December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: A MODEST PROPOSAL
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> wrote In reference to my MODEST PROPOSAL: > Ohh pleeez!!, give YOUR ravings a rest > Next you'll be raving about soap and lampshades made out of Jews. No, my post wasn't about Nazis, it was about the principle behind an act attributed to the Danish King. It was offered as an illustration to help explain why I was making my Modest Proposal. Whether or not the story is a lie is irrelevant. It was offered for its allogorical value. Get a grip. Thanks to the Cypherpunks who have signed up for the LIST OF SHAME publicly or by private e-mail. I will post the list soon. I urge anyone else who would like to be on Mr/Ms Anonymous' (Detwieler's, Jim Bell's) LIST OF SHAME to let me know as soon as possible so you can be included. I think to be fair, I should also take applications for inclusion in a list called SUPPORTERS OF MR/MS ANONYMOUS, for those who think he's right. This is NOT an election, democratic vote or even a popularity contest. But Anonymous has made a lot of noise purportedly speaking as and for Cypherpunks. I'd like to see where the consensus more truely lies on this mailing list. Let me know. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim Fulbright <100022.3167(a)compuserve.com> >I think you or someone here recently remarked the U.S.Government has the only >_real_ capability to wage world terrorism on the internet, and after I read >Frank Sowa's feb. Boardwatch article I'm beginning to wonder. I suppose >quoting the article at length will be at least as good as some of the other >traffic around here... just in case anybody missed it, Sowa reviewed 35 federal >reports, and quotes Page saying "As a result, we've had no choice but to create >an offensive capability in cyberspace. I can't discuss it ... However, you'd >feel good and feel safe and secure if you knew about it" (yeah, really) >Further, Sowa reports the Natl Defense U is forming an elite Information Corps, >'a F0rce whose scope is to fight the battles of "Information Warfare from the >Pentagon war room to the home PCs" according to DOD' (p90-92).... And further, >RAND corp is using an "all out cyberwar simulator at their research center in >Santa Monica" and... oh well, the whole article is just crammed with stuff! >Yikes! I would sure like to know what people think about it. thanks. there seems to be a lot of hyperventilating in the military arena about "information warfare" lately. I find it rather strange and incomprehensible. there are two chief areas that this frenzy seems to be in response to: 1. propaganda/espionage areas. 2. hacking. (i.e. breaking in, crashing, etc.) as for (1), I don't know what the fuss is about. what it suggests to me is that there are branches of government that take "psyops" (psychological operations) extremely seriously and are very intent on setting up camp in cyberspace & the internet, and have probably already done so. it is as if they are deathly terrified of the ability of individuals to communicate not only with other individuals but other masses through web pages and email. I find it quite frightening how many people in our government have the mindset that "free communication can be a very dangerous thing." personally I think an application for government should reject anyone that hasn't memorized the entire bill of rights.. but the recent Strassman & Marlow paper on remailers, which addressed (1), seemed a bit incomprehensible and bordered on unintelligible. they talked as if remailers are like weapons that can be fired on an enemy. (huh???) either they are deep into psyop or spook psychology, or they just don't "get it" that remailers are pretty harmless. I tend to believe it is a little of both. (2) is definitely something to take very seriously. if you want to learn about how/why infiltrating computers is incredibly appealing to many in the government, check out info on "danny casolaro" and Inslaw PROMIS software. the behind-the-scenes theme to a lot of this is that our massive cold war apparatus is bored and listless now that the Soviet bogeyman is gone and they are just moving into new territories to continue to suck up billions of dollars. but its awfully hard to read the various scrambled entrails that have been emerging such as the Leahy bill, Strassman & Marlow paper, etc. in relation to info warfare-- I tend to think some of it is just evidence that there are some amazingly addled people in our government. BTW I like "boardwatch" mag, read it regularly, and highly recommend it to anyone as one of the better & more quality cyberspace mags. try www.boardwatch.com.

1 0

Pepsi World - Gotta Have It!
by webmaster＠pepsi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey Squatter! Don't forget to cruise back by Pepsi World! We're gonna keep showing ya the coolest, hippest stuff out there, including: - Shaq/Pepsi World's Slammin' Techno Dream Contest - The Bev-o-Matic Contest - An exciting, original Shockwave game - Chat Rooms - And basically, more entertainment than you can shake a stick at! Don't forget your squatter id 'cypherpunk' and password 'cypherpunk', you'll need them to maintain your Squatter's rights in Pepsi World.

