December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Censorship through proxy
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:12 PM 8/6/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Sing Sing (the country is now a prison, so...) is one of the states we >should think about targetting for "special attention." Not in the sense of >violence, but in the sense of offering help to freedom fighters, those who >want to use stego, web proxies, etc. > >I wonder what would happen if "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '98" was >held in Sing Sing? A friend of mine, who occasionally visits Singapore on business, told me this Singaporean joke: "Singapore is a fine place. There's a fine for this, and a fine for that,..." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Stealth cookies
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:10 AM 8/6/96 -0700, you wrote: >John F. Fricker wrote: >> Solution? >> >> 1) Don't put your name in the netscape configuration (d'oh) > > No, no, no. Netscape navigator does not reveal your name or >put it into cookies. The only way to get your name or other >personal information about you into a cookie is for you to type >it into a web site, and have that site send you back a cookie. > > The only time we reveal your name is in e-mail headers, and >when doing anonymous FTP when you have manually disabled the default >of sending 'mozilla@' as the anon ftp password. > > --Jeff > Oh I was just being paranoid I guess. There used to be JavaScript that would automatically send email from a page. something like <html> <body onLoad="document.mailme.submit()"> <form method=post name="mailme" action="mailto:john@vertexgroup.com?subject=user address"> <input type=hidden name="userAddress" value="done"> </form> </body> </html> But even if that still works it would be a good trick to associate it with a cookie.

2 1

Re: Corporate e-mail policy
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I used to work for a company which had a surprisingly liberal policy about e-mail.The gist of it was: "Private e-mail will not be read by anyone other than the recipient. The only exceptions to this are: 1) Systems personnel may examine mail messages to determine if the mail system is working correctly; [e.g., checking mail logs against users' mailbox contents to verify delivery] 2) [basically said e-mail would be treated like any other system files in the event of a criminal investigation, etc.]" The policy specifically required authorization from the line VP for either of these actions, and reinforced that the systems people were to treat the e-mail as administratively confidential data. The only time I heard of anyone even asking for e-mail was when a project manager wanted a copy of a message that a sponsor sent to one of his subordinates, who was on vacation. The systems folks cited the policy, the line VP backed them up, and the manager went away empty-handed. (He wound up calling the subordinate at her hotel and browbeating her into authorizing the computer center folks to forward a copy of the message to the manager. But that's another story.)

1 0

THAT BRIT AGAIN
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Phillll came up with an excellent weasel this time. He's offered to "bet" on the Foresight Exchange. The relevant part of their FAQ says: How is FX different from a bookie? Besides the obvious fact that FX isn't real money, it differs from placing bets with a bookie in that FX is a market. In other words, it really isn't a bet at all. Instead of putting his money where his mouth is, Phillll has decided to put his mouth where his mouth is once again. Nice try guy. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Internal Passports
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:01 AM 8/6/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >The SS resists issuing new numbers in spite of widespread duplication and >theft. Soon people will find themselves denied the right to work in this >country unless the SS reverses this reluctance. If your SS# is stolen and >used "too many times" in a future worker verification program, you're >screwed. And there won't even be any welfare for you. > >Use Alta Vista to find the SS Number FAQ. There's more stuff. BTW, I attempted to comply with the law in a recent request posted to ba.jobs.offered and scruz.general: I solicited workers for some brush clearing on my place, but advised them to only apply if--appearing to be Hispanic, Latin, Mexican, or otherwise unOfficial--they provided proof of their legal ability to work for me. Personally, I don't care. In fact, when employing gardeners and yard works I prefer Mexicans. But the law says, these days, that I must verify the legality of workers *if* they appear to be dark-skinned, Mexican, Latin, or the like. I say "if" because there are no requirements in general for white-skinned, Anglo workers....no work permits, no proofs of citizenship (such a document is currently lacking in the American pantheon...I, a mixed descendant of Mayflower colonist and Scandinavian immigrants, lack such "proof"). Predictably, I got e-mail threatening me with legal action (ha!) and claiming me to be a racist. I promise not to ask my potential employees for legal proof of their right to work if the Feds and Sacramentans promise not to make it a law that I check such things, and if the laws are not written such that I am a felon for not asking for such documents from a dark, dusky Mexican but not from a blonde- or red-haired ubermensch. (Jews I haven't figured out...some seem to pass the "no documents required test" and some I want to demand Green Cards for...ironically, it may be "discrimination" for me to request that these "dusky" folks supply proof of their permission to work in these Beknighted States. A strange world we live in.) --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."

