December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Apr 09, 1996 01:47:39, '"Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001(a)panix.com>' wrote: >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. > I think this is more "conspiracy" not "possession" under the law. Perhaps an attorney on the list could comment. But I am interested to read more about such "cases." Could R.A. Rosenberg post the case cites? --tallpaul

1 0

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

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

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

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: unsubscrive
by Brad Shantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Time May Wrote: >Maybe these dweebs are posting from an alternate universe? A universe in >which not even messages explaining that "unsubscrive," "unsuscribe," >"undescribe," "unscribe," and "unimbibe" are not valid alternate spellings >of "unsubscribe." > >I've copied my short explanation of how to subscribe and unsubcribe too >many times to do it again; and it is clear that these folks are either >doing this out of spite, are not reading any of the messages we send them, >or think it funny. I agree with you to a point, Tim. They probably haven't read the messages about how to properly unsubscrive. Not because they are dweebs or because they think it's funny. they probably haven't read the messages because they have 2 or 3 thousand messages in their inbox and they're all from cpunks. Unfortunately, this time, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt for being ignorant. I don't think they're being vindictive. How many of them have posted Unsub messages after being told the proper way to unsub? Brad This may kill off the Cypherpunks list even where Detweiler's massive rants failed. (Now that Detweiler's cabin in Montana has been raided, and one of his tentacles carried off, who will fill his shoes? Vlad the VZNuri is well on his way to matching Detweiler's volume, if not his obsessiveness.) --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."

4 3

Re: NSA Budget
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"JR Weaver" writes: > http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/irp/commission/budget.htm > > This page reveals the FY96 NSA budget at $3.6 billion. It doesn't give any details, though. The general size of the NSA budget was known for a long time based on inference -- see "The Puzze Palace". In any case, they are not now making a habit of releasing budget numbers, but you can find out how much they in general spend. Certainly the original poster's request for detailed quarterly reports isn't going to be met... Perry

1 0

[NOISE] Federal Bureau of Indigestion
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[forwards mercifully elided] The following is a direct quote from the Center for Strategic and International Studies report on GLOBAL ORGANIZED CRIME; the author who introduces the story swears it's true. FBI agents conducted a raid of a psychiatric hospital in San Diego that was under investigation for medical insurance fraud. After hours of reviewing thousands of medical records, the dozens of agents had worked up quite an appetite. The agent in charge of the investigation called a nearby pizza parlor with delivery service to order a quick dinner for his colleagues. The following telephone conversation took place and was recorded by the FBI because they were taping all conversations at the hospital. Agent: Hello. I would like to order 19 large pizzas and 67 cans of soda. Pizza Guy: And where would you like them delivered? Agent: We're over at the psychiatric hospital. PM: The psychiatric hospital? Agent: That's right. I'm an FBI agent. PM: You're an FBI agent? Agent: That's correct. Just about everybody here is. PM: And you're at the psychiatric hospital? Agent: That's correct. And make sure you don't go through the front doors. We have them locked. You will have to go around to the back to the service entrance to deliver the pizzas. PM: And you say you're all FBI agents? Agent: That's right. How soon can you have them here? PM: And everyone at the psychiatric hospital is an FBI agent? Agent: That's right. We've been here all day and we're starving. PM: How are you going to pay for all of this? Agent: I have my checkbook right here. PM: And you're _all_ FBI agents? Agent: That's right. Everyone here is an FBI agent. Can you remember to bring the pizzas and sodas to the service entrance in the rear? We have the front doors locked. Pizza Guy: I don't _think_ so... >click<

