December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Using lasers to communicate
by hoz＠univel.telescan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:38 AM 2/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >This idea of sending data via laser beams across open spaces has some >very useful potential. ... >Eavesdropping and channel-blocking and physical-location-discovery are >related threats to which most traditional data channels are susceptible. >Any link which depends on a physical conduit (phone line, fiber, coax) >is relatively easy to interrupt and to trace to its end points. >RF links, even with frequency hopping, are subject to triangulation and >jamming. All these kinds of links can be eavesdropped. >Point-to-point conduitless laser signalling, as envisioned by "Bill" and >Tim in their quotes below, eliminates or reduces these threats Dust will cause diffraction of the beam (at a reduced intensity, of course). Near the source, a detector tuned narrowly to the wavelength of interest would probably succeed quickly. If you have a line of sight channel, there are many other ways to signal that will preserve some deniability. Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)

1 0

Re: AT&T Public Policy Research -- hiring for cypherpunks
by ethridge＠Onramp.NET 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Alan Olsen wrote: > >| > Addresses will not be easily 'transferable.' The IETF is >| >discussing a 'Best Current Practices' document that talks about >| >address portability. Basically, it can't happen, because the routers >| >only have so much memory, and the routers at the core of the internet >| >can't keep in memory how to reach every one; there needs to be >| >aggregation. The only feasible aggregation seems to be provider >| >based, ie, MCI, Alternet, and other large ISPs get blocks of >| >addresses. They give them to smaller companies, like got.net, which >| >gives them to customers. The result? The core routers have a few >| >more years. >| >| A good point. Having parts of subnet shifting around could be pretty painful >| from an admin point of view. > >Its not an admin's point of view thats worrisome. Whats worrisome is >that the routers at the core of the net only have so much memory, and >if the routing tables grow beyond that, we're all hosed, becuase the >core of the internet will start thrashing. So, in essense, you taking >your network address with you when you switch providers ('address >portability' causes costs that must be borne by the entire global >internet. Given that the world of telephony is moving towards Local Number Portability, isn't it inevitable that the internet will be expected to provide the equivalent functionality? In the world of telephones it's being mandated in the name of local loop competition, which presumably isn't a problem for the internet. But if someday i can move across the country and keep my telephone number, i'd expect the same of my internet address. That said, the issue of who manages the database is a significant one, but more political/economic issue than technical. allen

3 2

META: Filtering/Posting advice
by Leslie Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "I have a concern..." Cypherunks First: Stipulated that any traffic has a 'right' to be on cypherpunks. However, cypherpunks is what we make it. Every time you post a message, consider the desirability of seeing a hundred or so messages just like it from every other readers' point of view. Content control begins at home. Second: I'll remind the reader that one can easily evaluate an individual's past contributions to cypherpunks by looking at the archives' "by author" listing. If you post to cypherpunks, I'd suggest that you go back and look at what you've posted in the past to get a feel for how other people on the list see you. Third: Filtering isn't just a game for the vocal: as noise begets noise, I'd encourage everybody to filter out people whose prose they simply can not stand. While this is an important aspect to creating a more readable list, I can't imagine anybody really caring who else has been "plonked": to me, in seems no more than a preadolescent "nyah nyah, I'm not listening..." I'm half- (only half-, as I'm a free-speech absolutist) tempted to write a tool that would automatically remove any person from cypherpunks who posts a "plonk" message. Until the total lack of security in majordomo is addressed, this is a game that anybody who can telnet to an smtp port can play. Fourth: Cypherpunks is fast becoming a ghetto. My first reaction (which I did not follow) to several crypto posts in the last few days has been to refer the posters to coderpunks. While there is some signal that will always remain uniquely suited to cypherpunks (Tim May's contributions, Strata's response to JPB, and Jim Bell's Assassination idea -- though not all of the messages he's sent since -- immediately come to mind), any signal that has another place to migrate will do so if the noise issue isn't addressed better. Words of wisdom from the past: This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] IE, please... if you aren't adding *new* *signal* to the list, please refrain from posting. If you must flame a person, do it in private email. -- Todd - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMR/CnioZzwIn1bdtAQEG6gGAsw6qzFNpiRLGRW0n7qdHDIJ+Yf+XmBIC dnntiQ+UbXODeNLwsp4jVPSFVETAkCJj =GAYX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

