December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Some entity that called itself "Mark M." appears to have said: > On Tue, 13 Feb 1996 anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com [me] wrote: >> that ...... but if those ping packets contained little pieces of something >> like PGP ...... would the host being pinged be breaking the law? Would > Exporting encryption to the U.S. from another country is not illegal, only > exporting from the U.S. is. The method of transmissioni is irrelevant. It > does not matter if TCP packets or ICMP-ping packets are used to transmit the > data. That wasn't my point. I was talking about the host being pinged. Would that host be breaking ITAR regulations by sending those evil PGP-containing packets *back* to the foreign host? > the destination are violating the law. Since it is impossible to monitor the > contents of every packet being transmitted over a network, I seriously doubt > that any intermediate host would be considered to be in violation of ITAR. Impossible, maybe. But that doesn't mean it can't be illegal. Take the CDA, for example. Fuck. Oops, Exon will be displeased. Am I going to be taken to jail? Most likely not. Was it illegal? Technically, yes. Thanks, Michael Ellis <mellis(a)alpha.c2.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSKhUQqs/Oe38tFJAQGPLgP/WDwoyj9qNZp7BznEyvQ8tdiGwZUb7xY0 HvfopqkD9p2oLHqRTBIbBZnSfGnQxmBwj/nTOaoWRWb8SvEWYmgT9AIVaOtNd2BW dqHoHGbc100o1yNUgY1YC5i09jQW668Np7zr82Vdt8uNnFIROH7Tl9wXO6uxYnGw Wd041hx3PrM= =25Ah -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
by Ashfaq Rasheed 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Tue Feb 13 10:34:37 1996 > To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe. > In-Reply-To: <ad4541d1000210045325(a)[205.199.118.202]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > Content-Length: 971 > X-Lines: 20 > > On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > At 10:07 PM 2/12/96, Steven C. Perkins wrote: > > Once again, the gutter religion of Islam reveals the derangement of its ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > so-called Prophet. > > > > The world really needs to get around to nuking these folks. > > > Oh, Come now! Islam may in its present form be a religion deeply hostile > to liberty. But since "nuking" the whole Islamic world would not be > itself much of a defence of freedom, the only long term answer is to > promote within Islam the same kind of Reformation as eventually made > Christianity half decent. And Tim's comments do not contribute to that. > I don't know how many internet servers there are in the Middle East. > But, if I were an intelligent fundamentalist, I'd be copying it all over > the place. "Look", I'd be saying, "these people really do mean another > crusade to destroy us and our faith". > > I can understand Tim's disgust with these people. But I do question his > manner of expressing it. > Actions of certain individual or group does not reflect what the actual religion is. Examples of this can be found on every religion. Somebody generalizing as above reflects his/her own closed/blocked mentality. Look at yourself, if you can fall to such degrading levels and since you happen to be a member of this mailing list, it is not ration to think as every cpunks as demented as you are. Ashfaq Ahmed

4 8

Re: The Internet Party
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Brian D Williams wrote: [..] > <bright idea!>Looks pretty dim to me. > Say, why not pick our own candidate? > Why not form our own Party? > The Internet party........ > It would be the ultimate write in campaign. > Now all we need is a candidate who stands for free speech, personal > privacy and the right to encrypt.......Just as bad as people who vote for ONE issue like abortion or civil rights or NAFTA/GATT and ignore everything else. These are important issues, but they aren't the only ones. And any support from netters will fall after arguing about everything else. ...and the sad thing is you might well shoot yourself in the foot for voting against somebody over one or two issues. I know people who'd vote for anybody but Clinton. They babble about Clinton being a "socialist" <chuckle> so much that they'd end up voting for a National Socialist <not funny either...!> > "I nominate John Perry Barlow. Who will second the nomination?"I nominate Frank Zappa. The music's better and dead presidents don't cost as much to maintain. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMSKSfyoZzwIn1bdtAQEr7gF/enFcC7CX8islsCHJ9BHdWa3SAvmvxlZh Nd39qds0s0D5gjRcEoKTu9wiHCmIOqaU =aKJh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by tien＠well.sf.ca.us 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Resident aliens, as well as U.S. persons, have First Amendment rights. Second, we have a right to speak to foreign audiences. Independently of the First Amendment, there is an equal protection issue whenever you discriminate against aliens. There's case law on these points which I won't bother to cite. Lee

