December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [NOISE] Buying whales with digicash Re: Anonymous stock trades.
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >>usually, people just call me Davve. > >Unusual to spell Dave with two v's, were your parents also dyslexic? Er, Phill (if I may make so bold, sir--arggh, treasure ahead laddies), I'm being a tad sarcastic, Phillll. Get it? Frankly, my wanker/tosspot amigo, I am more than a bit sick of your self-professed ignorance. And your ad hominem attacks don't amount to a hill of beans. I am more than through with you. Perhaps Perry has more patience.

1 0

Re:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:09 PM 6/8/96 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> While I appreciate your...uh...appreciation, let me remind you that part of >> my "pronouncements" are that the current political and social system is >> sick. Many people around here seem to agree with this assessment. What I >> advocate is a comparatively simple change in the rules that could have the >> effect of vastly changing the way things are done. Whether these changes >> are in "the best interests of the inhabitants of this nation" is still an >> open question, and many people have agreed with me on this matter. >> > >Since corrupt officials are likely to have more anonymous cash that >phreedom phighters, guess who will win. The people, that's who. The reason is that while "corrupt officials" may have more money, per person, that ordinary citizens, there are FAR more ordinary citizens than officials. Further, these corrupt officials only have more money because they rob it from ordinary citizens, which means that they start out the game hated by the public. Finally, officials are, by definition, identified or identifiable, while disaffected citizens are not. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: [Off-Topic] "Curfews"
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 8 Jun 96 at 12:40, jim bell wrote: > JFA wrote: > >I did something I always bitch at when done by others: looking at a > >situation outside of it's appropriate and complete context. > > As you can see, this is one of the big difficulties that people can > have understanding AP: Since it changes just about everything about > how a society works, you can't analyze it "easily" using your > built-up knowledge of societies. Actually, it makes one realize that society and the "collective" is nothing, that the basic building block is the individual. If you analyse the motivation of the individual, AP is not difficult to understand. > As I've said so many times before, AP is like a political Rorschach > test: Your reaction to it is strongly related to your political > philosophy. That's part of the magic. Please stay out of magic. The actual politician are enough into it. JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

RFD: Time to kick some anti-scientologist ass?
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Church of $cientology wars until recently. Here's an executive summary for those who don't give a damn. 1. There's a gang of flamers (David Gerard, Jon Noring, Ron Newman, Rob J. Nauta, and the like) who try to stop $cientologists from discussing their religion on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. Most of them are disgruntled former cult members and/or members of other similar cults. 2. The anti-scientologists have caused many cypherpunks anonymous remailers to shut down via their egotistical misuse of them, viz. criminally posting copyrighted Co$ writings to Usenet. They did it knowing that the Co$ is likely to harrass the remailer operators, causing them to shut down and depriving everyone of their services. 3. These harrassers are Usenet Cabal supporters, and they are sometimes joined by initerant cabal enforcers such as Peter Vorobieff, who visit a.r.s to lend a helping hand and to flame Co$. 4. Recently the anti-scientologists have asked me for a copy of my cancelbot, and have been using it to forge cancels for scientologist posts on a.r.s. Here's a typical anti-scientologist Usenet article lauding content-based forged cancels: ]Path: ...!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!fun ]From: fun%/etc/HOSTNAME (David Gerard) ]Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.scientology.xenu ]Subject: Re: Cancel Summary ]Followup-To: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.scientology.xenu ]Date: 5 Jun 1996 20:51:37 GMT ]Organization: Expert Marcabian Spam-Dodgers of the Universe ]Lines: 28 ]Message-ID: <4p4s0p$h06(a)news.mel.aone.net.au> ]References: <SatJun1224302EDT1996(a)lightlink.com> <31b194aa.599605(a)news.clark.net> ]Reply-To: fun(a)suburbia.net ]NNTP-Posting-Host: athene.glasswings.com.au ]X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] ] ]StarOwl (starowl(a)triskele.com) wrote: ]: On 1 Jun 1996 22:43:05 -0400, Lazarus <homer(a)lightlink.com> wrote: ] ]: >Thu May 30 00:48:49 EDT 1996 Lazarus V2.3 ]: >lightlink.com/var/spool/news/control/1456170 ]: >Article: 170077 ]: >From: info(a)triskele.com (ARSE INFO SERVICEl) ]: >Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 13:22:08 GMT ]: >Subject: Bryan Wilson - In Conclusion. ]: > Message-ID: <31a857ae.664540(a)news.clark.net> ]: >Control: cancel <31a857ae.664540(a)news.clark.net> ] ]: Great. Even the parodies of spam get canceled. :-/ ] ] ]Well. This is actually GOOD NEWS. Because what it means is that there is at ]least one spam cancelbot on the case, as is eminently a wonderful idea for ]getting the hell RID of this shit ... in an entirely accepted and acceptable ]Usenet manner. ] ]If you can find the cancel, you can ask whoever zapped it to ]repost it I suppose, in such a way as to evade the cancelbot. ] ]Now what we need is MORE spam cancelbots on this material. ] ] ]-- ]http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/ -- if it doesn't work for you, email me.