(Fwd) UPDATE: DoJ Brief is Filed
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just received this... (apologies to crypto-only folx on the list) ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:26:38 -0800 (PST) To: protest(a)wired.com From: telstar(a)wired.com (--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: UPDATE: DoJ Brief is Filed At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief in Philadelpia, in an effort to persuade Judge Buckwalter NOT to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that would block implementation and enforcement of the Communications Decency Act. As you'll see below, the DoJ, much like Cathleen Cleaver, seems all too eager to equate "indecency" with "pornography." Grrrrrr. Even worse, the DoJ brief apparently cites Marty Rimm's discredited study about the "pervasiveness" of online pornography as evidence of the urgent need to outlaw indecent material. (TIME Magazine used Rimm's study as the basis for it's sensationalistic "Cyberporn" cover story back in July. It was later revealed that Rimm was an undergradute at Carnegie Mellon University when he did the study, and that his research contained so many methodological flaws that it was all but worthless. TIME even printed a retraction of the story. For more information, visit http://www.hotwired.com/special/pornscare/) According to Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel for the ACLU, "We never thought DOJ would be dumb enough to cite to the Rimm study, so it wasn't mentioned in our initial brief! We expect the judge to rule on the TRO without further reply from us, so we'll have to wait until the next round (the preliminary injunction hearing) before getting in all the info debunking Rimm -- in any event, it is certain to be *very* embarassing for the government." Grrrrrrr. No word yet on when we can expect a decision from Judge Buckwalter, but the ACLU tells me they plan to issue a press release later today. If so, I'll immediately pass it along. In the meantime, here's a CNN update on the DoJ action from http://www.cnnfn.com/news/wires/9602/15/telecom.lawsuit/index.html Stay tuned! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ================================================================== Justice Department responds to telecom lawsuit February 15, 1996 Web posted at: 12:30 p.m. EST PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The Justice Department filed its written response Wednesday to a lawsuit seeking to block the new computer "indecency" law, saying criminal prosecutions are needed to stop a huge increase in the availability of pornography. The government urged a federal judge not to issue a temporary restraining order against provisions that would make it a crime to send "indecent" and sexually explicit material to minors over computer networks. "Individuals undoubtedly have an important interest in being free of purposeful and direct intrusions on First Amendment freedoms," the brief said. "But the governmental interests at stake here in controlling access by minors in indecent sexually explicit materials is compelling." The American Civil Liberties Union and 19 other groups sought the temporary ban Feb. 8, the same day President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter said then that he wanted to see a written response from prosecutors before issuing a ruling. The law defines indecent as that which, "in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Opponents say the standard is too broad and would criminalize information, even in private e-mail, that has educational, artistic and social value, simply because it relates to sex. The government said the indecency standard has been upheld as constitutional in previous cases, and argued that the law's purpose is to restrict access to widely available pornographic images and materials. Violators would face up to two years in prison and $250,000 in fines. A temporary restraining order should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances and if there are no other legal remedies available to plaintiffs. Meanwhile, the situation is dire, the government said. "In the end, plaintiffs cannot dispute that a large and growing amount of pornography is presently available on-line and easily accessible to children in the home, far exceeding anything available prior to the advent of on-line computer services," the government said. ### Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

PGP
by Sentient1 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Esteemed GentlePersons, Could you settle a dispute? Is it, or Is it not, legal to take PGP source code and the like out of the country if it is written on paper? Thank You

