December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[noise/rant] Re: Anonymous trashing of Jim Bell
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Some people will object to this thread, and rightly so. This is very off topic. I understand it is off topic. But it needs to be said... If you don't want to read this, hit 'n' or equivalent now. I also request that responses to this be made in private e-mail and not to the entire list.] [Also note that I stripped off the references to the Libertarian list and the Democracy now list and avoided the urge to add the psychoceramics list.] Jim, I used to take your postings at least semi-serious. I ignored the ad hominem as much as I could and tried to concentrate on the validity of the arguments. I had difficulty with many of your ideas, but I have that problem with many people so it was not a big deal... Then I met you at the Portland Cypherpunks meeting. You blew whatever credibility that you had with me at that time. At that meeting you made claims that were fantastic and beyond belief. You gave no evidence to support those claims, just relying on some sort of future "proof". (Sorry, but the burden of proof in these sort of cases lies on the claimant, not the rest of the audience.) Assassination politics is immensely credible compared to your plan to disable electronic equipment. (And that is saying alot.) Assassination politics suffers from a number of problems. The biggest being its difficulty in being implemented. Such a system would suffer from Federal agents posing as hit men, outright fraud, and attempts to destroy the system from within and without. I have seen nothing that makes me believe it could ever be put into place. I have yet to see you address any of the flaws without resulting to flames and rant. Unfortunately, you would rather attack your critics than deal with the flaws in your beliefs. The following is an example... At 08:30 PM 1/26/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 01:54 AM 1/27/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >>Jim Bell writes: >> >>>While this would normally be my cue to offer up my "Assassination Politics" >>>idea, which (if presumed to be correct) would stabilize "anarchy" and >>>prevent "lawlessness and social disorder" (at least as normally seen by the >>>average reader) I think that under the circumstances that would be redundant >>>here. >> >>I'm not *sure* that your Assassination Politics trip is the worst piece of >>tripe I've ever seen on the list, but if it's not, it's right up there. > >I notice that you responded through an anonymous remailer, and didn't even >use a nym. This is strange. If anything, the people who criticize my idea >seem to be under the illusion that it is _I_ who should be embarrassed for >proposing it, and in fact vociferously promoting it. "Those of you" who >object to it should be the ones who are "proudly" taking the "moral high >ground" and thus should be happy to identify yourself and defend your position. There are reasons why an individual would do that. Maybe they did not want to create a nym just to respond to one message. Maybe they thought that you would recognize their other nyms. Maybe it is someone you know. Whatever the reason, it does not diminish their arguments. >Even if, arguably, you invented the fiction that you feared for your life >trying to argue with people like me, nothing prevents you from developing a >stable nym and arguing your position using it, secure in the knowledge that >your body is safe from attack. Your arguments would still be subject to >sudden death, however. You think very highly of your arguments, but have shown nothing that would make me believe that you could actually do that without resorting to ad hominem attacks. In fact the poster brings up some interesting questions which you totally ignore, due to your unwavering belief in your pet theory. All you do is flame him, instead of dealing with the immense flaws in that theory. >>Those of us who are anarchists > >What?!? You imply that you are an anarchist, yet you don't approve of a >system which might not only produce anarchy, but in fact in record time? >Well, EXCUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEE! Sorry to put you out of a "job." Not all anarchists believe in killing others. Sorry, but there are as many variety of anarchy as there are anarchists. As for the results of "Assassination Politics", you have yet to show that it would produce any results whatsoever, or if it is even possible to implement. In fact, I cannot see a way that it can be put into place without everyone involved being put in jail. >> are often that way because we think the *means* the State uses are evil, >>not to be excused by any amount of mumbo-jumbo. > >I think the state's ENDS are evil, too, not merely their MEANS. Yet you never explain why it is valid to use evil to fight evil. It is this lack of willingness to discuss the details of your beliefs that make people unwilling to take your ideas seriously. >> And you gleefully propose to let us *all* in on the immoral game of >>murdering those who annoy us sufficiently. > >Actually, if you followed my arguments carefully, you will notice that my >position is most accurately described by pointing out that I _could_not_ >keep you from participating in this "immoral game", even if I wanted to. Or not participating... Jim, if annoying people were a qualification for murder, you would need to watch your back pretty damn carefully. But it is not a qualification yet... You have yet to show, however, how your plan could ever be enacted. If it was possible to enact, you would probably be in jail for "conspiracy to commit murder" or some similar charge. Anyone who assisted in such a plan would also risk such charges. The feds are pretty ruthless in ferreting out people who try an hire hitmen. Especially from private citizens. the only people who are able to hire hitmen and get away with it are the heavily funded or the government themselves. Setting up an organization to compete with these groups will not be viewed favorably. >For the record, I