1 0

Electronic Frontiers Houston Cyber-Political Questionaire.
by Paul Elliott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Electronic Frontiers Houston 2476 Bolsover, Suite 145 Houston, Texas 77005 (713) 917-5000 voice // (713) 917-5005 fax Internet: efh(a)efh.org Web site: http://www.efh.org/ Contact: Robbie Westmorland Electronic Frontiers Houston Cyber-Political Questionnaire. Electronic Frontiers Houston has sent all candidates (who survived the recent primaries), a questionnaire relating to the politics of cyberspace. Recently, many questions have arisen relating to the politics of computer networking. These questions often relate to censorship, encryption, or public access to networks. It is important that the public know the candidates' views on these important issues. All candidates will be asked the following questions: If you or your campaign have an Internet electronic mail address, please provide it here: Please answer the questions on the reverse side. Attach additional pages if required. 1. Do you think that electronic publishing should enjoy the constitutional protections that accrue to print media? 2. Do you think that electronic publishing should enjoy the constitutional protections that accrue to broadcast media? 3. Do you think that electronic publishing should enjoy the constitutional protections that accrue to libraries? 4. Do you favor new laws to regulate the content of electronic media? 5. Do you think that the First Amendment rights of free speech protect private use of encryption? 6. Do you favor laws to regulate the private use of encryption? 7. Do you agree with restrictions on the export of technology that incorporates cryptography? 9. Do you support the right of a private individual too publish printed materials anonymously? 10. Should the government play a role in providing access to computer networks? 11. Do you think that the government should guarantee universal access to computer networks? 12. Do you think that access to government computerized information is a right? 13. Should all governmental records that are available to the public be made available via computer resources? 14. Should access to computerized governmental records be free? 15. Should the government regulate electronic financial transactions and require traceability? 16. Do you approve or disapprove of the wiretap provisions in the 1994 Digital Telephony bill? 17. Do you favor expanding law enforcement access to telephonic communications? In addition, candidates for national office will be asked the following additional question: 18. Do you favor legislation which would require a national ID card? Candidates for state office will be asked the following question: 18. Should laws requiring fingerprints to acquire/renew drivers licences be repealed? Electronic Frontiers Houston is a non-profit group that supports civil liberties and the development of culture in cyberspace. -- Paul Elliott Telephone: 1-713-781-4543 Paul.Elliott(a)hrnowl.lonestar.org Address: 3987 South Gessner #224 Houston Texas 77063

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:31 AM 3/21/96 -0500, dirsec wrote: > I think Leahy will, quite rightly, refuse to adopt the new bill because > it has a snowball's chance in hades of passing, and it makes him look > soft on crime and terrorists. Hold it: Backup: Opponents of the bill say it says X: Supporters of the bill say it says Y: The proposal is to rewrite the bill so it actually does say Y in plain english. And you (quite correctly) say that the bill will not pass if says Y. You are right. The bill does not facilitate crypto exports, it just sounds like it does, and it delegates judicial powers to cops. If it was amended to facilitate crypto exports, and to maintain the separation of judiciary and executive, it would not pass. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