1 0

Open Systems, Closed Systems, & Killer Apps
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At the Digital Commerce Society of Boston lunch last Tuesday, I had an epiphany. I finally got the answer to the great question of our age: Why do open systems beat closed systems? One of the peculiar things about today is how successful open systems have become. Closed systems like Communism, X.25, and IBM have fallen to markets, TCP/IP, and the personal computer respectively. And this has happened all over the world in institutions with incredibly varied political and social systems. We were discussing the Chinese government's proposal to maintain a monopoly ISP in China that would censor the connections of its peons and as usual I pointed out the many ways that such restrictions could be overcome (Don't tell T. May about the draft defining a new MIME type "TCP/IP packet". I know he hates MIME). Which led to the response "Sure a few techies will be able to overcome the restrictions but the masses won't and the government won't mind a little leakage as long as they maintain overall control." To which I retorted "ordinary people will overcome the technical barriers if they have sufficient motivation." Which brought up the subject of what are the "killer apps" for the Net. What will motivate people enough to choose open communication even though it's hard and sometimes even dangerous. Which led to: The killer app of open systems is not any particular application it is the openness, the freedom itself. The denizens of the DDR had to overcome the Stasi, barbed wire, mines, walls, tank traps, etc to adopt an open systems architecture. Learning to use a few TCP/IP tricks (or building them into applications and using those applications) is much easier than breaching the Berlin Wall. Open systems whether MarketEarth or TCP/IP let you trade/communicate at will with anyone else. This leads to more trade/communication which leads to more wealth (or non-monetary satisfaction). Since people are able to do more things that they want to do (unblocked by hierarchies) it is only natural that they are more satisfied with the results (and there are more results to be satisfied with). After all, a hierarchical system can only produce outcomes directed by the hierarchy (in the best case). But the top of the hierarchy is much smaller than the bottom of the hierarchy so it can only think of, deal with, and authorize a small number of activities. So the system can only do a few things. I should have known this before since it is implicit in my favorite article from the Economist "THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING COMPANY" 15 December 1990 (http://www.ios.com/~lroth/CLIPS/Bussiz.html) "Part of the answer [as to why firms are shrinking] may lie in the fact that, loth though they are to admit it, top people's capacity to deal with information is limited. There is no technical reason why a Wall Street investment house should not line the walls of the managing director's office with screens, showing second-by-second price movements for thousands of securities. But there is not much a single person could do with all that information. So the best way to take advantage of increases in the amount of information coming into the firm is to push decision-making down the corporate hierarchy, to where the flow is manageable by a single mind: on Wall Street, a trader." [And if you don't, the market will.] Hierarchies my be able to produce a lot of a limited range of products: megatons of sandy concrete and dead bodies like Communism, or globe-spanning private networks like X.25, or millions of pounds of Armonk Iron like IBM, but they can't produce as broad or satisfactory or an output or in the end as *large* an output as open systems can. The Net or the Market can produce an incredible range of products that no *one* would ever think of (save for the *one* who did). And since people are more likely to find things that they want in the whole range of "products," open systems encourage more activity and hence more "wealth." Additionally, the absence of the need to ask permission from Gosplan, or the Sysadmin, or some marketing committee obviously makes it possible to do more faster. You not only save the begging and committee decision time, you can do things that others might think bad or peculiar. No need to convince strangers about the value of your idea prior to trying it out. You get to just do it. Now none of these differences between open systems and hierarchies meant much when the bulk of the world's population had to spend all of its time growing food to survive, but now... Choice exists and choices will be made. Hierarchies will try and resist the spread of open systems but they will not be successful and their failures will come faster and be much more obvious as time goes on. If one organization resists "successfully," people and money will drain away from it to other organizations where they are allowed a fuller range of choice. The success of open systems will help the spread of those systems into the surviving bastions of hierarchy. That's why I'm the Pangloss of Cypherpunks "everything's for the best in the best of all possible worlds". I know that this is all Kindergarten stuff but sometimes simple things are hard to see. People today are offered a choice between two ways of doing things: 1) You get to do what you want and (by the way) have a vast wealth of "things" to own/use. or 2) You have to do what other people tell you and (unfortunately) make do with less of everything including choice, money, and "toys." I wonder what choice people will make? DCF

2 1

None
by K00l Secrets 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Shaving probably will not be a problem, but holding your head at a > slightly different angle... will screw up the system totally, > unless the system has radically improved since the last time I read > up on it. Well, the systems I have seen are quite good at finding people's eyes. Scaling (for distance), and rotation (for the angle of your head) therefore don't really confuse the system once it has your eyes.

1 0