December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Llywarch Hen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: >If a black-clad ninja enters my house without warning, I'll have to react >the only way I know how, by reaching for my gun. I don't have the luxury of >freezing, exposing my neck (wolf-style), and hoping that the ninjas are >"just" the police. Sir, you are not allowing for just how incredibly stupid the cops are. When they show up at your house, it is all over. They've already decided that you are scum. You'd have us believe that you lie awake stroking your gun. You have not had the opportunity to look closely at the business end of a gun. The hole looks enormous. Come off it grandpa. This is not a fashion show -- 'black-clad' indeed. The one 'black-clad' character that comes to mind is the _Economist_ editor found dead last year on his kitchen table wearing a tight-fitting latex number who expired having sex with him/itself. Of course this says nothing about the _Economist's_ readership, except most likely in your case. Forget the crocodile pits and the other juvenile stunts. If you have the slightest bit of incriminating material (queer porn?) on your hard drive, you'll roll over in no time and give your pals to the cops. These assholes would rather shoot you than admit to a mistake. One bullet from one of them, and they'll all execute you on the spot to cover for the idiot. -- Llywarch Hen

5 5

Re: Giving 6 year old kids Uzi's
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:39 PM 7/19/96 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote: >You might have had a different childhood, but when I (and most of my >friends) were 6 (or 12 or even 18), our primary concern was having fun, >avoiding stuff we don't like (like homework), attracting females (or >males, as the case may be), attracting attention in general, avoiding >being one-upped (in conversation or in sports or otherwise) but always >on-upping someone else, ... When I was in high school (age 14-18), I was on the high school rifle team. That means I carried a rifle into school at the beginning of the season and back home at the end of the season. I should not be necessary to mention it, but I never shot anyone then, before, or since. >Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs), >and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no >matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself. I >will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved) >if I ever found him with a gun. I have two children, ages 20 and 24. We never gave them toy guns. (Guns are serious things. If you want toys, spend your own money.) However, we did give them the opportunity to learn about and shoot real guns when they were quiet young. I first shot a rifle at age 8 at summer camp. I recommend teaching children about proper use of guns at a similar age, with tight supervision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: Opiated file systems
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 18 Jul 96 18:49:04 -0800, dfloyd(a)IO.COM wrote: >The problem I ran into firsthand with archive sites is that they tend to >turn into porn or pirated software servers. One could then have the >software delete after a download. Anyway, one is always open to a denial >of service attack where someone just throws chunks of /dev/random at you. >If someone has any ideas on how to slow down attacks like this, please >E-mail me. It would be nice to have an offsite storage place, but without >the necessity of giving a bunch of personal info (as with Mcaffee's >WebStor). A) Only accept files with valid PGP signatures from accepted keys - this is one area where PGP's commandline interface is a plus - just write a batch script. Demand that a separate file be sent first, signed by a certain key. This file would contain valid filenames for the rest of the session. If a non-listed file is sent, kill the session. This could all be automated with a simple program. You could probably even use SSLs and similar to do it on a website if you could swill the PGP bit - maybe a plugin? B) bounce trash back. // Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! // Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject // of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful!

1 0

No Subject
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away > >from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where > >there views are already basically set. > > I am sorry to hear. I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide > for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate > desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves > is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access > to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more > harm than good. I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will (Don't make the point if you don't want to discuss it.) I have a child, and if you don't, you really should try to raise a child for a week. What a child considers "right" or "wrong" is very much dependent upon about a million different factors, very few of which, you have any serious notion, let alone control. In addition, a child, in parallel, learns behavior at the same time it is judging what to absorb; therefore, you can't just "turn on" learning mode and "turn off" judging, "download values", "turn off" learning and "turn on" judging. Most things children pick up are not really that "damaging". However, certain things in life are strictly designed to damage. Anything from a verbal "fuck you" to an Uzi. Therefore, restrictions on access to those sorts of things are not that unreasonable, until the child has learned enough to understand the consequences of their actions, and can functionally and socially adapt to their choice of environments. Ern

