an employer/university choses not to exert any control, that is their decision but does not mean they have given up anything (AFAIK "adverse possesion" has never been applied to a computer or network) so why be surprised when some exercise those rights ? I agree that proper notice should be given but that is only to stay out of court in the first place. *Every court case I know of has been decided in favour of the property owner*. Remedy exists. If you do not like the rules at one site, choose another. In most places you can find a PPP provider for $20/month unmetered who will let you do what you will. True, if you want to use the web properly, the price of a PC has gone up from $25 since Windoze and a 256 colour display is needed, but not much. Sorry for being a bit off topic but once this is understood (and am open to argument on the issue but expect to prevail), I suspect that a lot of the noise level on this list will go down. Warmly, Padgett

2 1

Re: PLONK
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Plonking is an outrageous abuse of net courtesy. Shame on you! David

1 0

Kill Files and Plonking
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A predictable round of "Public Plonkings" and "You're in my kill file, nyah, nyah, nyah!" postings. Personally, I regret ever mentioning adding anyone to my filter file, as it then generated the expected "But Tim won't see this...." nonsense. I shouldn't have done it. Public plonkings rarely accomplish anything. I move names and topics in and out of my filter files as the mood strikes me. I have the option of looking at the mail that's ended up in one of my various filter files, and deciding to move someone out of that file and back into the main list file. (With Eudora, I filter _every_ incoming message into one of a dozen or so files. It's just a question of which one. For a few really obnoxious people, I filter their stuff into Eudora's "Trash" file; when I empty the trash (Macintosh TM), their message is irretrievably gone.) I think it's best _not_ to publicize who is in one's filter or kill file for a couple of reasons: 1. It cuts down on the acrimonious plonkings and couter-plonkings. 2. It leaves open the door for gracefully reversing the process. 3. The filtered or killfiled person never really knows if he's being filtered, so there's a "random reinforcement" element which may, I am guessing, have an effect on posts. To satisfy any curiousity aroused, at this moment there are 12 names which I filter into a file called "Kill File" (but which is persistent, and can be looked at by me at any time) and only 2 names which I filter into "Trash" (which gets emptied fairly often, usually without my having looked to see what went into it). (No name I have ever mentioned publically in this context is in this Trash file.) Some people who write to me and get no response may of course be left wondering....this is the beauty of random reinforcement. --Tim 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."

1 0

The wisdom of Mark Twain
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove any doubt. ObCypherpunk: Mark Twain was a pseudonym. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

CDA Yes Votes; Collection
by Tim Cook 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Find out if yours ( or any ) representative or senator voted for the CDA. Send me email with the subject CDA-YES. Put their name and where they are from in the body. I'll compile the list and post it. When this is over they'll wish they realized how powerful the internet REALLY is. Besides, what makes the US Congress think they have any control over a worldwide network? PS. Repost this msg where appropriate. I'm only posting to cypherpunks. Another "Logical Conclusion" by: Tim Cook <twcook(a)cts.com> Support THE US Constitution... Vote Alexander in '96 and '00!

1 0

[NOISE]More meaty CDA material
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded: The article starts with "SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- You motherfuckers in Congress have dropped over the edge of the earth this time." and gets better. >The American Reporter, working in conjunction with other groups opposed >to the CDA, commissioned a writer to produce a special article to >celebrate Clinton's signing of the new the law. > >Steve Russell, the author, retired after 16 years as a trial judge >in Texas and is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the >University of Texas at San Antonio. > >This article was specifically and carefully designed to be completely >and utterly in breach of the CDA. If you are opposed to the CDA and >you are not offended by the "seven bad words", you'll probably find >it highly entertaining and insightful. > >OTOH, if you are easily offended and don't like bad language, JUST >DON'T READ IT. > >If you are easily offended and like to be offended and then like to >file Police Reports, please go ahead. After all it was written to >help ensure that the CDA gets challenged in the courts as soon as >possible. > >Here's the URL and don't tell me I didn't warn you: > >http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html > > >-- >|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| >| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | >| malch(a)malch.com Gary Player. | >| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | "The Internet, of course, is more | than just a place to find pictures | of people having sex with dogs." stevenw(a)best.com | -- Time Magazine, 3 July 1995

1 0

Why ? You really want to know =>
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of >>the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. >So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing >laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to >enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more >tolerable later. If you already knew the answer, why ask ? It also could be that under our system of laws, once a rider is attached to a bill (in this case the telecommunications bill) it is almost impossible to remove. Congress has been using this quirk to provide pork-barrel & special interest thingies for years. I would prefer to think that some, realizing the impossibility of removal, increased it to the point of obvious unconstitutionality so that it would be separated as soon as possible. I suspect that both the three-judge special panel and the following supreme court decisions are already known and time is just needed to craft the SC decision so finely that this never happens again. (ever the optomist but believe that while the congressional agenda may be different and unobvious, it is rarely stupid.) - Pick almost any chapter in the Old Testament. Read it halfway. Look at how the famous figures look *at that point*. Just do not quote the "Song of Solomon" (KJV) on the net. Today. Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:27 AM 02/9/96 -0800, Simon Spero <ses(a)tipper.oit.unc.edu> wrote: > The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of >the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more tolerable later. feh. Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRsSBMVrTvyYOzAZAQHm0AQAtEjLduasFOvLKpFPXmkqLjQS+6pnj4Sp NoLVGNUiV3xIGzMHSgCxYCYVQ8h5X7OreSxo6R4x4RGpgG6tadGkwvr6GUBbWg+W j9+0/dsiIhlCfe2dv7pSGBjgLeXIp4jSb9BniMbiebdov/VLvEUs47fffzsui9vm mBecJhZk0S4= =HAa3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> My web page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1148

2 1

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy
by Dr. Rich Artym 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199602070213.UAA03036(a)einstein.ssz.com>, Jim Choate writes: > 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. I agree, but not for your reasons. "Reprehensible" and "ethically undefensible" both presupose that *you* can make an objective moral judgement that you are right and others are wrong, which is no better than the moral judgement that the politicians are making. A better reason for agreeing with your position is simply that value judgements of any kind are subjective, and therefore they cannot apply to everyone and hence it is a clear coercion to try to apply them to everyone. Coercion of one man's subjective views onto another is the fundamental fault in the position of the censors; it's a very fundamental attack on perhaps the most basic freedom we have, regardless of whether there is a Constitution or Ammendments in the country in which we live. > > 2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital > > cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom? > > > > By making shure they don't have the authority to make the decision in the > first place. It might well be too late for that: they've already taken the authority. Now we're starting a process of taking it back, and we can do so without bloodshed by moving the source of their power (monetary transactions and the consequent taxation) beyond their reach. That's where crypto comes in, and that's why many of us are here. > Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or > another. It is important that we adopt this overtly innocent view of civil servants and governments as our *servants*, because it is on the grounds of service that they justify their positions and actions on the single day every few years that we get to vote them in. Shoving the term "servant" down their throats at every opportunity is an excellent attack on their positions of power over us. Rich. -- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Internet: rich(a)galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # rich(a)mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1 # ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm(a)gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu # ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng # ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London ########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."

1 0