December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
by Steven C. Perkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cyber-Anarchists aren't the only ones who can use the Net. >--- Forwarded message follows --- >From: zakat(a)dircon.co.uk (Sohail Mohammed) >Subject: Online Zakat Payment >Date: 1 Feb 1996 11:15:34 GMT > >Welcome to the Zakat homepage at http://www.ummah.org.uk/zakat/ >which has been setup by the Bait al-Mal al-Islami (BMI). > >Bait al-Mal is the public treasury of the Islamic political system (state >or nonstate). BMI acts as the finance department function of an Islamic >political authority (IPA). This BMI in the UK operates under the >authority of the Muslim Parliament (the IPA in this case). > >An IPA may or may not be directly responsible for the management of >Mosque(s). The IPA may or may not be directly responsible for relief >work. These activities may be carried out indirectly by other agencies >operating under the authority of the IPA or supported by it. >BMI does welfare work in UK and externally. > >Zakat collection and distribution is the responsibility of the IPA (which >may be a Khalifate or in its absence a regional entity in your part of >the world). > >Zakat collection and distribution is not a free-enterprise do-it-yourself >project. Khalifa AbuBakr (RA) went to war against those people who did >not want to pay Zakat to the central authority and who instead wanted to >do it 'their-way'. > >Any one can setup a registered charitable organization; anyone can't >setup a religion or Deen and do it 'their-way'. > >The Zakat page is at http://www.ummah.org.uk/zakat/ > >The online Zakat payment facility is at: >http://www.ummah.org.uk/zakat/pay.htm > >The long term strategy is that we Muslims need a major presence in >cyberspace. This would include intelligent agents (robots, sheriffs,) >roaming cyberspace collecting Zakat funds and Jihad funds and doing other >things we can't yet imagaine. Islamic Gateway http://www.ummah.org.uk >(and affiliated net entities) is only a primitive foundation for future >workers to take further. If you want to help realise the dream or want >free webspace for public service projects contact info(a)zakat.org.uk > >If you are running a BMI function in your part of the world and you wish >to co-operate or obtain further information on the UK BMI then contact: > >Dr Muhammad Ghayasuddin MMP (*), >Secretary/Trustee, >Bait al-Mal al-Islami, >109 Fulham Palace Road, >London W6 8JA, UK >Tel +44 181 563 1995 or 1994 (fax 1993) > >WHY is BMI/MP doing this: policy questions to Mohtashim Shaikh MMP, BMI >trustee responsible for the online Zakat service at: >mohtash(a)ummah.org.uk > >Technical questions to the IG chief designer, Brother Ibrahim at: >query(a)eurolink.co.uk > >(*) MMP = Member of Muslim Parliament > >Flames to Mohtashim before Feb 9, afterwards to info(a)zakat.org.uk > >MP as an IPA raises both Zakat funds (using BMI's charitable status in >the UK) and also Jihad Funds (NOT using BMI - Jihad is NOT covered as a >charitable activity in western law!). Only an IPA can do BOTH Zakat and >Jihad fund raising. Let any 'Charity' org try and do that. > >Just as a personal aside: a major UK Muslim charity is a part of the >Saudi lobby (accountability to Mr Fahd?) whilst another Islamic charity >is about to get U.N. affiliation (accountability to Boutrous Boutrous >Ghali?). BMI on the other hand is accountable to the Muslim Community and >its leadership. > > > > ***************************************************************************** Steven C. Perkins sperkins(a)andromeda.rutgers.edu User Services Coordinator, Rutgers School of Law at Newark 15 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 VOX: 201-648-5965 FAX: 201-648-1356 http://www.rutgers.edu/RUSLN/rulnindx.html http://www.rutgers.edu/lawschool.html "Raise your voices to the Sky. It is a Good Day to die." Chief Crazy Horse *****************************************************************************

