December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Suppressed Messages
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What could be more fun on a Friday Night? I think it's a great trick, however some may find it more than annoying. 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

please take me of this list
by Michael Cortes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PLEASE, PLEASE get me off this cypherpunk mailing list. my brother signed me up (on my account) as some idea of a joke...but it is flooding my email....if someone would take the time to take me off, i would be ever so greatful *sarah*

1 0

Cypherpunk voting - ITAR or CDA
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dole says he would fix the ITAR problem, but try to keep something like CDA. Clinton is keeping ITAR and signed CDA. But not having the religious right he might soften on CDA. The courts seem to be throwing out CDA much faster than ITAR (some fast track to the supreme court built into the law). It also seems like ITAR is the more important thing to fix (it is easier to move pornography etc out of the US than major software companies). So it seems Dole is the better vote. Is this important enough to many cypherpunks to actually determine their vote? -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

1 0

Interesting
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The body-suppressed problem seems to be continuing. I'm getting almost no normal list traffic. Does anyone think that someone might be trying to halt the list? / If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. / Home: Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp / Autoresponder: send email w/subject of "send resume" or "send PGPKEY" / Work: cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 | (619)689-6579 / Member in good standing of the GNU whirled hors d'oeuvre

1 0

Fishy stuff
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just read a supressed message from me about a topic I never wrote about. This IS PISSING me off. 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

Re: Weird "Suppression" messages
by Daniel Miskell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vipul Ved Prakash writes: >> >> I don't have a clue what it is, but it's sure pissing me off. I've >> gotten about 15 or so of these messages in the past two hours. If it's >> an honest error, then someone better fix it real fast; if some loser is >> jerking us around, ...... >> > >Is this all becuz of those bad nameserver records floating around the net? >Tons of ISP's have gone down! > I hope that's all this is. Because 90% of the notes I am getting, at BEST, contain supressed message bodies. This is really starting to frighten me. Daniel.

1 0

FW: "Freedom on Trial," from October 1996 Playboy
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Forwarded Message<< why is this happening ?? Is it my system or a remailer ? ----- Message body suppressed ----- --GAA11758.840807801/tera.mcom.com-- >>End of forwarded message<<

1 0

Abuse by llurch of ISP
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From qut Fri Aug 23 19:21:25 1996 Subject: Re: Abusive mail from qut(a)netcom.com refused To: abuse(a)netcom.com, rcgraves(a)ix.netcom.com, llurch(a)stanford.edu Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:21:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199608240106.SAA07144(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> from "Rich Graves" at Aug 23, 96 06:06:04 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: 1564 ! Dear Netcom: ! ! You suspended the account of this cross between Boursy and Dan Gannon (but Absurd! Boursy is non-political and objectively a true net abuser. So is Gannon who spammed thousands of newsgroups with identical political posts, such groups as sci.physics and sci.math . ! not as sincere) for two weeks in March for net abuse including mailbombing ! and forging cancels. Please restore what little faith I once had in Netcom ! by considering doing so again. Netcom has considerably higher standards than Stanford, an account there is apparantly considered an actual right rather than a service. llurch(a)stanford.edu is his address he abuses the net from, you won't find his abuses from rcgraves(a)ix.netcom.com which he very rarely uses, this e-mail, for example, was forged from networking.stanford.edu . ! All mail from qut(a)netcom.com to any of my email addresses is now being ! bounced to you as well as to him. Until he stops, you will usually receive ! multiple copies, because he usually sends multiple copies. This is absurd, we both subscribe to the same mailing list, cypherpunks, thereby anything I post to the list will be abusively e-mailed to abuse(a)netcom.com . Also, It is inherent that posting to usenet invites e-mailed responses, which would make what he is doing even more abusive. Rich Graves is a prominant net abuser, false complaints are part of his repertoire. He has never before complained about recieving courtesy copies of responses to his posts, this is the first I've heard of it. -- qut(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Republican and Democratic party platforms on technology
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dole's cosponsorship of Pro-CODE was a way to land some California votes and a way to differentiate himself from Clinton, nothing more. A statement he released on May 2 bashed the White House: "The administration apparently thinks very little of the right to privacy -- it presumes the government is entitled to all the so-called 'keys' or secret passwords which protect computer generate [sic] information from prying yes..." I predict that if he were to win, we'd see the fastest policy turnaround ever. The moment he was inaugurated, Dole would pick up where Clinton left off. Clipper IV, here we come... But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party candidates for any office, not just the presidency. I'm told that the a Dem convention speaker may talk about privacy issues, however. -Declan Tim writes, quoting me: >Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The >focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net" >and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography." > >>(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling >>commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at >>their convention last month.) > >I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting >only encourages the process. > >I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his >wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an >Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned, >Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party.