4 4

Re: Multiple Remailers at a site?
by loki＠obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:16 PM 6/6/96, Scott Brickner wrote: <SNIP> >The discussion was about multiple remailers from multiple accounts on >the same machine. The very existence of the remailer, independent of >issues like shuffling and chaining, is supposed to eliminate >identifying the originator by the content of the message. Message >shuffling, delays, and chaining are entirely for the purpose of >reducing the information available to the traffic analyst. If several >remailers are running on the same machine, they may be treated as if >there were only one remailer, for the purpose of traffic analysis. >Getting more traffic going through them just makes the analysts job >easier, because his statistical conclusions are stronger. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't think I am following you. My messages are a constant size signal (I send N messages through the remailer). More traffic increases the background signal and background noise. While the signal to noise of the background gets better, the actual amount of noise went up so the ratio of MY signal to the background noise went down. Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. I think multiple remailers on a machine are less effective than a single remailer with the combined traffic of all the individual remailers, because the combined remailer does better reordering from a larger pool. If the remailer chain contains just two or more uncompromised hops (not necessarily consecutive) I suspect an attacker will be forced to treat the remailer bramble as a single object. This attack is based on time correlations of messages sent and received. In this case background traffic is good because of the large number of false correlations it generates. However, it is stunning how few messages it takes to make the correlation stand out. The defense against this attack is to ensure that you send and receive enough remailer mail to correlate with all other users for all messages. Producing cover traffic, some of which returns to you, and some of which is bit bucketed also ensures that it will not be known when you receive a real message (as opposed to one of your own). Obviously this is best done when you are a remailer operator yourself. -Lance (who will now dismount the soap box) ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

