December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Clinton blathering about Internet terror
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"m5(a)vail.tivoli.com" "Mike McNally" 17-APR-1996 11:19:57.56 >Subject: Clinton blathering about Internet terror >See http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/960417/news/stories/internet_1.html. Also at http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/041796/info11_8930.html. The listing of sites outside of the US might encourage people to realize that this information can't be stopped. -Allen

1 0

Clinton worried books may help arm terrorists
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Roiters, 4/17/96: Clinton worried books may help arm terrorists TOKYO, April 17 (Roiter) - U.S. President Bill Clinton said on Wednesday he was worried that books are aiding international terrorism by making it too easy for sinister forces to learn how to make bombs or produce nerve gas. "Are people learning, for example, from reading how to make the same sort of trouble in the United States that was made in Japan with sarin gas?" Clinton said at a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto in Tokyo. "Isn't it a concern that anybody, anywhere in the world, can find books and encyclopedia articles about how to build a bomb like the bomb that blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City?" he added. Clinton said Japan and the United States, both victims of home-grown terrorism last year, should learn from each other about how to deal with the dangerous issue of unauthorized reading. >From Tokyo, President Clinton is to fly to North Korea to discuss North Korea's successful campaign to limit access to books and reading.

1 0

Re: why compression doesn't perfectly even out entropy
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-04-16 15:51:46 EDT, Perry Metzger writes: >There is no reason you can't have a string of 20 1 bits in >a row in a perfectly random sequence, for example. Usually, random >sequences are non-compressable, but it is possible (though very >improbable) for Hamlet to appear out of a random number generator, >and it is of course quite compressable... Of course, if that happened, the odds of it happening from a Trojan Horse or other type of attack are overwhelming...

1 0

Re: No Subject
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-04-17 02:35:51 EDT, you write: >Knowledge about TCP/IP is alot easier to control than knowledge about the >Berlin Wall (ie, how many Chinese will even know of the existence of TCP/IP >-- in the US, where this is freely available, how many citizens know of it's >existence)? I bet this would change if people saw knowledge of TCP/IP as the "key to the Berlin Wall."

1 0

META: Having the last word
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:58 PM 4/17/96, rick hoselton wrote: >I am enjoying this discussion, but I feel like I'm running out of >useful new ways to try to express this idea. If I don't reply, >it doesn't mean you have convinced me. :) I have long used this principle. All discussions have to end at some point, and I have no problems with others having "the last word." If they think that by having the last word, or by my non-response to their points, that they have "won," or that I am speechless before their eloquence, then of course they were not worth arguing with in the first place. No point in arguing with the preterite. (My neo-Calvinist stoicism showing.) Recall the recent absurdity of one of our list members repeatedly saying "I see that Joe Blow has still not responded to my arguments, so I guess he has conceded defeat! Hee Hee." The more likely explanation is that his opponent simply realized what he was dealing with. --Tim May THE X-ON CONGRESS: INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that "the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists' dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.

1 0

Re: A possible problem with more regulation possible?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:17 PM 4/16/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > This proposal would appear to increase vulnerability to regulation. > -Allen > >From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 7-APR-1996 18:42:00.83 > >>MORE ROUTERS = MORE INTERNET BROWNOUTS >>As businesses and Internet operators keep adding routers to speed electronic >>content on its way, the proliferation of routing devices actually begins to >>slow traffic, causing Internet "brownouts" -- when the response time slows >>to a crawl. The solution could be an updated Internet, redesigned for >>fewer, more powerful routers, so that data packets need fewer hops. "The >>U.S. Internet is about as reliable these days as the phone system in >>Russia," says NetStar's VP for sales and marketing. (Business Week 8 Apr 96 >>p82) I'd like to hear of some estimates of the cost (total, and per-user) of installing the system, and running Internet on a daily basis. They are spread out over a large number of entities, but I'd think they could be estimated with at least a factor-of-two precision. What are the costs of laying fiber? Switching equipment? etc.

1 0

Re: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This rash of postings reminds me of a technique to harass someone by telephone. You note that pager companies are usually assigned a block of telephone numbers. So you program your auto-dialer to dial each in turn and then send your target's number. Result: your target gets a lot of, "Why did you page me?" calls. (My collage roommate had fun in high school by dialing two "random" numbers on his two line phone and then connecting them together and listening to the result.) The analogy here is to spoof mail addresses to subscribe your target to high-volume mailing lists. If you want to attack the list as well, even better. Can someone be subscribed to cypherpunks and not get the welcome message? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re[2]: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by Adam Pingitore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've got news for you all. This 'jerk' was spammed by some ass out there. I've canceled by subscription so would you all quit whining already. Sorry if I sent you people inappropriate mail, but I just wasn't very happy getting 2000 e-mails a day.

2 1

Re: i want off
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > can someone help me off this mailing list > > Mathew Ellman > > (DEAL WITH IT) > > 15 N WASHINGTON ST APT 1 > > VALPARAISO IN 46383 > > Smooth move. You just published your home address to about 1000 people, > all of whom are suspected of being involved in a nation-wide moon pie > theft clique. Expect weirdness. Ignore the knocks on your door late at > night. Do not feed or water the on-going Cypherpunks meeting and party > that is about to manifest itself in your front yard. If you do, they'll > never go away. > > [...] Check out http://catalog.savvy.com/ for added juvenile fun with this person. ;-) Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: Bernstein case decisision (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:00 PM 4/17/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote: >reposted with permission. > >A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:23:47 -0400 >>From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> >The following summary is from my colleague Shari Steele: > >What Judge Patel said. >First, the judge ruled that Bernstein could bring his case even though the >Arms Export Control Act specifically precludes judicial review, because what >we are asking the judge to review (i.e., the constitutionality of the >statute and its regulations) was not what had been precluded (i.e., the >government's determination in a particular instance whether or not something >was exportable). "With respect to constitutional questions, the judicial >branch not only possesses the requisite expertise to adjudicate these >issues, it is also the best and final interpreter of them." [stuff deleted] >The judge, therefore, did not throw out any of our claims (the ITAR acts as >a prior restraint on speech, the ITAR is overbroad, and the ITAR is vague). >She looked at each of them one by one and determined that each of them had >merit. > >What this decision means. >Most directly, it means that we can continue on with our lawsuit. The >government had brought a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the >court lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter because it was a matter of >national security. The judge struck that down and said that we can go >forward with our suit. > >More indirectly, the judge's ruling sets the stage for us winning at trial. >She clearly "gets it," and isn't intimidated by the government's use of >precedential cases that aren't on point. It looks like this judge is well on her way to throwing out the portion of ITAR which deals with software of all kinds, not merely digitized source code originally from books. That's progress, of a sort. I'm still waiting to see what that "Burns bill" will be all about. Since that bill is supposed to deal directly with the issues this judge has already shown sense on, I think that this bill ought to be no less generous with computer software exports than an anticipated court decision WRT ITAR will be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0