December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>implementing the basic encoding rules, used in the PCKS and X.509 - >can someone give me a pointer to where I can find a >copy of v3 online? It's not available online. ISO specs are hardcopy (and hard currency :) only. /r$

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alan Pugh writes: > 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)? There seems to be a wide difference in the way the major media is reporting this story. For example, the editorial cartoon in today's (Sunday) San Jose (California) Mercury News: Picture: A man dressed in the style of the American Revolution sitting at a computer. In the background are a two pictures in ovel frames. Next to him on the table are a can of Pepsi and a candle stick. He is typing at the keyboard. The thought baloon above the keyboard says (I substutite XXXXXX for the areas that are drawn as a censor's block blackout): "Dear Congressman -- You XXXXXX XXXXXX have really done it this time! This XXXXXX XXXXXXX telecommunications bill with its XXXXXX XXXXXXX indecency provision is a XXXXXX attack on free speech! You should have your XXXXXXX XXXX dipped in tar and feathered! tjefferson(a)aol.com" Of course the Mercury News a couple of weeks ago announced that it was going to try to provide first class coverage of cyberspace issues. I give it at least a B+ between its coverage of the CDA and the front page interview with Rich Graves and discussion of the alternate sites to get around the German censorship of Webcom. Bill

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Dranged Mutand is far from deranged when he writes: At 12:09 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Deranged Mutant wrote: ... >And besides... why rate program just on violence? Why not "quality" from >a variety of orgs? Other content ratings, from various organizations. ... One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn responsibility over to them and butt out. Bill

1 0

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by tomservo＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note: my references to the Constitution are from http://atl46.atl.msu.edu/atl/reh/battle/u.s.con.html "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" writes: >>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >>> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu replies: >>(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" replies: >"...provide for the common defense" (From the Preamble) So, if it isn't related to the "common defense," this doesn't apply. >"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." (Article I, Section 8) My dictionary claims "commerce" is "the buying or selling of goods, esp. when done on a large scale between cities, states, or nations" (primary definition, anyway). If you can convince someone that "social intercourse" (secondary definition) is what the Founding Fathers really meant, your argument carries more weight. >"...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article III, Section 3, clause 1) Doesn't say anything about them being foreign or domestic. Theoretically everyone who participated in the Confederate cause during the War Between The States :^) committed treason -- but that's another argument. >There are the bytes - try reading them in context. Hmm. I did, but wasn't edified. It seems to me that Tim May's commentary is dead on. Maybe a more appropriate statement would be: "The government has the power (_not_ the right) to regulate communications between citizens and non-citizens / sites in other lands under narrowly defined circumstances." If you're not engaging in espionage, trading with countries like Libya or Iraq, or committing treason, it doesn't sound like there's any reason for the government to regulate your communications with non-citizens (at least from a Constitutional point of view). That may not stop them from trying to vacuum them up off the Internet, though. :-) Scott -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMR7Aq+vEnOI8TfM9AQH+vQMAjL/+IGDKKz9M1WB6LdeswpEVUWmLq+4i qTrPH4pci8gkU3fH1O893xmWMCHbVCYywazk4tF69wyLV6WvWlNSOyYRW1S7xiq1 24PFoBpD7yLpDguTB2UEU1b9HxwZ017y =Wus/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Somebody wrote: >>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >>> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands > >>(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? and Padgett replied: >"...provide for the common defense" >"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." >"...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." I agree with the first point. My english is not sufficient to understand point three. Govts have no powers on other govts. So why in the hell would it be the job of govt to regulate commerce with foreign nations? They might help their citizens (seing that their rights and terms of any contract are respected, but calling what they do "regulating commerce btwn nations" is an euphemism for holding international businessman on a leash! Regards to all Cyphering Punks JFA And personnal comment to Padgett: Backward, you said? Nahhh... :) Regards!

