December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Children's Privacy Act
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lauren Amy Gelman said: >The text of the Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment >Act is available at the Epic "Children's Privacy" web site: > >http://epic.org/privacy/kids/ > >Read it before you trash it! We at LolitaWatch GMBH are amused that legislators in the United States are attempting to legislate that which can be so easily bypassed with the world-wide Internet. In fact, anticipating such restrictions on the collection of some data, we moved our operations to Aalborg, Danmark earlier this year. (Forslag og ideer vedr. indhold modtages gerne af: www(a)lolita.nordjyllands .dk ) Danish laws are not so repressive as American laws, and our American friends can so easily access our data bases of information derived from the mandatory age-labeling tags you Americans so conveniently (for us) insist upon. --Klaus Jellingestenen

3 2

Cyber-Anarchy
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:41 AM 5/24/96, jim bell wrote: >At 09:05 PM 5/23/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >>At 3:06 AM 5/24/96, jim bell wrote: >>>At least we now know that the National Journal hasn't heard of >>>Cyber-Anarchy--- or they didn't understand one word of it. >> >> >>What is this "cyber-anarchy" (or "Cyber-Anarchy") you keep talking about? > >(Yeah, yeah. Okay, I forgot the trademark. But I still can't find the >"circle-C" on my keyboard!) My point is actually not so much one of claiming credit for something I've been involved with since 1988, as being somewhat critical of the all-too-common tendency I see of _renaming_ something without adding any new content. Jim Bell calls his set of ideas "cyber-anarchy," and certain journalists have picked up on this (as with the Australian article). But with the exception of the one variant of anonymous markets, namely, "assassination politics," most or all of the other ideas of his "cyber-anarchy" seem to be encompassed by the already-existing term. --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Truth can sometimes be harmful...
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:06 PM 5/23/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >At 12:11 PM 5/23/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: > >>Tell ya what: name a weapon that CANNOT be used to harm an >>innocent person. Go ahead, I'm waiting. > >The Truth? > "The coordinates of Hiroshima are...." Q.E.D. (And there are thousands of variants of this, where "truth" leads to harm. Sandy was being terse in his comments, so he may have intended various qualifications, but as he stated things, my example stands.) --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: National Journal article sez net-activism is just political hicks
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:05 PM 5/23/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 3:06 AM 5/24/96, jim bell wrote: >>At 03:31 PM 5/23/96 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >>>>Tommorrow, Washington's politically-powerful National Journal reportedly >>>>will publish a know-nothing piece of "journalism" saying that net-aided >>>>politics is essentially nothing but a batch of ineffective, know-nothing >>>>nerds and back-water political hacks. >> >>At least we now know that the National Journal hasn't heard of >>Cyber-Anarchy--- or they didn't understand one word of it. > > >What is this "cyber-anarchy" (or "Cyber-Anarchy") you keep talking about? (Yeah, yeah. Okay, I forgot the trademark. But I still can't find the "circle-C" on my keyboard!) That's exactly the reaction of the typical mainstream media news person today. But that will change, I think, and probably well within a couple of years. I keep waiting for Time magazine to declare the Internet to be "The Man of the Year", like they did the (personal?) computer in one year in the middle 1980's. It has certainly been covered far more this year than any year in the past. Now that the traditional media has discovered the Internet, they'd damn well start covering its political implications. Last year, for instance, the media was apparently unwilling to admit that the main reason the Congressional hearings on Waco occurred was because the subject was kept alive on the computer networks. By next year, I don't think they'll be able to keep silent on similar situations: Too many people will consider the Internet to be at least their secondary news source, if not their primary one. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