suspect some people who are total pacifists view the rest >of us, those willing use use violence to defend ourselves, as "immoral." This is not as easily defendable as self-defense. If you were shooting the politico yourself, then I might agree. But you are not. You are hiring someone else to do your dirty work for you. If you were actually helping out in the slaughter, then i might have a bit more respect for your argument. As it is though, I find it about as toothless as those who eat meat, but are too squeamish to go hunting themselves. >>I'll pass. > >Others won't. The digestibility of your plan has little relevance to its possible adoption... >>You know, if I were constructing an agent provacateur, I'd want a persona >>who's willing to be loudly clueless with ideas that show minimal or >>non-existent awareness of basic human hopes and fears, like security from >>random hit-squads. I'd have him go on and on with his ideas, until >>eventually they can splashed all over headlines and used to discredit the >>whole realm of privacy protection. > >Aha! You're implying (actually, implying is an understatement here) that I >am an "agent provocateur." Naturally, it would be useless to deny this >(although, for the record, I will deny it), because anybody who was >convinced of its truth wouldn't expect me to tell the truth anyway. Nope. The poster is claiming that you are *TOO CLUELESS* to be an Agent Provocateur. You are missing the point. >But hey, let's put it up for a vote. How many people out there believe that >I am an "agent provocateur"? C'mon people, don't be shy, you've seen my >prose. What do the rest of you think? I don't think you are any such thing. I believe that you are convinced of the rightness of your ideas and no amount of rational discourse will sway you from that belief. Being a fanatic does not make you evil or an Agent Provocateur. It does make you less credible though... >>But no, I don't think you're an agent. > >Good! I'd hate to argue with a person who didn't realize I am SERIOUS. You seem to miss the point that the poster was making, but no worry... >> More fool you, you're willing to do the government's disinformation work >>for it without even thirty pieces of silver or a 401K. > >To be perfectly honest, I did a lot of soul-searching in early 1995 about >whether I should publicize my ideas. No, it wasn't because I was AFRAID >that it might happen. I _WANTED_ it to happen. Every little bit. Every >government on the face of the earth, to come crashing down in a heap. >Complete, total, absolute anarchy. (But not the "anarchy" that most people >are pre-programmed to think of...) No more governments, no more borders, no >more taxes, no more holocausts, no more wars, no more politicians. Forever >and ever and ever. > >Rather, I was fearful that by publicizing the idea, I might end up >PREVENTING it from occurring. You know, by giving the governments advance >warning about what was going to happen, I might actually help them prevent it. > >That worried me, a lot. But eventually, I made my decision. After a huge >amount of thought that some day I might be inclined to relate. However, if >I'd REALLY wanted to PREVENT this, I would have alerted the government >secretly, so that they could manipulate things behind the scenes, secretly, >to prevent this "crypto/digicash/internet anarchy." _That_ I did not do. >I publicized it, allowed it to be criticized and therefore "perfected" (not >that it's "perfect, by any means!) it, and I'm now promoting it the best way >I know how. And with all due modesty, it's getting a pretty good reception, >considering how extreme and drastic it initially might appear. > >Part of my reasoning was that unless I engaged in the absurd conceit of >believing that I was, cumulatively, smarter than everyone currently in the >government, I had no choice but to conclude that the government was already >aware of the potential problem. And if that were the case, they were, at >that very moment, working desperately to PREVENT what I wanted, desperately, >to ACHIEVE. > >At that point, I made the choice of forcing the government's hand. The above speaks for itself. (I could say that this is one of the looniest things I have read in a while, but I do take the Psychoceramics list... It is pretty high up there.) It is definitely hard core crankdom of the purest form. If you were a threat to the Government, even a small one, you would have been picked up and put away. You seem to forget that this is an open mailing list. Many of the people who read this list are Government employees. (I am willing to bet that a sizable percentage work in some variety of law enforcement.) They know what you believe and what you are agitating for. But you are not a threat because you are not credible. No one is going to adopt your ideas because every time you open your mouth, you make yourself look like a loon. Not only do you make yourself look like a loon, but every organization and group you associate with looks bad. If you really desire to make your views accepted, you need to look at how you present yourself to others. Willingness to analyze your own belief structures and refine them is a first step. Ability to take criticism is a second step. Without that, your ideas will be taken as the views of an unwavering fanatic. You will not sway many people with fanaticism. >>At this point I recommend to you the 12-step program I explained to Vladimir. >> >>Signed, >>A Friend > >Recommendation: If you really want to be taken seriously, use your real >name or at the very least generate a stable nym. Preferably, with messages >signed by the nym's public key. Without it, you are a silly, unbelieveable >ass. Even with it, you may STILL be a silly, unbelieveable ass, but at >least people would pay more attention to you. I think that you have little to nothing to say about being taken seriously. If you continue to go off on pseudo-science rants at meetings at the drop of a hat, no one will take you serious there as well... 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/ Is the operating system half NT or half full?

