December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands >(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? "...provide for the common defense" "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." "...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." There are the bytes - try reading them in context. Warmly, Padgett

2 1

Re: Deafening silence [was Re: Need a "warning" graphic...]
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Ray wrote: > Further, has anyone else noticed a deafening silence on the subject of > a (supposedly) wished-for line-item veto power of presidents? It seems > to me that the Dornan and CDA-type provisions of huge bills are line- > items, aren't they? No. Line-items refer to budgetary allocations. If it were part of a budget bill that allocated monies, then a line-item veto could zap it. Those folks really *don't* want a line-item veto now that a different party could use it. I doubt it would ever be more than a rhetorical tool since it would limit the allocated pork... even be used as a form of political blackmail. ObCrypto: None. Rob. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMR6YDSoZzwIn1bdtAQGJNQGAnu5thLwYKNLS/jowaZSwIzQltUCSbgg7 H7D2XDVIJuf/gvpt/cV3R/6VcwE4tvCb =TtYy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Encryption software
by medea＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was telling a friend that I was going to buy a program similar to PC Anywhere to be able to communicate between my computer at home and the one at the office. He suggested trying to find a similar program which includes encryption. Anyone know of such a program? Thanks. Medea ============================================================ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + |---------------------------------------------| + + | The mind is its own place, and of itself | + + | Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven | + + |---------------------------------------------| + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: "Rights"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:12 PM 2/10/96 -0500, jf_avon(a)citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada)) wrote: >Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com wrote: > >>What happens when there *is* no remedy, when there are no other sites to >>go to, when there are no employers who would refrain from violating an >>employee's privacy? What then? > >Easy! Either you do not get on the net or you start your own ISP service. >It might cost money. i.e. requires work, but it is feasible. Of course, in a market environment, you can do better than that. Because there are almost always other people who want what you want, and barring major government interference, there are ways to find them and usually people interested in offering you and your fellow-travellers the service you want. Most of the time, there are economies of scale that make it cheaper to get the service together rather than each doing it yourself, and you can decide whether to do it as a cooperative or buy it from the vendor who's supporting the bunch of you. ObCrypto: Even _with_ major government interference, there will be ways to find your fellow-travellers. Anonymously. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs Pager +1-408-787-1281

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>implementing the basic encoding rules, used in the PCKS and X.509 - >can someone give me a pointer to where I can find a >copy of v3 online? It's not available online. ISO specs are hardcopy (and hard currency :) only. /r$

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alan Pugh writes: > Has anyone else out there noticed the strange sounds of silence > emmanating from the american print and broadcast media concerning the > rider attached to the Telecommunications Act recently signed by > President Clinton known as the CDA (Communications Decency Act)? There seems to be a wide difference in the way the major media is reporting this story. For example, the editorial cartoon in today's (Sunday) San Jose (California) Mercury News: Picture: A man dressed in the style of the American Revolution sitting at a computer. In the background are a two pictures in ovel frames. Next to him on the table are a can of Pepsi and a candle stick. He is typing at the keyboard. The thought baloon above the keyboard says (I substutite XXXXXX for the areas that are drawn as a censor's block blackout): "Dear Congressman -- You XXXXXX XXXXXX have really done it this time! This XXXXXX XXXXXXX telecommunications bill with its XXXXXX XXXXXXX indecency provision is a XXXXXX attack on free speech! You should have your XXXXXXX XXXX dipped in tar and feathered! tjefferson(a)aol.com" Of course the Mercury News a couple of weeks ago announced that it was going to try to provide first class coverage of cyberspace issues. I give it at least a B+ between its coverage of the CDA and the front page interview with Rich Graves and discussion of the alternate sites to get around the German censorship of Webcom. Bill

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Dranged Mutand is far from deranged when he writes: At 12:09 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Deranged Mutant wrote: ... >And besides... why rate program just on violence? Why not "quality" from >a variety of orgs? Other content ratings, from various organizations. ... One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn responsibility over to them and butt out. Bill