1 0

Common Carrier Status is Often a Red Herring
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I picked a new thread title. Speaking of which, YACM (Yet Another Cyberspace Magazine) is out: "Herring," or "Red Herring," or "Pickled Herring." I only glanced at it long enough to see that it had the obligatory interview with cyberspace guru Marc Andreesen, the obligatory cover photo of Steve Jobs, and the obligatory other techno-rave articles. Probably several mentions of PGP, but I didn't bother to look for them. Needless to say, I put it back on the shelf before being too heavily contaminated.] At 7:48 PM 2/14/96, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >Since you don't understand the way Federal criminal charges work, >there's no reason I should take your argument seriously. (Hint: The >*U.S. Attorney*, or an AUSA, files charges, not you, me, or a random >"athiest.") > >As for this mythical Bible being removed, that is irrelevant to this >discussion, which centers around a Bible being *prosecuted*. If I had a >Bible on my web site (perhaps the TCM Vernacular Translation!) I'd >remove it just to make a point. As I suspect the owner of the web pages >did. By the way, this is one reason why the "try to be like a common carrier" arguments are somewhat weak. Let me explain. I hear often on this list and in other places that Web sites and other Net sites should strive to be as much like common carriers as possible, that removing any items or discouraging controversial material (Zundelsites, militia sites, Sarin formulas, antifeminista material, etc.) will weaken their defense in a legal case. Well, I don't buy it. Maybe in the abstract, and in the long run, it has worked out that common carrier status involves non-intervention. However, in the real world it is _real prosecutors_ who decide who to go after. Real prosecutors who are ordered to prosecute a CDA case are not going to go after clean-living ISPs who happened to let one questionable item through, they're going to go after the rough trade, just as Declan suggests. Now, in the real world, does anybody think that "The Christian Fellowship Internet Service Provider," which has taken numerous steps to limit access to indecent material, is *more likely* to be prosecuted by federal prosecutors than "Buck Satan's Anything Goes Web Site"? (Hint: "Common carrier" status is not something that gets handed out to some Internet providers and not others. Second hint: so far as I have heard, there has not yet been any determination as to whether some ISPs are "common carriers" and others are not.) The realpolitik of it is that an ISP which tries to limit access by minors, which discourages Zundelsite material, and which makes soothing comments about Jess Helms and the Christian Right will of course be *far less likely* to be prosecuted under whatever CDA charges come up as some leftist, anarchist, radical ISP which takes a hands-off approach. Sad, but true. This is also known in legal circles as "the chilling effect." [ObPerry: "What does this have to do with the IPv6 domestic distibution?" ObAnswer: "Nothing. Since you're so concerned about people coding, go back to coding."] ---Tim May 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

[ASSASSINATION NOISE] Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 AM 2/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >The Rushdie incident is simply so far removed from "Assassination Politics" >that it can't possibly be used to refute it; I still believe it actually >demonstrates how much effort somebody has to go to, to protect a targeted >person. One targeted person is easy to protect. 10,000 would be FAR >harder. And the moment a few of those guys got "whacked," the rest would >want to resign their jobs and hope they would be allowed to retire in peace. Rushdie is just low on your target list. I agree that it's much harder to protect 10,000 people (say the Iranians put out a contract on Baha'is and other heretics, at $X/head...) but it's still abusable. Maybe the Anonymous Captains of Industry put out a contract on strike leaders. >From a cypherpunks perspective, yes you could run an assassination lottery, though it might be hard for the assassin to collect - how do you prove that _you_ were the hit man, and not merely the nearest person to a phone after it happened? How do you prevent an anonymous escrow agency from refusing to deliver the cash? Some of the protocols may be difficult to work out. Meanwhile WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE JIM BELL REWARD 13 demo-cyberbucks An assassination-sponsoring society is _not_ a polite society. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