3 3

"Regulation of Commerce" and the Crypto Issue
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems to me that in recent years nearly any type of sweeping legislation is justifed, constitutionally, by the clause in the U.S. Constitution which says Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce. (More precisely, the clause says: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" This is usually interpreted to mean _interstate_ commerce, and not sales/commerce/etc. that do not centrally involved more than one state....obviously nearly all things sold in one state are sold in other states, so there is lattitude for applying the commerce clause, albeit wrongly.) Today's news is the sweeping new restrictions on tobacco and cigarettes, including restriction on advertising and even on the placement of tobacco and cigarette logos and names on sports jerseys and shirts. (The much-publicized press event is not for another hour, as I write, so I don't know all the details. I'll be watching.) Note that similar restrictions on alchohol advertising were recently struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional infringements on free speech. Many expect the same outcome with these latest proposed restrictions. (The issue of advertisements of hard liquor, cigarettes, condoms, and other "unhealthful" [sic] products on television and radio is of course complicated by the role of the Federal Communications Commission and by "gentlemen's agreements" not to carry advertisements for some products.) Personally, I have never smoked, nor chewed, nor mainlined nicotine. Personally, I dislike cigarette smoke. But this is all _personally_. If a restaurant, bookstore, airline, bar, antique store, gym, or whatever wishes to allow smoking (or not), this is there choice. As many of us see things, it is not for the government to take a kind of "poll" of what people like and dislike and then to impose rules on property owners as to what smoking or nonsmoking policies they may set. Likewise, if I want to silk-screen a "Joe Camel" image, or a "Bud Frogs" image, on a t-shirt, this is between me and the putative owner of these images. Free speech and all. Or, to remove any confusion with the issue of owned logos, to silk-screen a fictitious cigarette brand on a shirt and then wear it, or sell it. It seems likely that individual wearers of such shirts will not be busted (think of how many already exist, and there is no plan for confiscating them), but that the burden will be placed, as it is so often conveniently placed, on the shirt makers. The catch-all for these laws seems to be the "regulate commerce" language in the Constitution. Cigarettes are sold in multiple states, the logic goes, so the commerce clause gives the government the power/authority to regulate it. (Well, Steven King novels are sold in all 50 states, too. Does this "regulate commerce" clause give the government the power/authority to regulate what King puts in his novels? Or to ban advertising for Steven King novels? Or to require that stores only sell such novels to adults?) This language is already being cited for some as a justification for regulating encryption (hey, some businesses use it!), digital signatures (ditto), and other forms of crypto. In fact, since nearly everything involves "commerce" in some way, whether interstate or not, the "regulate commerce" clause can presumably be used as a jusitification for interfering in all sorts of areas. The several legal experts out there on this list can clarify any errors of interpretation I have made. I certainly know that the commerce clause cannot be used to suppress certain kinds of speech, though the boundaries of where it may be applied seem unclear. I do expect it to be used for crypto, though, and this might even be upheld by the Supremes, especially in any areas directly involving "digital commerce." We should watch for this, and think about ways to deflect or derail such interpretations. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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