December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

BlackNet: Commercial Posts?
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 19 Aug 96, 7:03, Hal wrote: > service, or in fact a network of any sort. Rather, it is a vendor. > It buys and sells information. My question to the list: Who benefits from all this publicity and brew-ha-ha? Who makes all the BlackNet money? Who really cares if it is a Data Haven or just a remailer? I'm just asking. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

[fnord] Re: Discordians a-gogo (aggoo)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:00 AM 8/19/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote: >On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, WinSock Remailer wrote: >> >> DISCORDIAN SOCIETY SUPER SECRET CRYPTOGRAPHIC CYPHER CODE > >BTW, have you ever looked really closely at a Terisa systems business >card. Really closely? HAve you seen the Fnord? If you do not see the fnord, then it cannot eat you. ObDiscordian: Have you noticed that there are five levels of priority in Eudora? --- |"Computers are Voodoo -- You just have to know where to stick the pins."| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

2 1

Re: [NOISE] Naked woman decrapitates man on Internet!!!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:30 PM 8/19/96, Ross Wright wrote: >Sick, stuff. Yet everyone has to sneek a peek, just like a car >crash. Hey, I did. I made the whole trip through the lurid pages. > Seven billion (thousand million for you Brits) people in the world. More than 10,000 deaths every hour, or about 5 deaths per second. What's so sick about one measly death? Just another crime, like thousands of others every day. They just got caught. At least he's immortalized on the Net. --Tim 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

Netscape-US for foreign students at Stanford, elsewhere?
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The US version of Netscape 3.0 has been installed in /usr/pubsw for all supported platforms, including Linux. /usr/pubsw can be mounted anonymously via AFS. Is this true at other major universities? Is anyone interested in prosecuting us? Nobody has ever complained about the PGP binary's being available for years. -rich speaking only for his evil twin skippy

1 0

Re: "Utilization Review"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:22 AM 8/19/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >I listened with horror this evening to a radio program which >discussed the state of medical record privacy today. Unfortunatly, it is still true that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. The best way to ensure medical record privacy is to eliminate medical insurance. Perhaps, within our current social order, medical savings plans are the best option on the table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

[RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: [snip] > There are of course now more than 20,000 newsgroups. > Searches and greps of the newsgroup list are a way to find > potentially relevant newsgroups for posting a message or > finding messages of interest. > (As is well-known, the Usenet Cabal gets its orders from > the Bilderbergers as to which newsgroups fit in with New > World Order sanctioned epistemologies.) > Some are saying there is an alternate method. With the > advent of search engines which can index messages on the > Usenet (and in Webspace, but the idea is the same), why not > this alternative: put your message in a bottle and just > throw it into the "sea" of possible messages. Let search > engines find the messages of interest (modulo a day or two > of latency, as the spiders reach the space where the message > was placed). No newsgroups needed. Permit me to go off in an orthogonal direction here and say that I think that we should do away with the concept of a pre-ordained newsgroups in Usenet entirely, in favor of an IRC-like dynamic creation of message pools. One of the nice things about IRC is that if the Empire State Building suddenly blows up, you can tune to #bomb and generally find several hundred people interested in discussing it without having to go through some complicated newgroup/rmgroup/discussion procedure. The real data base of Usenet is the totality of messages, indexed by message ID, and there are so many newsgroups now that allowing the Newsgroups: line to have arbitrary contents in the message header would do little to increase the confusion. Entering each arbitrary entry in the Newsgroups: line into a secondary searchable index would provide the same functionality as we have now with the conventional arrangement of newsgroups. News software would certainly be free to map the Usenet hierarchy onto a directory structure, as is done today, or to simply keep it as a large flat database with multiple indices, or to do any combination of the above, such as an arrangement where populated newsgroups get their own directory, and everything else resides in a giant directory called "/usr/spool/news/krap." With governments creating lists of "banned" newsgroups, and an official creation process managed by the "Cabal", Usenet is much more vulnerable to state control than it would be if newsgroups were simply arbitrary strings which existed somewhere in the current window into the history file. A newsgroup would then exist if there were messages in it, and wouldn't exist if it had remained unused for some reasonable period of time. Now that search engines are becoming the best way to read Usenet anyway, and the Newsgroups: line is just another field in a set of search specifications, there is no reasonable reason to limit what may be placed there to some list of "20,000" pre-defined strings, or some government controlled subset of the above. If Singapore bans alt.sex.hooters, you could simply post to alt.culture.singapore.i.got.your.hooters.right.here. This would effectly jerk the rug out from under the "banned newsgroups" gestapo, and create a namespace so large you would always be able to construct an appropriately suggestive new entry in the compliment of any part that was blocked. It would also send the correct message that "newsgroups" are simply one of many labels on an article, and are not cyberspacial tearooms where bad people congregate and there is guilt by association. The alternative to doing something reasonable like this is probably to see mass migration from "banned newsgroups" to off-topic groups, like Lolita pictures in rec.pets.cats, when the inevitable crackdown comes. As long as people can post anonymously, they will simply switch to another existing newsgroup when the one they are posting to becomes blocked. Once the inevitable reciprocal pissing contest between posters and censors gets going, Usenet as we know it will likely be destroyed. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1