1 0

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by tomservo＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note: my references to the Constitution are from http://atl46.atl.msu.edu/atl/reh/battle/u.s.con.html "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" writes: >>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >>> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu replies: >>(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" replies: >"...provide for the common defense" (From the Preamble) So, if it isn't related to the "common defense," this doesn't apply. >"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." (Article I, Section 8) My dictionary claims "commerce" is "the buying or selling of goods, esp. when done on a large scale between cities, states, or nations" (primary definition, anyway). If you can convince someone that "social intercourse" (secondary definition) is what the Founding Fathers really meant, your argument carries more weight. >"...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article III, Section 3, clause 1) Doesn't say anything about them being foreign or domestic. Theoretically everyone who participated in the Confederate cause during the War Between The States :^) committed treason -- but that's another argument. >There are the bytes - try reading them in context. Hmm. I did, but wasn't edified. It seems to me that Tim May's commentary is dead on. Maybe a more appropriate statement would be: "The government has the power (_not_ the right) to regulate communications between citizens and non-citizens / sites in other lands under narrowly defined circumstances." If you're not engaging in espionage, trading with countries like Libya or Iraq, or committing treason, it doesn't sound like there's any reason for the government to regulate your communications with non-citizens (at least from a Constitutional point of view). That may not stop them from trying to vacuum them up off the Internet, though. :-) Scott -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMR7Aq+vEnOI8TfM9AQH+vQMAjL/+IGDKKz9M1WB6LdeswpEVUWmLq+4i qTrPH4pci8gkU3fH1O893xmWMCHbVCYywazk4tF69wyLV6WvWlNSOyYRW1S7xiq1 24PFoBpD7yLpDguTB2UEU1b9HxwZ017y =Wus/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Somebody wrote: >>> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >>> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands > >>(not wishing to start a flamewar) Why do you think so ? and Padgett replied: >"...provide for the common defense" >"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." >"...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." I agree with the first point. My english is not sufficient to understand point three. Govts have no powers on other govts. So why in the hell would it be the job of govt to regulate commerce with foreign nations? They might help their citizens (seing that their rights and terms of any contract are respected, but calling what they do "regulating commerce btwn nations" is an euphemism for holding international businessman on a leash! Regards to all Cyphering Punks JFA And personnal comment to Padgett: Backward, you said? Nahhh... :) Regards!

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 11, 1996 14:06:45, 'tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May)' wrote (among other things): > >I rarely understand the points "tallpaul" makes, but this one is especially >confusing to me: > I'll close on this point. >At 7:59 PM 2/11/96, tallpaul wrote: > >>I do seem to observe strange sounds of silence from lib'bers on the >>cypherpunks list about the legislative body who passed the law, although >>they must know about the law since they blast the "libera;" to "socialist >>statist" President who signed it. >> >>I seem to observe similar sounds of silence from people who get upset at >>ostensibly liberal Tipper Gore's godlike powers to implement, as a single >>individual, some form of record labels while remaining silent about the >>conservative forces supporting Gingrich clustered around fundamentalist >>christianity who were calling for censorhip. > >As a card-carrying "lib'ber," it seems to me that I have written more than >enough articles denouncing the CDA, making fun of it and Congress, etc. And >so have numeous other "lib'bers" on this list, including (but not limited >to) Bill Stewart, Duncan Frissell, Jim Ray, Rich Graves, Sandy Sandfort, >Vince Cate, and others too numerous to mention. > >tallpaul must be reading a different list than I am reading if thinks those >he dismisses as "lib'bers" (in his other posts, and this one) are somehow >in league with the Christian Right in supporting censorship. > I suspect that T.C. May and I are reading the same list just as I suspect that Alan Pugh and I are living in the same country with the same shared press corp. But I do not dismiss people as "lib'bers;" I merely call them that. I have noticed that a large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh and chuckle a lot when Rush refers to women like Andrea Dworkin and her supporters as lib'bers. I also find that the people opposed to Drowkin & Co. are upset at her use of demagogic language, private dictionaries, and the like. So am I, and started long before Rush got his TV shows. I am, however, equally (if not more upset) by what I perceive as similar demagogic etc. behavior by many libertarians. In short, I do not seek "to dismiss" libertarians as "lib'bers." I am not a magician and do not believe that complex issues go away through magical chants (around which T.C. May has correctly written.) But I do call them "lib'bers" much as Ruch Limbaugh uses the term in other areas. Do some people not like this? I imagine so. Do they have the right to complain? Absolutely, and I support their right to so complain. Do they really have a right not to be styled "lib'bers?" No, I do not think they have that right. Put another way, what is sauce for the goose cannot be slander for the gander. I do not believe that all lib'bers are in league with the Christian right; I am distrubed, however, by the large numbers of lib'bers who strangely never mention the existence of the fundamentalists in the ultra-conservative ultra-private-property camp. I am equally concerned with some leftists who consider every example of authoritarian behavior as "fascism" as I am with 'ib'bers who lump everyone who argues for social responsibility as a "socialst statist." One difference I see is that I am willing to criticize both groups while many (but not all) lib'bers are again strangely silent at least the "statist" side of the equation. I am sorry that T.C. May frequently has problems understanding my posts. Both of us frequently use sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole to make our points. Witness his excellent _reductio ad absurdum_ post on warning labels for every group around the orld who believes that his or her personal folkways and mores are deserving of unique consideration. However, this in itself does not reduce the confusion. Let me then offer a possible compromise to reduce the confusion. If T.C. May makes a special effort to better identify sarcasm when people such as myself use it and rhetorical hyperbole, I in turn will make a special effort to be more sarcastic and more hyperbolic in posts containing both. --tallpaul Internet sports fan: Go Big Red! Smash State!

1 0