1 0

Re: Netscape
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rich Graves wrote: >[on hacktic] >> netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10 >> netscape-fts2-nt.exe Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT >> netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX >> netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux >> netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz SSL 3.0 source code >> netscape32us-30b5.exe Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT > >And thus it begins... I think it's a bad idea to provoke the TLAs >like this, but I suppose it's inevitable. Why is it a bad idea? If you don't do it, you support the ITAR by your lack of action! Every day that you don't export strong crypto you assist the enemy. >(But doesn't anyone use Macs or Suns?) Mac download didn't work yesterday. The download page doesn't say if the Solaris versions are for Sparc or Intel (they are different and incompatible binaries, aren't they?). >> By the way, is it possible to get a certificate for the >> Fast Track 128 bit servers outside of north america? > >Why would you want one when the source for Apache-SSL is available? Just for fun. To show the TLAs what complete morons they are... >Besides, it's a Serious Copyright Violation, said with minimal irony. This whole thing isn't Netscape's fault; in fact, they're >doing their best to be the good guys. Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are probably secretly applauding the brave exporters.

8 7

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Arun you are lost.. >particularly since you are far more likely to use this weaponry in a rage > against a loved one than against someone breaking down your door. Thats plain HCI statistic crap, DONT YOU BELIVE IT, those numbers are based on drug dealers killing other drug dealers.. read the real FBI numbers, they are on the net. Anyways the real reason that the "more likely" argument bothers me is that its like saying that Crypto is more likely to be used by criminals than law abiding citzens. > >I wonder about that -- between Tweedledee Clinton and Tweedledum >Dole, does it matter whether you vote or not? bad attitude. thats the reason we have Her Klinton to begin with,, apathy > The system seems to make sure that before you even get to a >position where someone can seriously vote for you, you've already >sold your soul. there is some truth to that Vinnie Moscaritolo ------------------ "friends come and friends go..but enemies accumulate." http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

1 0

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:04 7/18/96, David Sternlight wrote: >Serious studies have shown that the kinds of protections to make the >systems we depend on robust against determined and malicious attackers (say >a terrorist government, or one bent on doing a lot of damage in retaliation >for one of our policies they don't like), have costs beyond the capability >of individual private sector actors. Your friendly neighborhood ISP, for >instance, probably can't affort the iron belt and steel suspenders needed >to make his system and its connectivity sabotage-proof, and so on. Even >cheap but clever solutions involving encryption in such systems require >standards and common practices across many institutions. However, the neighorhood IPS doesn't need the kind of defenses required for the powergrid and other crucial systems. The systems that do require such heightend security are typically run by parties that can afford such security. If they choose not to implement them, then it stands to reason that their threat evaluation does not deem it necessary. Let market forces govern, lest we spend money on countermeasures for inflated threats. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Re: Borders *are* transparent
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sternlight blathered [regarding Tim]: ... >"Nyaah, nyaah, you can't catch me" doesn't mean that if they do they won't >prosecute. Your waving around that stuff in France is not only juvenile, Starting off with defamation is a sure tipoff that what follows is crap. And sure enough...[he sure makes it convenient for sarcastic "cowards" like me to use his own words against him.] >but also may put you in violation of French crypto law. ... Perry's right, DS *would* do it with a dawg. >>... Borders _are_ transparent. ... > >Again you make the long-discredited straw man argument that the purpose of >ITAR is to hermetically seal. It is not. It is to keep legitimate US mass >market purveyors from selling strong crypto overseas, ... You tell the stated purpose, the NSA's own lawyers have told PRZ and others (off the record, of course) that there is a domestic (and therefore a Constitutionally impermissible) purpose. Read the Bill of Rights. >[yadda yadda yadda.] >> >>_This_ is why I expect the Netscape beta to arrive overseas pretty soon. > >Nobody disputes that. It won't be readily available though, except for >those who have no compunctions about software piracy. Hell, they can pay Netscape anonymously. David, if you try double standards around here any more, I will make fun of you more, EVERY TIME. I will not stop. I note that you have the common [but not necessarily fucking] statist flaw of needing to get in the last word in every argument, rather than just agreeing to disagree. Chill out. For the health of the list, please try to tone down the volume and number of your posts to something more closely approaching reasonable.

