December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Subject: Re: They're running scared.
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> 04/08/96 09:53am -0800 = At 04:33 PM 4/8/96 GMT, attila wrote: = >** Reply to note from jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> 04/07/96 8:32pm -0800 = > = >Jim: = > = > a very sensible article. = = And it is the kind of article that you would never have seen in the = "mainstream press" more than 2-3 years ago, and probably not before the = middle of 1995. One of the implicit functions of the press has been to make = it appear that there is no reasonable opposition to the government in total. = Now, they have begun to admit that ever larger proportions of the = population are soured on the whole concept. = Time's dual attack on Hillary, one orchestrated by someone she tried to control, the other just pure analysis of the situation is very surprising. they are part of the big-money NWO whose "duty" is to keep the sheep informed of the will of the government (and make it appear benevolent. However, let's face it, Hillary has guts: "Bill Gates is greedy because he has amassed a fortune of US$ 15,000,000,000 ($15 billion) but the US Government is a helpful Village because it takes US$ 1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) from us each year and does good things with it." --Hillary Clinton that takes one bitch of a person to make that arrogant statement --and the cover picture tells it all --ridden hard and put away wet many, many times --and not in the conventional sense. Susan Thosases and she make a real pair. Their actions, or those of Bubba and the rest of the CFR of which george Bush is the hatchet man, show an absolute contempt for the Constitution. = = > not to be critical over your work in general, but your polemics and = too-far = >radicalism makes it hard to swallow. = = I admit to my polemics. However, saying my position is "too far radicalism" = is quite relative. The average person today is a product of a system which, = in effect, has brainwashed him (to use an old, out-of-favor term) to believe = in the idea that the government has the authority to run just about = everything it chooses to. I, and increasing numbers of people, disagree. = If you have an alternative solution to the "government problem" I'm anxious = to see it. Relative to the sheep, I am "radical," but compared to people = who do indeed see there is a problem, I think I fit right in. = = > I may be an anarchist at heart, but = >anarchy explicitely implies personal responsibility --which few people have. = >the trick is to figure how the idealism of anarchy can survive in a society of = >non-responsible individuals. = = With all due respect, I think I've already figured it out. At least, I = discovered a path that we must at least investigate, because it could lead = us to the goal. politics of assassination? hired guns? I do not think I would have any difficulty with the concept in theory; just that we would run out of targets too soon and be forced back to economic terrorism. I do know, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that I will NOT participate in such a matter. The prophet, Joseph Smith said: The Constitution is not a law, but it empowers the people to make laws... The Constitution tells us what shall not be lawful tender... The legislture has ceded up to us the privilege of enacting such laws as are not inconsitent with the Constitution of the United States... The different states, and even the Congress itself have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States. ...Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!... The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all the power not reserved to itself. I am a lawyer. I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth, and hell. to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors, and other big bodies. This is the doctrine of the Constitution, so help me God.... Now, this may not agree with your thinking (and there are pages more of Joseph Smith's statements on defending the Constitution), but I think he hit it on the head. Secondly, Thomas Jefferson stated: "I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government" --Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) or maybe: Democracy is a form of government under which everyone has the freedom to elect officials to restrict his freedom. or to put in more succintly, I think an old Doonesbury cartoon that had Duke (representing the NRA) testifying before a Senate subcommittee summed it up nicely..... Senator: "And we and the American people have had enough of you and your fanatic organization!" Duke: "I see Senator, shall I put you down for a million postcards?" Senator: "Don't you threaten me, mister!" Politicians only understand one thing. I am not a pacifist; I do believe in fighting for what is right; I did my duty in the 60s (in spades) --I could have asked the Church for the CO form; after the way the government used us (particularly the "black" battalionsfor which I was the CO) solely to test new weaponry and build up the military-industrial economics, by 1980 it hit me as to the extent I, and the rest of us, had been betrayed, yes, our government has a problem: greed, and power. Joseph Smith, however, did say: The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to caputal punishment, and then the President of the United States would not say, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Anarchy which degenerates to mob rule is untenable. What I do not see in your treatises is any planning for the future --once mob rule reigns, the next step is tribal councils, chiefs, and chiefs of chiefs --and I do not mean elected chiefs. As it has been, it will be. Man never learns from history --he just repeats it. -- "Don't hunt wild game, hunt lawyers! They provide better sport, suffer from severe overpopulation, and besides, they taste just like chicken!! -- Obscenity is a crutch for inarticulate motherfuckers. Fuck the CDA! cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