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 11, 1996 14:06:45, 'tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May)' wrote (among other things): > >I rarely understand the points "tallpaul" makes, but this one is especially >confusing to me: > I'll close on this point. >At 7:59 PM 2/11/96, tallpaul wrote: > >>I do seem to observe strange sounds of silence from lib'bers on the >>cypherpunks list about the legislative body who passed the law, although >>they must know about the law since they blast the "libera;" to "socialist >>statist" President who signed it. >> >>I seem to observe similar sounds of silence from people who get upset at >>ostensibly liberal Tipper Gore's godlike powers to implement, as a single >>individual, some form of record labels while remaining silent about the >>conservative forces supporting Gingrich clustered around fundamentalist >>christianity who were calling for censorhip. > >As a card-carrying "lib'ber," it seems to me that I have written more than >enough articles denouncing the CDA, making fun of it and Congress, etc. And >so have numeous other "lib'bers" on this list, including (but not limited >to) Bill Stewart, Duncan Frissell, Jim Ray, Rich Graves, Sandy Sandfort, >Vince Cate, and others too numerous to mention. > >tallpaul must be reading a different list than I am reading if thinks those >he dismisses as "lib'bers" (in his other posts, and this one) are somehow >in league with the Christian Right in supporting censorship. > I suspect that T.C. May and I are reading the same list just as I suspect that Alan Pugh and I are living in the same country with the same shared press corp. But I do not dismiss people as "lib'bers;" I merely call them that. I have noticed that a large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh and chuckle a lot when Rush refers to women like Andrea Dworkin and her supporters as lib'bers. I also find that the people opposed to Drowkin & Co. are upset at her use of demagogic language, private dictionaries, and the like. So am I, and started long before Rush got his TV shows. I am, however, equally (if not more upset) by what I perceive as similar demagogic etc. behavior by many libertarians. In short, I do not seek "to dismiss" libertarians as "lib'bers." I am not a magician and do not believe that complex issues go away through magical chants (around which T.C. May has correctly written.) But I do call them "lib'bers" much as Ruch Limbaugh uses the term in other areas. Do some people not like this? I imagine so. Do they have the right to complain? Absolutely, and I support their right to so complain. Do they really have a right not to be styled "lib'bers?" No, I do not think they have that right. Put another way, what is sauce for the goose cannot be slander for the gander. I do not believe that all lib'bers are in league with the Christian right; I am distrubed, however, by the large numbers of lib'bers who strangely never mention the existence of the fundamentalists in the ultra-conservative ultra-private-property camp. I am equally concerned with some leftists who consider every example of authoritarian behavior as "fascism" as I am with 'ib'bers who lump everyone who argues for social responsibility as a "socialst statist." One difference I see is that I am willing to criticize both groups while many (but not all) lib'bers are again strangely silent at least the "statist" side of the equation. I am sorry that T.C. May frequently has problems understanding my posts. Both of us frequently use sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole to make our points. Witness his excellent _reductio ad absurdum_ post on warning labels for every group around the orld who believes that his or her personal folkways and mores are deserving of unique consideration. However, this in itself does not reduce the confusion. Let me then offer a possible compromise to reduce the confusion. If T.C. May makes a special effort to better identify sarcasm when people such as myself use it and rhetorical hyperbole, I in turn will make a special effort to be more sarcastic and more hyperbolic in posts containing both. --tallpaul Internet sports fan: Go Big Red! Smash State!