1 0

lambda 2.09 - French Telco Act Censored?
by jt＠freenix.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

netizen's --> Lambda Bulletin 2.09 <-- contents -->> www.freenix.fr/netizen + Censoring Censorship Attempts French Telco Act's Internet control sections may be unconstitutional. + Encryption : The OECD fails to act on key-escrow policy * * * * * * * * CENSORING CENSORSHIP ATTEMPTS -- A LA FRANCAISE The French Telco Act, which was voted by the Parliament on June 7, may follow the same path than the US Communications Decency Act. A group of Socialists Senators has sent a request to examine eventual unconstitutionality of the law. The new Act, due to meet new criteria for telecoms competition in France, has also taken some steps to create an administrative control of speech and services via online services and the Internet. The new council, le Conseil Supérieur de la Télématique, "could block the free communication of thoughts and opinions, and may eventually establish a principle of preliminary declaration" for online speech, reads the document given to the Conseil Constitutionnel, the supreme watchdog of the French 1958 Constitution (and the principles of the 1789 Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen). Indeed, the law may breach article 34 of the Constitution which says that the Parliament alone could indict rules concerning "the basic garanties given to citizens for the exercice of their civil liberties". But the newly created CST may appreciate if a Web site or a newgroup could be illicite according to the French Penal Code. This "appreciation" is not sufficiently well defined in the Telco Act, constitutionnal jurists said. Article 66 of the Constitution also states that the appreciation of the Penal Code should be the role of the penal judiciary (le Juge Penal), but shouldn't depend on any administrative body or any administrative judge (Juge Administratif). But other voices said that the existing Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (which regulates broadcasting content) is based on the same principles. Then, the Conseil Constitutionnel will have to make a difference between a TV program and a Usenet feed. That's what the Philadelphia Court acted when they censored the CDA. Final decision awaited in Paris before the end of July (July 26th in theory). * * * * * * * * OECD FAILS TO ACT ON KEY-ESCROW ENCRYPTION; THE US ACCUSED OF "POLICY LAUNDERING" The Paris-based OECD, the 24-members club of industrialised nations, has failed to take a step towards international recongnition of key-escrow encryption. The meeting of June 26-28 in Paris, scheduled to take a firm decision about the possibility of law enforcement agencies to read electronic mail of private individuals and corporations, didn't succeed to act on a compromise. The OECD's general secretary has no special power to draw regulations and must find a common policy on the matter. Sources said the OECD has been set apart between "the key escrow group" -- mainly USA, France and Britain -- and the "laxist" group -- mainly Japan and Europe's Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland (Germany was still uncertain). A press release of the OECD says that no final decisions were made. There will be no other comment of the case. "The OECD experts grappled with achieving a balance between respect of national sovereignty and developing an international approach. This dialogue will be continued at a third meeting of the group, scheduled to take place on 26-27 September, in Paris. An OECD spokeswoman said the organisation asked independant experts from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Washington, DC) to participate in preliminary meetings. The EPIC prefers not to make any comment until the next meeting in September. Sources said the US were willing to "use" the OECD as a "policy laundering" machine : to pressure the organisation in order to have the key escrow policy approved by the 24 countries. US intelligence officials would have been using it as a political weapon at home, where Congress, public-interests groups and industry pressure groups are on the verge to act against any key-escrow policy. * * * * * * * * **LAMBDA SPECIALS -- WEB ONLY!!! - see www.freenix.fr/netizen** Forget the Internet. Here are some subversive archives. Unfortunatly, mainly in French. -->> Coca-Cola's weird business strategy during WW2. (You won't heard this story during 1996 Olympics). Based on a book published in 1993, "For God, Country and Coca-Cola, by Mark Pendergrast (Scribner's Sons Publishing, New York). From the Berlin Olympics to 1945, Coca-Cola builded a strong presence in Germany while sitting besides GI's in the Us War effort. Check interesting pictures taken from the book: >> www.freenix.fr/netizen/special/coca-colabo.html -->> Special Psychedelics French stories about the renewal of medical psychedelic research. And a letter from Tim Leary, psyche pope of the 60's, published in English. >> www.freenix.fr/netizen/special/tl-letter.html * * * * * * * * Jerome Thorel =-= Journaliste/Free-lance Reporter =-= Paris, France =+= the lambda bulletin --> http://www.freenix.fr/netizen =+=

1 0

Re: Borders *are* transparent
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:08 19/07/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >At 11:24 AM -0700 7/18/96, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>This is a terribly important point: if a citizen of Foobaria succeeds in >>connecting to the Netscape site--perhaps by experimenting with various >>combinations of domain names and submitted address/zipcode >>combinations--and Netscape sends him the file, he has not committed a crime >>in his own country. (Unless they have their own laws....) ... > It won't be readily available though, except for >those who have no compunctions about software piracy. Is enought information available for someone else to write software that would be able to communicate with Netscape's at the US-level of crypto? If so, the US government is simply forcing Netscape to open a window of opportunity for some foreign software company to come up with a competing product for the international market. A case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

2 1