1 0

Re: They're running scared.
by Michael C. Peponis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 07 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: [article snipped] >Articles such as this are interesting because they appear to be written >without any illusion that the interests of governments are anything other >than just that, interests of governments. They are NOT the interests >of the average citizen. Absolutly, and it seems that more and more thinking people are realizing this, as for the non-thinking ones, well we are better off without them, the only thing they contribute are problems Debate works to a point, but there comes a point and time where all that can be said, has been said, and we are past that point. Personally, I love national insecurity such as terrorist attacks and random bombings, wish there were more of them by more people. What they do is sow fear, instensify camps, and pit people against each other. Goverments are use to wars, where there are large, well-defined groups assult one another, they have huge problems dealing with small groups of people attack it or each other. That is what will eventually cause it to collapes, which is a good thing. For those who say that such an event would be catostrophic, that is a myth, I worked with someone from Berut a few years ago, when the goverment there collapesed. He said other than the perpetual mortor fire, and speratic bombings, life went on as usuall. People got up and went to work, people bought and sold, etc. From a microsopic scale, nothing had changed, it was only if you looked at the bigger picture that things were different, and quite frankly, those types of things do not effect us individually. I do not need an x trillion dollar economy to continue living at my standard of living, most of us on this list do not, the only people that benifit are the power brokers and the dumb, weak, and stupid. I have nothing against charity(that's what taxes amount to), but when charity reaches 50%+ of my income, and starts to erode my freedom, well now it's a problem. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMWkWWUUffSIjnthhAQHEiQP/Sp5+UfCFGmvEO/9nRFBLXBm9haPiJC/y oVCoKQi/jeCkXy1HaPjrrObFkV0fvRsHxk5GvHXfX9sIkFi/i9mrGafpXFUuRfkP qua2wYp91Omh39QptHThGgEKl0sdKBzw+/9uHCqwUyViqoZZBO7Y7kUGffT9XL9m 13VTjMTyFz4= =e+UM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Michael Peponis PGP Key Available from MIT KeyServer

3 2

Singapore & the net
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters reports Singapore has issued new regulations relating to the Internet today. Anyone have a pointer or details? A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

2 1

Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:01 4/8/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >I'd be interested to know if the courts have ever had a case in >which a person has been declared to have been in "possession" of >illegal material merely by virtue of its momentary presence in >their cache, screen buffer, or usenet spool. If you want a real world analogy, there are cases where overeager USPS Inspectors who want to "get" someone have sent them porno as a Return Receipt Requested Item and then raided before the person had had a chance to open the package. That is possession under the Law.

2 1

Re: (Fwd) British Study Claims That Photo Credit Cards Don't Work
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Some thoughts... (er, questions): > > 1. What are the implications for log-on systems that rely on > > recognition of faces (supposedly impossible for hackers to describe > > and exploit)? At 11:19 AM 4/8/96 -0700, David Loysen wrote: > Does anybody know how well these systems work? Yes: They don't work. > If I don't shave over the > weekend will my computer know who I am Monday morning? Shaving probably will not be a problem, but holding your head at a slightly different angle, or having slightly different lighting, or combing your hair differently will screw up the system totally, unless the system has radically improved since the last time I read up on it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 3