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:55 AM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >>You mention the issue of Rushdie, as if it is some sort of refutation of my >>idea. Quite the contrary; I think it actually supports me. >> >>How so?, you ask? Well, let's consider any potential assassin who might be >>interested in this "contract." Aside from the obvious moral issues involved >>here (Rushdie has, presumably, done nothing to warrant his death), the truth >>is that such a potential assassin would see a number of problems that would >>strongly dissuade him from attempting to kill Rushdie. >> >>1. There is no way he could be assured that he could collect the award >>anonymously. His name would certainly "get out," and then he would be >>subject not merely to "the law," but also anybody who wanted revenge for >>Rushdie's death. >> >>2. There is no way he could be assured that he would actually receive the >>award. (How would he prove HE did it?) >> >>3. That's because there is no way he would enforce this "contract" should >>the offerer refuse to pay. > >These points would not affect a devout Iranian Muslem. To him the death >warent has already been issued by legitimate authority. It is not even >clear that money would be his princple motivator. Which simply proves my point; money is not the limiting factor, here. >I must respectifully disagree with Jim in this case. I believe that >Rushdie has not been hit because the protection he enjoys is sufficent to >repel the potential assassins. Note that he has an advantage over the US >president (who probably has as many potential assassins) in that he does >not need to make public appearences. But remember, Rushdie is merely ONE PERSON. And keeping him safe has consumed a lot of resources. You don't think the government could protect each of their most publically hated employees to a similar level if a reward of, say, $20,000 were put on each of their heads. How much could we collect to "get" Lon Horiuchi, for example? Or the hundred or so agents immediately participating in the initial Waco incident, or the dozen or so decision makers immediately above them? Etc. 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. >Adding money to the pot will attract rational (and amoral) people who will >then make a determination based on (1) profit, and (2) risk, which includes >getting caught or killed. It seems to me that Secret Service levels of >protection can protect a public figure against even Assassination Politics. In a sense, qualitatively you absolutely correct, but (quantitatively) you're wrong. I think the problem is that when most people hear the term "Assassination", they think of only the highest-level targets. Quite the contrary; I think this system will get the medium and even the lower-level people FIRST, de-populating the government primarily by hurried resignations of worried people. The remaining people would be terrified to actually make anybody angry, and they wouldn't have a paycheck because they couldn't collect any taxes. The whole system would collapse in a heap. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto Something is going to happen. Something...Wonderful! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSDmO/qHVDBboB2dAQFeOgP/bpXFbTfw1R/iTRsWOrEZJI22N4nFPWX3 XBN2dx106jTdx/eoYz1rhjiaeZt/FzB83DABj34HuVPkws1OPEQ2e6Dneva5RjHK QJFN4Po9SN03fb+7l3yp5Axr/1P4j4eiao4t0oAF+NPNk2FzU2LvHEMpbIawme0B AC6Uv4nR8hc= =9lr1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Response to Perrygram
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:33 PM 2/13/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Tim, you don't work for a living. Some of us do. You might try to >think back and remember what it was like in the days when you still >did something every once in a while and had a limited amount of time ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >available in which to do it. > Perry once again resorts to insults. Constantly belittling the efforts of others suggests deepseated psychological doubts about his own contributions. Shows you the reaction I get for even responding to him. My mistake. Perry should learn how to use mail filters, then he can simply filter out all the stuff he doesn't want to see. Or, simply hitting the 'delete" key in whatever reader he is using...surely typing "D" 20 or 30 times a day takes far less time than writing one of his perrygrams? --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."

3 2

RE: LI Newsday OpEd: Criminal Justice System
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Perry E. Metzger > >Tim, you don't work for a living. Some of us do. You might try to >think back and remember what it was like in the days when you still >did something every once in a while and had a limited amount of time >available in which to do it. ....................................................................... That's right: crytpo-anarchy is a time-consuming business, and there isn't much time in which to prepare for the New Cyberspatial Millenium. Everybody get Back To WORK !! :>) .. >Blanc >

1 0

To find the clock speed of a sun workstation
by Ashfaq Rasheed 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Is there anyway of finding the clock speed of the CPU on a Sun workstation? As far as i know it can be found only by rebooting the machine and using module-info? And I believe that the module-info does a no-op loop for a a known number of times and calculates the time taken. I would like to know if there is anyother way to finding it. Thanks! Ashfaq