3 2

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan B. McCullagh typed: > > Excerpted from a message to fight-censorship. For the full thread, check out: > > http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?thread > =The+Leahy+Crypto+Bill+is+Rancid+Sausage&after=1795&type=short > > (On one line, of course.) > > -Declan > > > ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- > > From: Stanton McCandlish <mech(a)eff.org> > Message-Id: <199603190315.TAA05777(a)eff.org> > To: declan+(a)CMU.EDU (Declan B. McCullagh) > Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:15:09 -0800 (PST) > Cc: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu, junger(a)pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu, > tcmay(a)got.net > > > [...] > > As our statement on the bill made clear, *EFF does not support the Leahy > bill*, nor do we endorse it, like it, find it useful or any other synonym. > We're happy to see the issues raise again, a la Cantwell, but we raised > specifically recommended simple and complete deregulation. As our > co-founder John Gilmore points out, the Leahy bill as written > pre-supposes Congressional authority to legislate in this are, and area > Executive authority to regulate under that legislation. These are notions > that we, and Phil Karn, are challenging in court with Constitutional > tests we are throwing at the ITAR export regs. > > [...] > > -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:05 PM 3/20/96, Perry E. Metzger is rumored to have typed: > anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com writes: > > Some people have wondered why I am anonymous and attack me. > > I am not ashamed of my views. > > Well, then you should be. > > > I write this thread anonymous as a form of protest. > > Why is it a form of protest? If you aren't ashamed, post it under your > name. What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster, is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing so anonymously through a remailer. The irony of such a situation is too rich to pass up. It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such a fiction anyway, get used to it" seem to be common responses), but when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why are you posting anonymously." How sad. So, why the hypocrisy here? If you don't want to be bothered by these messages there is a simple solution, use a mail agent that can filter out remailer postings and trash them. Of course this would also kill interesting messages from others who use remailers, but that's the price we pay for having remailers that do not support anonymous identity upon which reputation can be built. Oh yeah, I forgot...cypherpunks write code (snicker). So why not stop bitching and write a bit of code that provides for useful anonymous reputations and/or fix the glaringly obvious problems with current remailers. jim, who is sorry that he is not the one posting such trolls to the list just to make the puppets dance...

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just received this as the moderator for comp.os.ms-windows.announce. Would that be "Donut" as in "big hole"? -rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 19:56:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Burford <mj_burford(a)pnl.gov> To: comp-os-ms-windows-announce(a)cs.washington.edu Newgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.announce Subject: ANNOUNCE: Donut: Web Basic Interpreter. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richland, WA. March 20, 1996. Battelle Memorial Institute today released Donut (1.00 Alpha 1), a Visual Basic form Interpreter for the Web. Donut is a program that allows a Visual Basic form file to be transmitted over the internet and viewed on a user's computer as a form. This form will then interact with the user and their web browser to send or request information just like a normal Visual Basic program. Donut does not require any Visual Basic files or DLLs in order to work. This will allow creation of web forms that give the author more control over exactly what the form will look like, allows interaction between the Donut applet and the user's browser, and allows processing of form information on the user's computer instead of on the server. And it allows you to use existing expertise with the very popular and common Visual Basic programming language to do so. Currently Donut is available for the Microsoft Windows operating system (Windows 3.x, Windows 95 or NT). It works with any Windows web browser that supports the standard interprocess (DDE) communication for web browsers. It has been tested and works with Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and several variations of Mosaic. Donut should be able to run most simple Visual Basic programs with few if any modifications. (Unlike VBScript where you must now cut and paste the source code into a HTML page.) Donut is available without charge to end users. For more information or to obtain Donut and development information: http://apc.pnl.gov:2080/donut/ Microsoft, Windows and Visual Basic are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ASN.1 Tools/Compilers
by frederick_zarndt＠novell.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of reliable ASN.1 tools/compilers suitable for use on a wide range platforms? I already know about the following tools/compilers, but I would appreciate comments anyone cares to make: ISODE (who to contact for the DE?) Snacc Thanks. Frederick Zarndt Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc 122 East 1700 South Provo UT 84606 USA Tel 801 429-3348 Fax. 801 429-3500

2 1

Minneapolis Star Tribune this morning
by Charles Gimon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mpls. Strib did a piece this morning, front page, about AltaVista, Dejanews, etc. Well-worn territory to readers of this list. Your words can come back to haunt you, all that stuff. One paragraph that deserves rebuttal from those of you who are better-informed: "Of course, technology is working on solutions to itself, but mechanisms that would hide the name of a message's author, such as cryptography and anonymous remailers, are convoluted and incomplete." Author was Jonathan Gaw; no e-mail address given. Star Tribune Online is at http://www.startribune.com. *********************************************************************** --The Interview-- | gimonca(a)skypoint.com George Clinton: "Suck on my soul, | Minneapolis MN USA and I will lick your funky emotions!"| http://www.skypoint.com/~gimonca Dave Letterman: "Yuck!!" | A lean, mean meme machine. ***********************************************************************

2 1