December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bombs & bomb threats in LA
by Conrad Walton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >and everyplace else all the news.answers FAQs are stored. What, precisely, is >an acid bomb? Also note the standard blame-the-Internet (not, say, increased >irritation with government after the Republicans failed to reduce it) >rhetoric. i'm not exactly sure what an acid bomb is, but according to my book, The Anarchist Cookbook, that I bought in 1972 (was the internet around back then?), there is a compound called "picric acid" that is "more powerful than TNT, but has some disadvantages". if you'd like the recipe, I'll be more than happy to mail you it through the US Postal system. Wouldn't want to give the Internet any more of a bad name for distributing subversive materials. There is also instructions on using an inverted vial of sulpheric acid, that will then eat thu the stopper at the top (bottom) of the vial. when the acid makes it thru, then is mixes with Potassium Chloride and causes a small explosion which sets off the larger explosion in the dynomite packed around it. just thot you'd like to know. thanks, conrad __________I_N_D_U_S_T_R_I_A_L___A_R_T_W_O_R_K_S__________ Conrad Walton http://www.industrial-artworks.com/ POB 2815, El Segundo, CA 90245 1-310-640-3365 ---------------------------------------------------------

2 1

URGENT: Surveillance Bill Gets New Life - House Vote lLikely TODAY!
by jseiger＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(please forward where appropriate) It's not over yet.... The House has scheduled a vote on "suspension" for a 'counter-terrorism' bill TODAY (Friday). Despite media reports that the negotiations had stalled out, house Republicans have apparently worked out their differences and are set to vote on the bill today. The Senate may or may not vote on the measure on Saturday. No one I've talked to knows for sure what's in the bill, though I have heard that there are no encryption provisions and that some of the wiretap proposals have been scaled back. I will post details as I get them. In the mean time, keep those calls coming into Congress. Jonah ** THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH ONLINE CONTINUES TO THE SUPREME COURT ** It's not too late to be a part of history -- Join the Lawsuit <http://www.cdt.org/ciec> -- <ciec-info(a)cdt.org> -- Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst Center for Democracy and Technology <jseiger(a)cdt.org> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 PGP Key via finger (v) +1.202.637.9800 http://www.cdt.org/ (f) +1.202.637.0968 http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/

1 0

Licensing, Permits, and Freedom
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:23 PM 8/2/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: >Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> argued: > >>As long as they have a license to operate a food dispencing facility (in >>other words they are certifying they are aware of the correct processes for >>such operations) then nobody should have the right to interfere with their >>operation unless with probable cause (ie proof of danger such as bad weenies >>in their hot dogs). This would not apply to individuals or families making >>such food in the same place for their own and NOT public consumption. > >I believe the issue with Food Not Bombs is they didn't get the appropriate >permits, etc, or were denied them, or something. However, I disagree with >you on this point. I think they shouldn't be required to obtain a license, >but everyone whom they serve food to should know that they don't have such a >license. This would equal informed consent. Also, with Food Not Bombs, many >of the people that the food is being served to is also involved in cooking, >distributing food, and cleaning up. I've been told it's exactly like a big >picnic, except for anyone is invited to help and/or eat. It was in fact "Food Not Bombs" which I was referring to in my post a few days ago. My point to the City Council was one of inconsistency (picnic groups not similarly hassled). Also, the use of "permits" to harass/muzzle a group. "Permits" are often used to stop speech and acts which are not considered acceptable. Drawing on my own community for an example, Santa Cruz tried to regulate palm readers, astrologers, mystics, and seers. This eventually fell apart, possibly when the implications became clear to the bureaucrats (the future was already clear to the Cassandras, but nobody believed them). My "Licensed Ontologist" line in my .sig was added during one of the debates about the claimed need to license and regulate persons in various professions. (There are of course the usual other examples, where job unions and cartels stop "outsiders" from participating. Often for ostensibly good reasons, but "guilds" nonetheless. The implications of crypto anarchy for these guilds are left as exercises for the student.) --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."

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

And I testified in front of the House that their estimate was grossly understated. I think it is more like 4-5 Billion . I called it the Software Full Employment Act of 94. (copy of testimony available). djf At 08:52 AM 8/2/96 -0700, Brock N. Meeks wrote: > >On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Ernest Hua wrote: > >> Louis Freeh is now asking the Congress for $2 billion to fund >> Digital Telephony. Yes, that is FOUR TIMES what he said it >> would cost the taxpayers to give up their own privacy. Score >> one for the cynics who said $500 million was not enough. > >I broke the story about how much Digital Telephony would *really* cost in >CyberWire Dispatch more than two years ago. The price tag in my piece: >"... at least $2 billion..." In that Dispatch I wrote that the Clinton >White House had made the decision to support the bill based on a flawed >cost/benefit analysis study the FBI had done. > >--Brock > >

1 0

Re: Let's Say "No!" to Single, World Versions of Software
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:16 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein <tomw(a)netscape.com> wrote: >The only thing they can revoke is their permission to provide it for >download over the internet. They can't revoke our permission to sell >it in stores or via snail mail. They _could_ refuse to give export permission for new RC4/40 versions, and threaten prosecution if it's placed on the Internet. It would be highly bogus, of course, but that's one of the "benefits" of using selective enforcement and having the export strength limitations be an individual-case-basis rather than a defined law they can be held to. Tim wrote: > Actually approving of disapproving a piece of software for sale > to U.S. citizens is not currently possible. Sure. The Commerce Klaus of the Constitution lets them do it if they want to, though that required Congressional cooperation. TRUST NO ONE!