Carrying the Bible an Offense?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:41 PM 2/14/96, Sten Drescher wrote: >"Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU> said: > >DBM> (I assume your Bible argument is just posturing. No >DBM> U.S. Attorney, political appointees they, ever will prosecute >DBM> someone who puts the complete text of the King James Bible >DBM> online.) > > You assume wrong. While I certainly agree that no >U.S. Attorney would voluntarily prosecute such a case, what happens >when an athiest files charges against someone for carrying the Bible? >IANAL, but couldn't the U.S. Attorney be forced to prosecute? I'm also not a lawyer, but no prosecution is possible in this situation. Not in this country. A case must be presented to a grand jury (remember the Zimmermann case?) and no grand jury in the United States would do this. There are two further points which need clearing up: 1. Private citizens (the atheist in this case) do not file criminal charges. They may swear out a complaint ("I witnessed John Doe carrying a Bible"), but they do not file criminal charges. 2. The "carrying of a Bible" is not covered by the CDA. No prosecutor can be "forced" to prosecute, absent approval by a grand jury. (And if a prosecutor doesn't want to indict a ham sandwich, it won't be indicted.) --Tim May [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

4 3

Hey Derek: who are you? (toad.com is glitching...)
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would the author of this message please reply to me by e-mail? I received it under the name <owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com>, with no subject whatsoever. The remailer is freakin' out... >The other question I have is: who do you think the "customers" of PGP >are? If you think the majority of PGP's customers are the >crypto-privacy activitst types, you are highly mistaken. PGP has hit >the main stream, and is being used by many non-crypto-aware people. >Probably more of them than there are of us. > >If you want to discuss this more, let's take it to private email, >please. > >-derek > > **** NEW PGP 2.6.2 KEY ********* 2048 bits Key ID:24201BA1 1996/02/13 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 23 B6 24 31 86 67 FB 35 C7 A7 AF 12 A1 61 E9 3D **** OLD KEY: DO NOT USE ANYMORE UNLESS FOR VERIFYING SIGNATURES **** 1024 bits Key ID:57214AED 1995/10/04 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 84 96 76 AE EB 7C AB 15 88 47 87 B0 18 31 74 9F

1 0

[NOISE] Re: The Internet Party
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:01 PM 2/14/96 -0800, Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.com> wrote: >If I see one more ad for some dumb ass >politician running for president I'm going to puke. ><bright idea!> >Say, why not pick our own candidate? >Why not form our own Party? >The Internet party........ Because there's way too little for us to agree on outside of Internet issues; it's like forming the Pro- or Anti- Abortion Party, or the Womens' Party or whatever. >It would be the ultimate write in campaign. >Now all we need is a candidate who stands for free speech, personal >privacy and the right to encrypt....... >"I nominate John Perry Barlow. Who will second the nomination?" For a write-in candidate, you don't _need_ a second. Just put it in your .signature file and see what happens. On the other hand, John's a Republican, and they desparately need _somebody_ as a candidate :-) #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281 ! Frank Zappa for President !

1 0

Re: CyberAngels
by medea＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan sez: >I fear the so-called "CyberAngels" more than I do the Feds. At >least with their brand of jackboots, there can be >accountability. > >The CyberAngels are more like CyberCads, CyberFrauds, or >CyberCriminals. While Declan makes a good point, I wouldn't worry too much about the CyberAngels a/k/a the CyberAsses. As we all know, the group received a lot of press years ago when they started as the Guardian Angels. They began to go downhill when it was discovered that they employed the services of those they were supposedly protecting the public against. Now, they're trying their hand at *protecting* the Net since, by jumping on the "decency band-wagon", they've seen an opportunity to avoid becoming defunct. I bet if you use the word "cryptology" in a sentence, the CyberAsses would have no idea what you were taking about. The bottom line is that even the orange juice industry got tired of Anita Bryant. Medea ============================================================ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + |---------------------------------------------| + + | The mind is its own place, and of itself | + + | Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven | + + |---------------------------------------------| + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0