2 1

NOISE: "Fascism is corporatism"
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Like someone who cannot resist looking at a dreadful traffic accident, I continue to participate in this Detweiler inspired troll: At 07:09 PM 6/7/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: > you forget that I'm a > Certified Political Scientist. > [...] > Once they got in power, then they started developing an economic ideology. Untrue: Fascism is of course a reasonably complete, coherent, and philosophically consistent logical system, almost as coherent as marxism, and far more logical than Mill's utilitarianism. It was published and thoroughly debated well before they pursued or took power. Rich Graves's lie is a lie I frequently hear from those who well know the truth, Many of my readers will think I am excessively harsh, calling Rich Graves a liar rather than a fool, but I hear the above story (that fascism is not a coherent ideology or philosophy) primarily from those whose interests this story serves, and if they genuinely thought this story was true, they would not know that it is in their interests to push it. Therefore one may reasonably conclude that most who push this story are knowingly lying, that it is a widespread lie, not a widespread fallacy or an alternate interpretation of the truth. I mostly hear it from those whose economic ideology strongly resembles fascism, or those whose philosophy is directly descended from fascism, is in fact fascist philosophy. Rich's economic ideology does not seem to resemble fascism, so I would guess he is in the second category but not the first. Most PC folk are postmodernists, poststructuralists, deconstructionists, etc, which philosophies directly descend from fascist philosophy, and he seems to be PC, so this would explain his peculiar assertion above. Not only do such concepts as feminist science, phallocentric science, etc, strongly resemble such concepts as aryan science, jewish science, etc, but they are justified using the same arguments from the same philosophers. Indeed Heidegger was not only a philosopher of fascism, but he personally participated in Hitler's terror, terrorizing his academic colleagues, and Paul De Man of Yale University worked directly for the Nazis as a propagandist in occupied Belgium. Hence the frequent lie by those who share this monstrous philosophy, that the fascists had no philosophy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Reference Correction Re: Thank you for the Archives 100 messages
by foodie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Careful Alan; I didn't write that. That was qut(a)netcom.com, the latest addition to my killfile, who replied to my private email on Cypherpunks, and, rather oddly, called me a Mormon. Message in question appended. -j >> REAL crypto-anarchists, > > Like the folks who brought us Tiannemen Square? > >> of course, want the >> destruction of copyrights, trademarks, and >> other weapons of capitali$m, and will > > > > > >> Kill your Television > > Threw mine out in 1987. There's more people who don't have indoor >bathrooms, than don't have a TV. (source: 1990 Bureau of the Census). I'm >in a pretty elite group. ------------------ Return-Path: <qut> Received: (from qut@localhost) by netcom13.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id AAA24004; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:30:50 -0700 From: qut (Be Good) Message-Id: <199606080730.AAA24004(a)netcom13.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Thank you for the Archives 100 messages To: foodie(a)netcom.com Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Reply-To: foodie(a)netcom.com In-Reply-To: <31B91EA0.16F(a)netcom.com> from "Jamie Lawrence" at Jun 7, 96 10:33:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1582 > qut4.qut(a)netcom.com wrote: > > > > Apologies, but rich has deleted me from > > his mailboxes, and for a few days now, > > As I have, too, now. > > > somebody has placed a global cancel bot on > > me. I'm gonna have plenty of fun figuring > > this out. Kwow any good sniffers? > > I'm glad! If my processor/filtering software doesn't > have to deal with your garbage, that's more time I have > to spend with folks who have something to say. The only thing your type of "cypherpunk" has to say, is blather about liability, copyrights, and other capitali$t bs. REAL crypto-anarchists, of course, want the destruction of copyrights, trademarks, and other weapons of capitali$m, and will implement crypto-anonymonity to proceed forthwith. > No, I don't know of any better "sniffers" (I assume you > mean, "software that can detect a cancelbot"), as such > software is impossible to detect. Of course, unless Rich > (or whomever cares so much about a moron) has either root > on toad.com, or at least as many resources as the NSA, he > can't cancel your mail to Cypherpunks (or anywhere else). I was talking about netnews, mormon. > > I agree the list should be public usenet: > > A mail gate-way to a usenet group that > > ALSO permits unmoderated posts. This > > would be a nice way to combine a strict > > moderated mail-list, with a standard > > netnews group. > > Er, what? > > That paragraph makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There's already hundreds of groups like that, stupid. It will be implemented, whether you like it or not. -- Kill Your Television -- The signal is the noise. ____________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence mailto:jal@cyborganic.net mailto:foodie@netcom.com

2 1

Re: No Kidding
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The absence > of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably > produced a kind of chaos, but as one of plaintiffs' experts put > it with such resonance at the hearing: > What achieved success was the very > chaos that the Internet is. The > strength of the Internet is that > chaos.[23] > > Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of > our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the > unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. This is beautifully eloquent. I hope it will be persuasive with the Supreme Court. Does anyone know which witness came up with the quote above? Obviously it resonated with the judges. Hal

2 1

Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The right to anonymity on the Net got a big boost during the Q&A at the ACLU press conference here in NYC on the CDA win -- with a recitation of its distinguished history in assuring freedom of speech and political activity. As did the corollary right to strong encryption to assure protection from intruders of gov-biz-jealous-lovers of all stripes. The CDA decision is a wondrous read for its coverage of so many topics discussed here; each judge's opinion is separately admirable. And, based, on the remarks of panelists at the conference, it will surely advance privacy protection measures and support loosening of crypto controls. But still subject to the unpredictable Supremes, a Solomon cautioned, if DoJ elects to appeal.

5 6

Re: Britain to control crypto - official (fwd from Usenet)
by John Pettitt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:07 PM 6/11/96 -0400, David Lesher wrote: >The British government quietly announced yesterday that it will >legislate to restrict crypto. The details are in the attached >Reuters and PA newswires. So I didn't see any move top 'restrict crypto' in the two wire stories. It looked like the return of clipper with escrow agents other than government which seems *almost* reasonable when I note that they are not mandating any of this stuff. Still given the close relationship between Cheltenham and Ft Mead one is left wondering what the real story is ... John Pettitt, jpp(a)software.net EVP, CyberSource Corporation, 415 473 3065 PGP Key available at: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/htbin/pks-extract-key.pl?op=get&search=0xB7AA37…

1 0