2 1

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 27 Aug 96 at 21:16, jim bell wrote: > See the difference? An open system holds legislators to a much > higher standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we > should insist on it. Fine Jim, but how? Any idea of a system that could lead to that? JFA who's ROTFL! 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

Re: FYI: GOP's Stolen Laptop...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:41 PM 8/27/96 -0500, Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern(a)il.us.swissbank.com> wrote: >> They should have used PGP on those files..... > >...but I thought fine, upstanding, and law-abiding citizens didn't have >anything to hide... These are _Republicans_, Andrew! :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

1 0

An open letter to the Editor of The Observer
by matthew＠itconsult.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I understand the text of the Observer article is available at http://www.hclb.demon.co.uk/obs.txt] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I. T. Consultancy Limited Our reference L2217 The Editor The Observer 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER 26 August 1996 AN OPEN LETTER FOR PUBLICATION Sir, I read with some interest the article by David Connett and Jon Henley in yesterday's edition regarding the Internet and child pornography. I was particularly interested as I am a computer consultant advising clients on Internet issues. In my professional opinion, the technical standard of the reporting was sufficiently poor as to be both inaccurate and misleading. The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain technical issues which might cause your readers to reach unfounded or incorrect conclusions. It is important to be aware of the various methods by which information generally (which can include pornography) is distributed around the Internet. Your article focuses on one particular route, namely Newsgroups. It is Newsgroups which are detailed in the Metropolitan Police's letter to Internet Providers and which are concentrated upon by your article. There are several other means of distributing information. I believe however that the Police letter lists fewer than the 150 groups referred to by the authors. Interestingly enough Newsgroups only offer the means of broadcasting information to anyone who wants to retrieve it. The authors do not appear to have a sufficient grasp of what a "remailer" does. For example they seem to draw a direct link between the use of such remailers and people being able to "log on and participate in 'live' and 'interactive' filmed sessions". A lay reader would perhaps draw the inference that the remailer is somehow involved in any such live participation. Unfortunately this could not be further from the truth. Remailers simply allow people to post messages, either as email to other people or to Newsgroups for general reading. Nothing more. Remailers are generally incapable of being "logged on" to. Your article also refers to "remailing companies", from which the lay reader might infer that remailers are operated for commercial profit. Such an inference would again be wholly incorrect. I know of no organisation operating a remailer for profit, indeed none of them even charge for their services. They are generally run by individuals on a voluntary basis who consider them as a service to the Internet community. Your article appears not to mention any of the purposes of such remailers other than in terms of the distribution of pornography. In my view it would be difficult to present a balanced article without doing so. Different remailers take different steps to prevent whatever their operators consider as "abuse". My understanding is that Mr. Helsingius' service restricts messages to 48k bytes (or characters) and prohibits postings to the "binaries" newsgroups designated for images. I also understand that it only allows 30 messages per user per day. At a technical level these restrictions would make it almost impossible to use his service for mass distribution of any binary data, not just pornography. It therefore appears surprising to me that your article should allege that Mr. Helsingius' remailer is responsible for handling "90 per cent of all child pornography" on the Internet. I wonder what substantiating evidence The Observer has to this effect other than the alleged claim by Toby Tyler. Indeed it appears from your article that the words "is supplied through this remailer" may not be a direct quote from Toby Tyler. Your article alleges that "the photographs made available to Demon's subscribers through the Internet are supplied anonymously by remailing companies". The lay reader might infer from this that all photographs therefore come via remailers. Again this would be far from the truth. Finally I hope this letter offers some assistance to your readers in clarifying a number of issues which were perhaps less than clear in your article. Given your newspaper's difficulties with technical issues, I would be grateful if you would kindly refer any editing of this letter to me prior to publication. Yours faithfully, Matthew Richardson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAgUBMiFvEAKwLwcHEv69AQGjIQP+IGR9rhvdYXe7CuCcwPl/tIrIBryikTM2 IVOpygTF2nCPf3WEJ8czRvs1emp9d9d++69XiG1f6QAeP9Jv/h9KzVtV7mjjuqCX LhlhXBYjLIiGCcxljKZ07zHFlCeZWCzuAmIFnZbz2fNNjqyicheIMlxI2tDrGgjp dlaGZuAI2XY= =dkXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Code Review Guidelines (draft)]
by Wendell Lee 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe wendell(a)singnet.com.sg To: hag(a)ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: Code Review Guidelines (draft) From: lists(a)lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:30:49 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: ichudov(a)algebra.com, adam(a)homeport.org, firewalls(a)greatcircle.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, coderpunks(a)toad.com In-Reply-To: <199608272111.RAA23997(a)galapas.ai.mit.edu> from "Daniel Hagerty" at Aug 27, 96 05:11:39 pm Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Hi, > Much better, look at rfc822. (I wouldn't consider *anything* that > has the word "sendmail" in it a good reference). its much better if you dont rely on the content of the string at all. Dont use sh -c or system and you will be save. Simply asume that all characters are valid in user suplied strings and treat them exactly that way... If they need to be exporeted then unfortunately they need to be 'untainted' and this should be done by positive not negative lists as mentioned in the guidelines. Greetings Bernd PS: I have collected the references on http://www.inka.de/sites/lina/freefire-l/ -- (OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels(a)Wittumstrasse13.76646Bruchsal.de -- ( .. ) ecki(a){lina.inka.de,linux.de} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/A2C51749 eckes@irc +4972573817 *plush* (O____O) If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy

1 0

Re: Australian Interbet Betting System Gets US Interest 08/26/96
by Mark Neely 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>CentreBet can be reached at http://www.taunet.com.au/centrebet BTW .. that is //www.taunet.net.au/centrebet ^^^ Regards, Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt(a)ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Internet Consultant, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet (2nd Ed.) Australian Business Guide to the Internet Internet Guide for Teachers, Students & Parents Check out my Anti-SPAM FAQ: http://www.accessnt.com.au/faqs/spam.htm

1 0