December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

JEK_hyd
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3-20-96. TWP (privatizing the global NatSec frankenstein): "South Africa Weighs Reining In Peddlers of Mercenary Ex-Soldiers." In this once highly militarized society, the transition from white-minority rule produced unemployed commandos and spies suddenly without a cause. So, controversial military and intelligence units are selling their skills to the rest of Africa and beyond. Executive Outcomes, the best known and apparently largest of firms offering overt and covert security services, says the company's services are in great demand. It operates within a murky network of other international companies that specialize in oil drilling, diamond mining and landmine removal. The firm also has been reported to hire former commandos of Britain's SAS and the Selous Scouts of the old white-ruled Rhodesia, as well as military technicians from the former Soviet Union. JEK_hyd

1 0

Re: Would the FTC crack down on snake oil someday?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:45 PM 3/17/96 +0000, you wrote: >Enclosed is an excerpt from Edupage. Snake-oil crypto popped into my >mind.... I wonder if the FTC (Federal Trade Commission... agency >*meant* to crack down on consumer fraud, for non-US readers here) >would ever get into act here. .... >FTC TARGETS INTERNET FRAUD >The Federal Trade Commission is conducting a "wholesale crackdown" on >perpetrators of allegedly deceptive marketing schemes that are advertised in >Internet news groups or on the World Wide Web. Sure, they'll be happy to, if we really want. The NSA will advise them on what's good crypto, and what's snake-oil. Certainly any system that didn't provide for back-up key access doesn't rate...... No, I didn't think you wanted that either.... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Sandy SandFort wrote: > A CYPHERPUNK CALL TO ARMS!!! > > (Did I get the style right?) C'punks, if you feels as I do, > please take a few moments to sign up for the LIST OF SHAME? > Let's show Bill, Bruce, Matt and all the others what most > Cypherpunks really think about them and Mr/Ms Anonymous. This effectively gets the right point across, but might turn Cypherpunks into a USENET newsgroup mass posting of "me too" sentiments. As I agree with Sandy on every point, I reluctantly choose to start.... "Please add me to your list of shame, Mr. Anonymous." Brad Shantz

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

If I were the NSA, I would start threads such as the one on the IPG system. They are very valuable to them in assessing and mapping the cryptanalysis capabilities of the CPunks lurkers and regulars members. Just a thought... JFA Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 7:42 PM 3/20/96, Michael Froomkin wrote: >correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the federal direct mail marketing laws >say that any unsolicited merchandise sent to a person becomes their >property, regardless of any disclaimers to the contrary included in the >package? The _physical_ item, e.g., a box of soap or a free copy of "Newsweek," but presumably not the _intellectual property_, e.g, the contents of "Newsweek." (Just because I get free samples of magazines does not mean I now can do with the contents whatever I wish, such as post them on the Net; copyright law is presumably involved.) This may be more analogous to what IDG has done. Disclaimers: IANAL, I am not defending IDG or their "broken in less than one day" tub of snake oil, nor am I defending copyright and direct mail marketing laws. And I might be wrong about the intellectual property issue, though I doubt it. Copyright laws are such that rights are not waived even if free samples are given out, and so forth. IDG can hardly claim their algorithm has trade secret status when they've distributed it to many people. Which leaves them with only trying to enforce copyright protections, a la the Church of Scientology. Maybe IDG will now seek to collect the only bucks they'll ever get by suing various Cypherpunks who are distributing their so-called system? Helena Kobrin can become their lawyer. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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

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

17 Dec '03

Since someone other than Jim Bell and THE LIST OF SHAME author thought I was being serious, I thought it wise to respond. The notion that a measure of criticism from a known enemy, Dorothy Denning, corrects the many problems with Leahy's legislation is absurd. As a case in point, remember that Rush Limbaugh, Catharine MacKinnon, and the radical religious right group American Family Association criticized the CDA. That does not make the CDA worth passing. (Of course Rush likes dirtysexycybertalk so he can pick up chicks online, and the AFA wanted not less, but _more_ liability for ISPs, but I trust my point is clear.) Speaking of the CDA, I'll be in Philadelphia tomorrow and Friday for the hearing. Any other cypherpunks planning to attend? -Declan Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 20-Mar-96 [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning.. by Alan Bostick(a)netcom.com > In article <Pine.3.89.9603192113.A23263-0100000@well>, > Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> wrote: > > > I may have to adjust my position on Leahy's bill. Any legislation that > > Dorothy Denning attacks so virulently must be worth passing. > > That could be exactly what They want you to think! > > If They wanted us to overlook the actual flaws and trapdoors in Leahy's > bill, what better way than to have our knees jerk in support by arranging > for Denning's opposition?

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Jim McCoy wrote: > 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? I don't see this as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be trying to track the guy down, or turning off the remailer, or filtering anonymous rants at toad.com. I think it's completely legitimate, and healthy, to question why people go anonymous while supporting their right to do so. Sometimes anonymity is necessary, sometimes it's just for fun, sometimes its cowardice, sometimes it's deception. Your point about "stop whining and write code for anonymous reputations" is misplaced. Such code ALREADY EXISTS. There are lots of nyms out there with PGP keys. If you're already PGP-encrypting your message to send it to an anonymous remailer securely, it's really no more trouble to sign it with the key for Alice D'Anonymous. If you don't feel secure using PGP (and "the real Alice" did have some -- some -- valid points), then use a magic number or serialize your messages. It worked for the Unabomber. -rich

1 0

Re:( NOISE) Keep the pressure! Cryptographers Against Cryptography EXPOSED!
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anonymous said: > YOU DON'T NEED EXPERTS TO THINK FOR YOU! REMEMBER RICO AND WORLD GOVERNMENT! Hmmm. I still don't get the "world government" bit, but I finally think that I "REMEMBER RICO". 1930's flick, Edward G. Robinson as a gangster about to be riddled with bullets by the Feds has time for a closing line: "Mother of mercy, could this be the end of RICO?" ==OR== (Please bear with me, I'm not up on all of "Their" conspiritorial methods) Could it refer to the chicken liver and pasta dish known as "Spaghetti a la (EnRICO) Caruso"? I only had this dish once, but I'll remember it for a long, long time.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

A friend of mine registered as a student for the CFP '96 conference next week, but is unable to go. Registration is transferable, so he can send another student in his place. If anyone is interested, please mail him (not me) at tew2(a)cornell.edu.

1 0

snake oil refining
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

IPG Salesdroid says: > In view of the willful violation of our confidential release, without > knowing everything involved, and putting it out on the Internet, please > be advised that other than those who have heretofore been evaluating the > system, we will make no further releases except on a highly > selective basis. Why? After all, the first lot of information proved to be worthless (in the literal sense of having no economic value, it being a hunk of junk). I can hardly see how you can complain about the result -- I mean, it isn't like your encryption system was worth anything in the first place, so it was hardly lowered in value. I find it amusing how slippery the snake oil you peddle is, however. This morning you claimed that several "cypherpunks" had been sent information on your system and claimed it was "unbreakable". As soon as a couple of cypherpunks note that what they were sent was garbage, you claim, and I quote: > In view of the anonymous remailer's calim to have broken the simple > system, which as you and others who have had the system for a period > time know, we have had some reservations about. Ah, yes. This morning, unbreakable. Tonight "we had some reservations about". Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time? You can probably have a fine career selling penny stocks or something. Perry

1 0