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:54 AM 2/11/96 -0500, John Young wrote: >It's hard to tell the difference between "Assasination >Politics" and government-sponsored provocateurism, a >well-documented practice to stigmatize anarchical and >anti-authoritarian ventures. I deeply appreciate your quandary. Needless to say, _I_ know which I am, and what my motivations are. But there are a few clues which might assist you: 1. Most "government sponsored provocateurism" is given substantially more publicity than the meager amount I've managed to acquire on FIDOnet, USENET, and CP. You can well imagine that if the government were trying to use an "Assassination Politics"-type scenario to drum up support for Clipper-type and FBI-wiretap ideas, they'd do a better job getting the word out. 2. I think I've tried to make it clear that I believe that this idea is technically inevitable; it will occur REGARDLESS of the efforts which attempt to resist it. If this were "government-sponsored provocateurism," I would have added something to the effect that "This is going to happen unless [fill in the blank with something the government wants to do to us...]". 3. "Watch this space" If you still have any residual doubts, and think I might be in league with the government on this, wait a few months. You'll be astonished. >However, it takes guts and thick skin to advocate overthrow of >authority, knowing that reasonable people will think you're a >nut seeking celebrity martyrdom. Well, it's not like I'm SEEKING martyrdom, but the possibilities have certainly crossed my mind. Some people have suggested, and only partially in jest, that I may be one of the system's first victims. They may be right. Nevertheless, I was undeterred, as evidenced by the fact that I published the essay anyway. >Happily for the careers of agent-and-anarchist back-stabbing >back-scratchers, there is no easy way to know for sure which is >which, or even if there's any difference when the media >juggernauts are provocateuring both roles for melodramatic >infotainment. My idea has already resulted in an article in the Asahi Evening News newspaper, an English-language newspaper for residents of Japan. A copy of this article was mailed to me a couple days ago. It may also result in a (I hope positive) screenplay. FAR more exciting that "The Net." Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto Something is going to happen. Something...Wonderful! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMR6EVfqHVDBboB2dAQH6IgP+MjeXW5l7MxBJxjjFN35Rc6xBS+l924Re byW467mj3BQ1Iz9g/UBVnleMUBzx+6mseBFZ+aYqjdrzFOMAo/F8Qys9HgD96I1o TLJ+dziKzpNPj4GmrYhliFaF8sifZgbatEIfnu4WFz1jT6rqxwbkTh49xxz2crjC JKSskpxXoMA= =XPh3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Attitudes toward the government...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Ray wrote: >"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 Not just this, but another data point about the current sentiment about Washington: In a movie theater today there was a preview of the upcoming movie "Independence Day," showing a flying saucer hovering over the White House, then destroying it. The audience cheered and clapped. I'm not sure this would've happened in, say, the early 1950s. (However, like the early 1950s, the producers of this upatriotic drivel may have to answer to the House Un-American Activities Committee, to explain their Indecent portrayal.) --Tim May (P.S. "Broken Arrow" was a fun flick. Sort of like "Fail Safe " on "Speed.") 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

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:13 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >The Dranged Mutand is far from deranged when he writes: > >At 12:09 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Deranged Mutant wrote: >... > >>And besides... why rate program just on violence? Why not "quality" from >>a variety of orgs? Other content ratings, from various organizations. > >... > >One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the >ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn >responsibility over to them and butt out. Parents had that ability before. Cable boxes have a "perental control key" on the side that enables them to lock out "offensive" channels. It works quite well and is fairly hard for the kidlets to defeat. (I used it to lockout the religious stations and home shopping channels.) The "V-Chip" debate is a mirror of the one that occured when the cable channels were starting to become popular. There was a big hue and cry about kids getting to the "naughty" channels without parent concent. Seems most people do not even learn how the lockouts work. (And are too lazy to learn.) You have to remember that most of the people arguing for TV filters are looking for a way to make the "offensive" stuff go away for good. (Either from some sort of rating system or a heavy handed FCC regulation or two.) And don't believe that the V-Chip will let you choose the rating service. It will be one centrally produced rating from some faceless and nameless entity. I am willing to bet that we will see some pretty absurd examples of ratings (mild things getting heavy ratings above and beyond the call of sanity) in the future. The v-chip will be less than useful as a real filter tool for those of us who have a different worldview than the censors. Remember: "Future events like these will happen to you in the future!" --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

2 1

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:54 PM 2/11/96 PST, strata(a)virtual.net wrote: >Oh, let's start right off pretending that >a) the net is an independently funded entity with no government >infrastructure No pretence. It is, and it has been for some time. Your other arguments casually dismiss the very real power that large numbers of able people with good communications can exercise, have just exercised very recently. Nation states are a new creation. In the past many different kings ruled many different bits of one nation, and one king often ruled parts of more than one nation. Today nation states are almost universal, and people can no longer imagine what a nation is, other than a nation state. But the net is a nation, and is not a state, and nationalism is a force that governments usually cannot withstand. What makes a government strong is its cohesion, but the state cannot create its own cohesion. When states attempted to confront nationalism, they often lost cohesion and vanished altogether, like a string of sand. The "Nation state" is in essence a tactic for avoiding this hazard. Governments are acutely aware of this problem, and act very cautiously in the face of such threats. Many people seem to imagine that a government innately and naturally has cohesion, that it is naturally one thing, naturaly capable of acting coherently and cohesively as an individual can. On the contrary, governments maintain their cohesion with difficulty, and continually act, or refrain from acting, in fear that they might lose it. In an all out knock down battle between a particular government and the internet, in a state where a substantial proportion of the middle class was on the internet, the government would be in serious danger of evaporating like a jellyfish in the sunshine. The government can get away with a substantial amount of harassment and restraint, but has only limited power to act without itself being acted on, to change the world without itself suffering change. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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