3 2

Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:38 PM 8/6/96 -0400, hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >which such a claim was made. As for the UK laws, there is >practically no defense against a libel claim that one can >file in court. There is absolutely no basis on which to >justify them. This is why the Singapore government uses them >as a form of censorship. There was a recent US appeals court decision in which an attempt to enforce a UK libel judgment was rejected on First Amendment grounds. The court refused to allow the application of UK law here. DCF

1 0

Anonymous Remailers at work
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One of the big problems with remailers is getting them deployed widely. How can we create a demand for the service that will encourage people to both (a) deploy them and (b) think of them as good rather than bad? Aside from cypherpunks, spammers, and everyone using anon.penet.fi, there aren't really a lot of people familiar with them. I've recently run into a couple of business problems at work that could be solved by (slightly modified) remailers. 1) Manager performance review, suggestion boxes, and questions to visiting honchos - there are several departments that are using "email to the secretary who'll take your name off and forward it" to handle this problem. Remailers are an obvious solution. (More obvious if we weren't using (gack, phfft!) Microsoft Mail :-) It would probably be worth modifying the remailer to use a permit-list as well as a block-list for destinations and maybe sources, so that companies don't get surprised by outside spammers, and people can get used to using the things at work. Distribute the thing as an OmbudsKit or whatever. You'd obviously want the default to be non-logging. 2) Sending sensitive email across the real Internet - between customers, and for those days that the departmental dialup mail server or remote LAN access isn't working and you need to send something from home or on the road. A standard remailer would do the job, though you'd probably want to add a permit-list, and you might want to add logging and/or return receipts. Mail to pgprelay(a)foobar.com and it distributes it.... (Requires putting a key somewhere well-known, like in DNS or on the key servers.) (Hmmm - an alternative implementation is to use a CGI script to do the mailing and use SSL; some companies may find this easier to deploy, depending on their firewall configurations.) (Does it make sense to deploy something like this as a standard feature of an IPSP gateway system like John's?) Any other reasons to install anonymous remailers at work, and things you'd do to make them more attractive or less scary to corporate network administrative types? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

No Subject
by Scott Schryvers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NBC News at Sunrise has just announced the discovery of alien life on the planet Mars. The lifeform that became extinct more than 2 billion years ago was found as a fossil in a meteor that originated from mars and landed on earth. The fossil found was a primitive germ life form. PGP encrypted mail preferred. E-Mail me for my key. Scott J. Schryvers <schryver(a)radiks.net>

5 4

Re: Freeh slimes again: Digital Telephony costs $2 billion now ...
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:59 PM 8/6/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >I haven't been able to find the reference, but a month or two ago >there was an article on the net or in a newspaper about the targets >of wiretapping - how many wiretaps were for drugs, gambling, tax evasion, >and of course terrorism. The number of wiretaps for bombs and guns >was something low like 80 in the last 5-10 years - about 1/10%. > (Did anybody else see this article??) Gilmore has a chart on wiretap use in various crimes in his Brain Tennis match on Wired: http://www.hotwired.com/braintennis/96/32/index0a.html DCF

1 0

Re: Censorship through proxy
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:12 PM 8/6/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Sing Sing (the country is now a prison, so...) is one of the states we >should think about targetting for "special attention." Not in the sense of >violence, but in the sense of offering help to freedom fighters, those who >want to use stego, web proxies, etc. I've been thinking of starting a "How to Defeat a Government page to pull together some of the anti-Sysadmin resources on the Net. "Your government -- just a rouge sysadmin." >I wonder what would happen if "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '98" was >held in Sing Sing? It would be smaller going out than coming in. Singapore's retired president tried to get William Safire into town for a "debate" about whether he was still running the place via his son. Safire didn't take the bait. He joked about it in his column. DCF

2 1