WRY_cfp
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

4-09-96 FT reports on CFP, with wry comments about eavesdropping on cpunkish issues and notables: encryption blanc et noir; sci-fi scenarios; Garfinkel and Chaum on e- money; CDA; cyber-terrorism, -porno, -child abuse, and -crime; suits cold-sweating secrets. For the sweaters, a related sheepswooly vaunts Open Market's "industrial strength" OM-products for secure Net biz. WRY_cfp

1 0

Re: Disclosure of Public Knowledge to Foreigners
by cme＠acm.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:33 4/3/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >There is a reasonable chance the Supreme Court would see the overall >absurdity of a situation where the knowledge is freely available to 200 >million adult Americans, with no restrictions whatsover on publication, >discussion, etc., and yet uttering this knowledge in front of a foreigner >is a crime. > >I don't think this would pass Constitutional muster, as the lawyers like >to say. > >(The British at least have an Official Secrets Act. Much as I dislike that >Act, at least they are more consistent in the sense of classifying things >as being secret. How can the U.S. argue that knowledge available in any >large library or bookstore to anyone who wants it, citizen or not, may not >be "disclosed" to foreigners? If it's common knowledge, it's common >knowledge!) This assumes that the purpose of the ITAR restrictions is to keep a secret. To the extent that the gov't argues that, they have no case as you point out. However, the ITAR is there specifically to frustrate US businesses if they should want to sell or give away crypto overseas. The rules, despite their illogic, achieve that goal. I would like to believe that the Supremes would rule that the Gov't has no right to use what amounts to a secrecy provision just for harrassment -- but they might not. I had Mike Nelson say to my face, 1.5 years ago, that he knows good crypto is available to foreigners -- he just wants to make damn sure it doesn't come in shrink-wrapped packages from US companies. I can't judge the constitutionality of that position but it holds together logically. ["don't let American products hurt American interests" the battle cry runs] - Carl +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | | PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | | "Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song." | +---------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison (aka Mother) -+

2 1

Bank transactions on Internet
by Jüri Kaljundi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Suddenly some banks here in Estonia have decided that they must start offering banking services over Internet already during the next months. What worries me is that some of them are talking about using 40-bit SSL as the main security mechanism. What about banks in US and Europe, how many of them are using Internet and WWW to offer their services already? Is it possible to use WWW forms to make real transactions or can you just view your transaction history and account status? In case the banks are using WWW forms and SSL, are the services limited to 128-bit clients? How is the client authentication handled? Does the client just get a plain username and password? I had a look at some banks like Security First National Bank and some others, and it seems that they use just SSL + username/password for they banking services. Does this really work, especially with 40-bit keys? SSL with client certificates would seem a little bit more secure once it is available, but still not secure enough for real banking on Internet. Just curious (and confused), Juri Kaljundi jk(a)digit.ee

6 9

Re: the cost of untracability?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:36 PM 4/8/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >In addition, to prevent funds from being removed to non-resident aliens >or foreign entities where tax enforcement and collection is difficult, >there is a 30% withholding requirement in the event the payee is not a >U.S. citizen or resident (for tax purposes). The withholding tax applies only if the payee is not a resident of a jurisdiction with a tax treaty with the US. Net banking will further muddy the waters on this because of the difficulty of telling the residency of customers particularly in the case of accounts transferred to third parties for profit -- a worthwhile future business activity. DCF

2 1

WWW User authentication
by blane＠aa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just finished writing a cgi script to allow users to change their login passwords via a webpage. I currently have the webpage being authenticated with the basic option (uuencoded plaintext). MD5 would be nicer, but how many browsers actually support it? When the user changes their password, the form sends their name, old password, and new password with it, in the clear. This is no worse than changing your password across a telnet connection, but I'd like it to be more secure, but useable by a large number of browsers. Any advice? Brian ------- <blane(a)aa.net> -------------------- <http://www.aa.net/~blane> ------- Embedded Systems Programmer, EET Student, Interactive Fiction author (RSN!) ============== 11 99 3D DB 63 4D 0B 22 15 DC 5A 12 71 DE EE 36 ============

4 4