1 0

Re: Escrowing Viewing and Reading Habits with the Governmen
by Alan Horowitz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Do you really think that the FBI foreign counter-intelligence squad has > > nothing better to do than keep a database of who is reading Che Guevara > > memoirs? > > Yes. > > Heck, I remember this was a big issue about 15 years ago. Try asking > someone who was active in library science in the late 70's, early 80's. I did. They said you're wrong. Shall we start a CP flame-war of unattributed allegations from librarians who will recall what *they thought* the FBI is interested in?

3 2

[FACTS] Germany, or "Oh no not again"
by Thomas Roessler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had the prosecutor's spokesman on phone today. The result is that someone gave a hint to the prosecutors which explicitly mentioned Zundel, T-Online and Compuserve. Consequently, the prosecutors *had* to start investigations against Zundel, T-Online and Compuserve. In particular, they are right now *checking* whether providing internet access is a criminal offence due to the possibility to gain access to `inciting material' (the German word is `Volksverhetzung') via the Net. This means that it is not even clear whether the investigations against internet providers will be dropped or not; in fact many people believe that these investigatinos *will* be dropped. My personal guess about all this is that some net.citizens are trying to have the prosecutors engaged in absolutely absurd investigations (or, even better, achieve a court room clash on this subject) to get some clarification of the legal situation of the Net in Germany. Quite similar to the RSA T-Shirt story in the States. ,-) tlr

6 7

Re: Escrowing Viewing and Reading Habits with the Governmen
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:12 PM 1/29/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> > Do you really think that the FBI foreign counter-intelligence squad has >> > nothing better to do than keep a database of who is reading Che Guevara >> > memoirs? >> >> Yes. >> >> Heck, I remember this was a big issue about 15 years ago. Try asking >> someone who was active in library science in the late 70's, early 80's. > > > I did. They said you're wrong. Shall we start a CP flame-war of >unattributed allegations from librarians who will recall what *they >thought* the FBI is interested in? I'm not interested in a flame war about librarians and the FBI, but will tell you what I know: the "Library Awareness Program" was very real. It reached public awareness in the mid- to late-80s, and was the subject of numerous news reports. The various librarian unions blew the whistle on this. As I recall, new stantards about access to materials by patrons, and privacy expectations, were issued. Ah! Once again I thank Alta Vista. A simple search on "Library Awareness Program" revealed 20 hits on the Web. Here is an excerpt from one of the hits: ------ WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 3 June 1988 Washington, DC 1. THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FILED SUIT AGAINST THE FBI yesterday to force the release of documents relevant to the FBI's "Library Awareness Program" (WN 9 Oct 87). The documents were requested under the Freedom of Information Act eleven months ago. The FBI at first denied the existence of the program, and now contends it is confined to the New York area, but librarians from all over the country report FBI visits. Meanwhile, the FBI has not provided a single document either to the National Security Archive, or to the American Library Association, which filed a similar FOIA request. People for the American Way is assisting the National Security Archive in its lawsuit. 2. THE FBI'S "LIBRARY AWARENESS PROGRAM" is not an effort to raise the literacy of its agents. Even as President Reagan was lecturing to students at the University of Moscow on the virtues of a free society, his new FBI chief, William Sessions, before a Senate Committee, was defending the FBI's attempts to recruit library employees as snitches. Sessions released an unclassified version of a top-secret FBI report that must have been ghost written by Art Buchwald. Entitled "The KGB and the Library Target: 1962 - Present," it includes examples of suspicious behavior, such as an individual who "is observed departing the library after having placed microfiche or various documents in a briefcase without properly checking them out of the library." .... --- 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

FV's Borenstein discovers keystroke capture programs! (pictures at 11!)
by dmacfarlane＠zip.sbi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is this the most transparent media attention grab or what? FV's "Chief Scientist" writes a killer application to destroy Internet commerce and it is really only a keystroke capture program with a bit of credit card number recognition code tacked on. I don't think this has any "implications for Internet commerce". If you run any number of virus protection programs on your computer, and you get your software from reliable sources, you never need worry about clandestine number snarfing. I readily admit that there is a larger issue about viruses and being able to trust your software, but the presentation from FV of this announcement as a "fatal flaw" in internet commerce is remarkably disingenuous. They are really saying, "We have the only safe approach" quietly between the lines. And before pm. says it, this has very little to do with cryptography. Skeptically yours, David Macfarlane.