4 3

Re: CDA Yes Votes; Collection
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 09, 1996 05:56:13, 'Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com>' wrote: > >If you are deeply upset by the high-handed manner in which the legislature >has screwed around with your life, welcome to the club. Every bill they >pass and every regulation upsets someone just as badly as you are upset. >That is why some of us want less legislation and less regulation to minimize >just this sort of human suffering. Maybe next time those of you who are >into "proactive" government will think before you crush other people's lives. > >DCF > Isn't it the libertarian types on the list who are into mass killings of civilians with nukes and the "socialist statists" who tend to oppose it? How does this square with your view that it is people into "'proactive' government" who are "crush[ing] other people's lives?" It seems to me having your city nuked is a tad more likely to produce the crushing. Normally, I would not be the first to post this onto cypherpunks, but since *you* did I'm game for another seemingly off-topic discussion. --tallpaul

1 0

(no subject)
by Nemesis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have lost the address to the page to join cypherpunks can anyone help me A friend needs it .. thanx Nemesis

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: > At 01:01 PM 2/14/96 -0800, Brian D Williams wrote: > >Why not form our own Party? > >The Internet party........ > > No matter how excellent the people and the goals of such a party: > such a party would be a first step to creating a world state. > > Good intentions, dreadful consequences. Bah. Instead we can have an Internet Party. No, not political party... I mean a nice world-wide baccanal... Hell of a lot more fun, anyway. Bread & circus. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMSP+aSoZzwIn1bdtAQEGiQF8C46cp1jU+1zSNGUWYYJHYq3L/K9O+Gzo IAYVTxL6ANiaebn+caUV4O8f5Er/gud3 =tJWO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why oh why am I getting the idea that "cypherpunks" would better be called "cryptoauthoritarians." From murder-as-political-liberation, to the universalization of the libertarians "feelings" onto everyone else in the world, to the mass nuclear bombings of civilians to the mass nuclear elimination of religions. My, my. For a group of people so uspet at taxes you certainly have faith in the ability of private individuals to generate the capital for things like the Manhattan Project and high-cost nuke delivery systems! On Feb 15, 1996 20:03:56, 'Sean Gabb <cea01sig(a)gold.ac.uk>' wrote: >True, there are risks in generalising from the actions of one individual >to the group as a whole. Nevertheless, where Islam is concerned, there >are so many individuals behaving badly that we are justified in thinking >the whole religion a force for bad. > >Doubtless, I shall be told that "true Islam" is "true tolerance", "true >freedom", and even "true apple pie". I may be told that the horrors of >actually existing Islam - remember this phrase, or something like it? - >are all somehow the fault of the West. But the fact is that most Moslems >venerate old men in beards, who think that anyone who disagrees >with them about God should be put to death, that a woman with a >clitoris is a kind of devil, and that Western classical music is evil. > >By my standards, these people are disgusting. My only dispute with Tim >is in our manner of expressing our disgust. > >Sean Gabb >Editor >Free Life. > I was wondering if S. Gabb, as a self-declared expert on Islam, if he might explain the difference between the Sunni and Shi'ite sects, and the respective size of each? I am also curious if he could point us to a single written example where he or anyone else has ever been told the various things that he "doubtless" will be told? In short, is this important history posted on cypherpunks, more libertarian political demagogery, or another J. Bell-like reference to the universalization of the libertarian's feelings onto the rest of the world? --tallpaul "Gentle Jesus "Meek and mild "Bless me "While I nuke this child. "But reassure'em "As I wack'em "I love their rights; "I'll never tax'em."

2 1

Re: Some thoughts on the Chinese Net
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I haven't been watching this thread much, but has anyone checked out the appropriate Chinese culture/politics newsgroups on this? - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMSP+pyoZzwIn1bdtAQHb7AGAyzWHyF23Gvt/i9Fbs9zQuPrck2fCEdK3 3BAT0lqJoquriMf1Ten4OhVQlJA4nzB9 =lWWG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0