Hackers invade DOJ web si
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In> CNN online (http://www.cnn.com) is reporting a "breakin" by "hackers" In> to the DOJ web site. They don't elaborate exactly how thy did it. They broke in and posted obscene messages and pornographic pictures... P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... Captian's log, stardate 25970-point-5. I am nailed to the hull. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

Nymrod is shutting down
by John Perry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The nymserver located at nymrod.jpunix.com is shutting down due to abuse. The type-I/type-II MiddleMan remailers are unaffected. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMhjnFVOTpEThrthvAQFcQAP+LYtkT16wJGmmzbYymzRJv1IRdVotwvrY 4hUKn5y+TyCTWoyHQlUR3//L0nRPzViqm1GBeT4Tw88kmEvmRSguCYTxuNV3gr6t n8gOP/MKoYTZ1tdxYRMDd+LN2I4j2phUF90sItiLT04/JD65CwRNblD0bFWSbGr7 X8YiOIVkxTQ= =VA6N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Phoneco vs X-Phone
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:02 AM 8/20/96 +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: >> >> Well, let's consider such costs. Most of which (maintenance, management, >> rolling stock) are unrelated to amount of telephone usage. So there is no >> reason that these costs should be unequally attributed to a person who makes >> local calls 1 hour per day, as opposed to another who only calls 15 minutes >> per day, for example. >> >> As for the "laying new pipes" issue: Years ago in the the US, when >> inter-central-office trunk connections were all implemented using large >> bundles of copper pairs, it would have been _correct_ to say that higher >> telephone usage resulted in larger costs, since more trunk lines were >> necessary. Today, on the other hand, inter-office trunks (at least the new >> ones, and I presume that even many of the old ones have been switched over) >> are implemented in fiber optics. Extra capacity is either automatically >> available (since the capacity of a given fiber is unlikely to be fully used) >> or can be fairly simply added by converting old fiber from about 450 >> megabits per second to 2.4 gigabits, or even faster rates which have become >> more recently available. >> > >Your view point doesn't really fit the facts, but since it is not the >issue here, I'll let it go. What do you mean, "doesn't really fit the facts"?!? What part of it was incorrect? Fiber-optic _is_ commonly used in inter-office trunks, right? It doesn't wear out, right? Higher usage doesn't entail greater costs, right? The capacity, while not strictly infinite, is high enough so expanded usage doesn't strain most links, right? Finally, modern phone switches have sufficient connect capacity so that they can handle usage which would have been considered "unusual" by yesteryear's standards. All of this points to an obvious conclusion: Telephone companies do not, in general, have increased costs as a consequence of increased telephone usage. Here's what I think is _really_ going on: You have decided that you think the costs of the telephone system should be apportioned by usage EVEN IF higher usage is no more costly to provide. That's why you don't want to disprove my claims. You're afraid that you'll have to say, "Yes, you're right Jim, but I _still_ think billing should be porportional to use." >Can't resist like someone has to pay those 80,000+ >employees at AT+T. Some of whom are probably unnecessary. Interestingly enough, the rumor is that half the costs for LD are in billing and customer service. Most of these costs would disappear if LD was unmetered. > >> >But you miss my point, if a phoneco is not getting a penny for its long >> distanceservices (which subsidise the flat rate local calls) then the choice >> would >> >be to close down. Which would be a severe attack to the local internet usage. >> >> That's an entirely unsupported claim. Nobody claims that telephone usage >> (term used generically) is on the way out. "Closing down" is only going to >> happen if local phonecos cease to be able to provide a service that people >> are willing to pay for. > >Exactly! Once "X-Phone" has its servers in US Cities, and its charging 10 cents >a minute for long distance calls, I don't see if the phonecos would be able to provide any service that people are willing to pay for, I mean they won't >be able to provide matching lucrative rates. I am confident that local phonecos can remain competitive even against "free" Internet telephone service. What they need to do is simple: Entirely remove the LD/local subsidy, remove metering on LD (as well as local), bill yearly for far lower costs, etc. Once this is done, LD will be "free", at least on a marginal basis, so no customer will have any motivation to move to "Internet telephone" service. >You mean to say that, X-Phone will take advantage of the phoneco and mint >money for a minimal investment, whereas the phoneco who spent billions on the >infrastructure will be just whistle down the road, and let the X-Phone >indulge in its own cyberdo. In the US, the current telephone company infrastructure is ALREADY PAID FOR. It was paid for by over-inflated rates during a monopolized era. If anything, the locals have an "unfair advantage" over the rest of the companies: Only they have a copper pair into every home. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: [RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:34 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote: >Permit me to go off in an orthogonal direction here and say that >I think that we should do away with the concept of a pre-ordained >newsgroups in Usenet entirely, in favor of an IRC-like dynamic >creation of message pools. Moderated newsgroups gain reputation from their moderation policies and probably should not be included in this scheme. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1