3 2

No Subject
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Yet if I read you correctly earlier, you don't think the USG has the right >to regulate those communications. Why the distinction ? Okay, obviously I need to drop down a gear & explain *my* feelings: Part of the definition of a "sovereign nation" is to define and carry out both high and low justice over it's domain - the absolute right of a sovereign. Is not mentioned in the US constitution because it was a given. Further, the purpose of the US Constitution is to: a) define what the sovereign was (three branches - rock, scissors, & paper) b) set forth certain limitations on that sovereign ("Congress shall make no law...") c) define certain duties of the sovereign (regulation of foreign commerce...) (am simplifying so please bear with me) There are some things which for which the rationale is not apparent since the times have changed ("corruption of blood" is a "Congress shall not" that related back to English law of the time). What "Attainder" was is not mentioned since it was well understood. No this gets us back to the question: to me, "regulation of foreign commerce" has two elements - one is to prevent illegal commerce or traffic in goods that are contrary to "the public good". The other is to promote American trade and intrests overseas. The two go together and is the point I made at the NIST gathering in December. Quid pro quo. "Free speech" means that a citizen is free to speak (communicate) anthing, anytime, anywhere. This is the right guarenteed by the first amendment. This does not relieve the individual from being liable for the consequences of the exercise of "free speech". However, the government is under no obligation (though in the silly seventies it seemed that we were going that way) to aid or abet in the exercise of free speech. If it were properly and legally decided that communications with anon.penet.fi is against "national interest" then the sovereign has not only the "right" but the *duty* to block/monitor such communications. Now as to the second part of the question, I have never said that the conditions mentioned above could not legally exist (though I have my doubts about legality internally and between citizens - is part of the reasons American Corporations have never had a problem getting a license for use with foreign offices). What I said was that any such regulation would be impossible to enforce for two reasons: 1) While current crypto advertises its presence, crypto exists which is indestinguishable from random noise and would be impossible to prove was used. Further it would be necessary to specify what was not crypto (and the law frowns on negatives). Navaho, Basque, PKZIP, and EBCDIC are examples that fall readily to mind. 2) The second objection is more obscure but should be considered in places that lack our constitutional protections: given a message, any message, I can demonstrate a OTP or algorithm that will turn that into any message desired. Therefore just the existance of a message and a decrypt would be insufficient to prove the "chain" that one led from/to the other. Thus in the one case, I referring to the obligations/limitations that our constitution places on the US government (is what it is really about). In the other I was referring to what it is *possible* for the government to do without considering legality (if they can't, does not matter if legal). Does this clear up the confusion ? Warmly, Padgett ps just to add some more wood "any law that can not be demonstrated to be universally enforceable with the resources allocated should be repealed".

3 2

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by strata＠virtual.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oh, hey, no problem. You're not the only one, despite the explicit reference in the document. Whether I like it or not, this industry is largely centered around and run by men. I always got a kick out of people's assumptions that my resume and my writing must "naturally" belong to a guy. Apparently the dominant paradigm thinks I'm holding my own in the rat race. I learned to take it as a compliment years ago; the same thing happened in 3 out of 5 phone screenings for job interviews. What's really been entertaining is where we did email prescreening and I showed up for an interview and got to watch someone's mental transmission popping its syncromesh for a moment. <grin> They always recover quickly and continue the shift into "interview mode", and I get that nice warm glow of having broadened someone's horizons. Cheers, _Strata

1 0

Re: LI Newsday OpEd: Criminal Justice System
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:16 PM 2/12/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >"Deranged Mutant" writes: >> Found a really good op-ed piece in LI Newsday, Thurs. Feb 8, pA53 >> by Robert Reno, "If Jails Are Full, How Much Tougher Can Judges Get?" > >I personally find stuff like this interesting, but I prefer read about >it in places like libernet or the like. Cypherpunks is for >cryptography. Au contraire. Those interested in pure cryptography and coding are over in Coderpunks, the new gated community for such folks. The rest of us, stuck here in the ghetto of Cypherpunks, will talk about what we want to talk about. --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."

2 1

DEA
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Column by Jim Dykes in the Knoxville Journal (423-584-9606), 2/8/96. (...) I had a call the other day. About the DEA. Try to keep all these damn acronyms straight: DEA is Drug Enforcement Agency. Call was from an old cowboy - well, former Air America pilot, to be more precise, CIA. (There should be a federal agency to control us old men better.) To make a long, long story short, I have some names and phone numbers of people around the country - Customs, Immigration & Naturalization, maybe even some DEA, who can discuss rather interesting money ripoff techniques by DEA agents involving Title 18, Title 21, and Title 19 of the Federal Code. There was a time when I would have busted a gut - and a phone budget - trying to snare some bent government agents. But, now ... Let me make it perfectly clear that this old persimmon really doesn't give a damn. I am long past being shocked at venality and corruption in public servants. But, if anybody wants to be a hotshot investigative reporter (and run up a helluva phone bill for his or her employer) just give me a call. (That lets a lot of you out, since it would have to be somebody I know and trust.)

3 2

cypherpunks t shirts, anymore?
by Oscar Boykin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know someone that got bought a black sypherpunks t shirt with warning strong crypto on it. Are there any more of these? I would like to purchase a large. Please contact me if you know anything. oscar boykin mailto:boykin@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~boykin home: 404-206-0477

1 0