VIRUS ALERT: Java virus that affects Netscape 2.0 & 2.01.
by gcg＠pb.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >WHO IS AFFECTED BY THIS ALERT? >------------------------------ > >Users of Netscape Navigator 2.0 or 2.01. To determine what version of >Netscape you are running, do the following: > > 1. Open Netscape Navigator. > 2. Pull down the Help menu. > 3. Click on About Netscape. > 4. Check to see if you have version 2.0 or 2.01. If so, read on. > If not, then you can not be affected by this alert. > >WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? >-------------------- > >There have been reports lately of a hostile Java applet (a Black Widow >Java applet called JAVA) that is downloaded and executed automatically >when certain sites are visited with Netscape versions 2.0 or 2.01. Java >applets are small applications that are automatically started when you >access certain web pages. This particular Java applet is a malicious >program that can destroy data, interfere with your network, and possibly >even upload sensitive material to a third party. > >WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? >------------------- > >Upgrade to Netscape Navigator 2.02. > > >WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF YOU CAN'T DOWNLOAD VERSION 2.02 RIGHT NOW? >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >You can temporarily protect your PC or Macintosh by disabling the Java >functionality. However, this should only be a short-term fix as many >legitimate web sites make use of Java applets. To disable the use of >Java applets, do the following: > > 1. Open Netscape Navigator. > 2. Pull down the Options menu. > 3. Click on Security Preferences. > 4. Under General, place a "X" in the Disable Java and the > Disable Java Script boxes in the Java window. Click on OK. > >After upgrading to the latest version of Netscape Navigator (version >2.02), re-enable the Java applets by doing the following: > > 1. Open Netscape Navigator. > 2. Pull down the Options menu. > 3. Click on Security Preferences. > 4. Under General, remove the "X" in the Disable Java and the > Disable Java Script boxes in the Java window. Click on OK. > >

6 5

Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:06 PM 5/23/96 GMT, John Young wrote: > >"Before the case is resolved, Patel's skepticism of the state's perogatives >will be tested to the limit when the government is called upon to defend >its policy. Patel is then likely to be given the *in camera* presentation >of The Deepest Darkest Secrets of Cryptography -- probably a modified >version of the classifed briefing the NSA has used with great success to >influence members of Congress. Legend has it that no one who ever got 'the >briefing' ever again opposed the agency." >Peter, anyone, are these welcome-to-the-inner-circle briefings always by >NDA, or worse threat? It seems to me that if the government REALLY thought it could push GAK by convincing the public that it was wise, it would at least prepare a redacted version of this briefing that it _could_ present to the public, if different than the "eyes only" version. After all, would they risk losing it all by NOT telling at least part of the story? Or is their failure to publicize all this because they realize that spilling the beans (even only some of them) would actually make it _less_ likely that GAK would be accepted by the public, rather than more? I think the latter is much closer to the truth. >Wonder if a public-spirited cryptographer is working on a book for a movie >about this heart of the deepest darkness? That depends on what you mean. I know a free-lance movie scriptwriter who is working on a story along related lines. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 12:11 PM 5/23/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >Tell ya what: name a weapon that CANNOT be used to harm an >innocent person. Go ahead, I'm waiting. The Truth? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> comments on the responsiblity of prudent persons (in, I presume, the context of threating e-mail sent through an anonymous remailier). I'm still perplexed: what can a "prudent" remailer operator do if a threatening e-mail was sent through a remailer under one or more of the following conditions: -- The remailer operator is legally enjoined from reading messages transversing his system. (For example, the remailer is subject to data privacy laws.) -- The message was encrypted using the intended recipient's public key. (This means that, without access to the private key, the operator has no mechanism to examine the e-mail.) Confused in Cupertino. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

2 1

No Subject
by unknown＠example.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The answer to information is more information.

2 1

Re: Innocence & harmless weapons (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:35:57 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: Innocence & harmless weapons > > > Whose side of the truth? > > That was a capital "T", bub. Truth doesn't have sides. (Think > of it as an archetype.) Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it. That is unless you are attempting to claim absolute omnipotence on the point of determination. > > To be honest I was surprised by your simplistic responce. > > That was a question mark, bub. It wasn't an answer, it was > a question. Hey, the devil is in the details, gang. Too bad > modern schools teach "self-esteem" instead of reading, writing > and rhetoric. (Spelling wouldn't hurt either.) Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument. Jim Choate

5 4