5 4

The Big Lie
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote (with some judicious editing): , I took it as a fact that the >so-called Holocaust actually happened. I saw pictures of death camps, >interviews with survivors, etc. > > It seems more likely that >the pictures were faked, > >, I suspect the >stories are true that the Holocaust was part of Truman's "Big Lie." > Good Lord! We've all enjoyed Tim's rants, but this takes the biscuit. What's next? A denial of the athletic abilities of Negroes? --Dave Rose

3 2

Re: Escrowing Viewing and Reading Habits with the Government
by Ted Garrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:54 PM 1/27/96 -0800, you wrote: >According to >Director Freeh, "If we had had this program in place when Timothy McVeigh >was a child, we could have detected his interest in ANFO and picked him up >for reeducation, or at least recruited him for the CIA's Lockerbie team." ^^^^^^^^^^^ Please tell me this was not an actual quote. The term re-education scares me more than anything, as it's the term typically used by authoritarian dictatorships for their tortures and murders.

1 0

Germany, or "Oh no not again"
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 19:30:21 -0500 (EST) Reply-to: educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu From: Educom <educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu> To: "EDUCOM Edupage Mailing List" <edupage(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu> Subject: Edupage, 28 January 1996 [..] GERMAN PROSECUTORS TARGET INTERNET RACIAL HATRED The Mannheim, Germany, prosecutor's office has launched an investigation of CompuServe and Deutsche Telekom's T-Online service for inciting racial hatred, a crime in Germany. At issue is online access to a Web site run by a neo-Nazi extremist in Canada who uses the Internet to distribute anti-Semitic propaganda. The legal reasoning, according to a prosecutor's office spokesman, is that "because it's available over the Internet, it also can be called up in Germany. Then the scene of the crime is all Germany." Although the investigation is now limited to CompuServe and T-Online, there are also several hundred small companies that provide Internet access in Germany. (Wall Street Journal 26 Jan 96 B2) [..] Edupage is written by John Gehl (gehl(a)educom.edu) & Suzanne Douglas (douglas(a)educom.edu) Voice: 404-371-1853, Fax: 404-371-8057. Technical support is provided by the Office of Information Technology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. *************************************************************** EDUPAGE is what you've just finished reading. (Please note that it's "Edupage" and not "EduPage.") To subscribe to Edupage: send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu and in the body of the message type: subscribe edupage Emmitt Smith (assuming that your name is Emmitt Smith; if it's not, substitute your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu and in the body of the message type: unsubscribe edupage. (Subscription problems? Send mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.) --- "Mutant" Rob <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

None
by Mr. Nobody 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <ad32cd9601021004af4e(a)[132.162.233.188]> jrochkin(a)cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind) writes: > 3) I believe that FV works by assigning the user some sort of id number. > They send the id accross the net, FV has a database with "FV-ID" <-> > credit-card-number correspondences, the merchant sends FV the id, FV bills > your card and pays the merchant. Now, if I'm correct about how FV works, > we could clearly write a program that searches your HD for FVs data files, > extracts your FV-ID from it, and steals it. It could be a virus, it could > send the FV accross the net, whatever. We could then use your FV-ID to > make fraudulently make purchases through the FV system that would be billed > to you. This is essentially the same attack as FV "demonstrates" against > software encrypted credit cards over the net: that is, the "You have an > insecure system and if we can put evil software on it, we can get you." > attack. This sounds like a fatal security flaw in FV's system! We need to publicize this fact widely to prevent innocent people from using their FV accounts from computers or over the network.

1 0

Re: FV Demonstrates Fatal Flaw in Software Encryption of Credit
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone claiming to be "Nathanial Borenstein" writes: > As you may already have heard via the popular press, First Virtual > Holdings has developed and demonstrated a program which completely > undermines the security of every known credit-card encryption mechanism > for Internet commerce. [...] I started reading this thinking it was actually something important. All it describes is a keyboard monitor, which greps for CC#s, and which could be spread by an (unspecified) virus, and sends the output to a crook over the net by some (unspecified) mechanism. So, what else is new? [...] > Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(a)fv.com> >Chief Scientist, First Virtual Holdings >FAQ & PGP key: nsb+faq(a)nsb.fv.com It's sort of interesting that "Nathaniel Borenstein" has a PGP key, but failed to clearsign this message, which loudly trumpets it's great import. Considering the lack of actual content, I feel compelled to warn readers that this may be a forgery, designed to make him look like he's scaremongering. strictly speaking for myself Peter Trei ptrei(a)acm.org Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei(a)process.com

6 11