December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: 260_0it
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:02 PM 9/13/96 GMT, John Young wrote: > FiTi: "Intelligent machines will take control of our lives" > > Before long, every vehicle will be fitted with a GPS > receiver, making its position known to local area > traffic management systems. In the home, a financial and > stock control system would automatically order food and > groceries when necessary. Intelligent machines might > "decide" that it would be more efficient not to order > any more food - and shut you out of the house. > > "It's more or less inevitable. Business and science will > drive this to the utmost." "Open the garage door, HAL." "I'm sorry, Dave, but those sirloin steaks in the refrigerator are too valuable for me to allow you to eat them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

did you go to school?
by HipCrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> THIN SLICES CUT FROM OUR PRECIOUS FORESTS. > > "OUR?" Since when did my trees become partially yours? > JMR JMR, it's hard to believe that your English education is SO LACKING, that you missed the fact, that in my sentence quoted above, the word "ours" refers to MANKIND IN GENERAL, not me personally. Go sit in the corner with the duncecap on, and don't come out until you can read an 8th grade piece of literature (with full comprehension). -- HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com

3 2

Re: 56 kbps modems
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:24 PM 9/13/96, Enzo Michelangeli wrote: >On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Asgaard wrote: > >> >U.S. Robotics and Rockwell International are planning new modems with >> >speeds up to 56 kbps a second, almost double the speed of the fastest >> >rate now available. The new devices should be available by the end of >> >the year, although their top speed initially may be less than 56 kbps. >> >(Wall Street Journal 12 Sep 96 B11) >> >> People who seemed to know used to say that 'the Shannon limit' >> set an absolute upper limit around 40 kbps. Has Shannon been >> proven wrong, or what? > >Well, it all depends on the signal-to-noise ratio. Also, if the noise is >not white gaussian the situation can be even better. No, this is not what's important in this case. (Besides, the "upper limit" is really more about the Nyquist Limit. Shannon's Theorem says that even in the presence of noise, this limit can be approached if proper coding schemes and whatnot are used.) While it is true that a noisy channel can reduce the effective channel capacity to something less than its capacity (for some particular coding scheme), the upper limit on channel capacity is whatever it is. As to the original question about modems and 40 kbps vs. 56 kpbs rates, this depends on "tricks" involving definitions of a "symbol" (a la the familiar argument about baud vs. bits per second). "Trellis coding," for example. I'm not a modem designer, but I'm not surprised to see these incremental improvements...none involve huge gains, and none involve getting, say, a megabit per second through a 6 kHz (or whatever) audio line--now that _would_ violate Shannon's Theorem, the Nyquist Limit, etc. --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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: J'accuse!: Whitehouse and NSA vs. Panix and VTW
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:58 PM 9/12/96 -0400, Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> wrote: >I think someone should just stand right up and accuse the NSA, at the >behest of the Whitehouse, of running a denial of service attack on Panix at >*exactly* the time when VTW is lobbying its hardest on the PRO-CODE bill. Let's see, anon.penet.fi gets shut down (Church of Scientology), PRO-Code bill is being lobbied for and against, PANIX is attacked by TCP-spammers, HipCrime initiates a distributed spam against remailers, newspapers accuse remailers of promoting Child Pornography Louis Freeh's recently gotten wiretap money approved. Clipper-3 is trying to build an escrowed key-certification hierarchy Could it be *conspiracy*? Yah, sure. But it could be just a bunch of separate people who don't like anonymity. (Kind of like somebody getting stabbed twelve times at night on the Orient Express - the problem is finding someone who _doesn't_ have a motivation to attack anonymity :-) At least one of the newspaper articles I've read has referred to the need for real authentication on the net to prevent the anonymity that makes this kind of attack possible, and in particular for the major network providers to make sure that they don't export messages with bogus addressing, a cure that the article said would take several months to deploy. I don't know if they were referring to IPv6, or sendmail modifications, or router hacks, or what; the article's author seemed to think this was about bogusly-addressed email messages rather than understanding SYNs. Anybody for an Internet Driver's License? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Dispel Authority!

6 9

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Richard Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:02 9/12/96, Ross Wright wrote to cypherpunks(a)toad.com and remailer-operators(a)c2.org and...: >On Or About: 12 Sep 96 at 17:48, Rabid Wombat wrote: >> However, since others may think like you, I guess I'll have to add a line >> above my link stating that email not related to the purpose of my site >> will be happily proof-read at the rate of $200 per hour, > >Just great. That sure takes away any anonymity you had about being >"on the cutting edge" of the information age. That 1952 "proof-read" >crap went out in the 70's. How can you hope to enforce it? It's a >joke, right? :) Maybe not, since it's on your sig-line. Hey, that was my too-long sig, Ross. There is obviously more than one person who disagrees with your assertion that listing an email address somewhere is an open invitation for mail to that address on any topic or for any purpose. Also, I charge $500 per message. I've always liked flat fees. :-) ------- Forwarded Message ------- At 21:50 9/11/96, Ross Wright <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> wrote to cypherpunks(a)toad.com and remailer-operators(a)c2.org: >As I said having a website invites comments. It's like being a >public figure. In effect you are publishing your e-mail address. Interesting perspective. However, placing an email address on a web page is by no means an offer to take "comments" (i.e., marketing spams) on anything that strikes the spammer's fancy. The context in which any email address is mentioned will tell you what sorts of messages are expected at that address. To maintain otherwise is just a flimsy excuse for "seedy low life multi-level-marketing jerks" who want to cover their postage-due unsolicited advertising/promotional email in some false cloak of respectability. To continue the comment box analogy, the stuffing of salsa sample comment boxes (next to the salsa sample booth in the grocery store) with ads for anything you're pushing is most decidedly not what the comment box is for. ... -- "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. ... 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." -- Judge Stewart Dalzell Unsolicited advertising/promotional email proofread for $500/message! Your sending such a message to me is an explicit request for my services!

1 0

Re: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:23 AM 9/13/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: >> ... >> >Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of >> >children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution >> >because of ongoing trauma to the child, >> >> Which child? Does he understand what "computer-generated" means? >> > >Yes, he does, I think. But I think "protected" above should read >"prohibited." [Note to Greg: could that be a typo?] The key kiddie >porn/1st amendment case (whose name escapes >me for the moment) offered two reasons why kiddie porn could be regulated >in the face of the first amendment. One reason was the "on-going trauma to >the child [victim]."In a morphed image, they is not (or at least may not be) >an actual child victim. Thus the "continuing trauma" rationale for >regulation does not exist in that case. This is what the article says: "Another freedom-of-speech-related concern may be that while computer-generated or 'morphed' Internet images of consenting adults in sexual acts may find constitutional protections, the same may not hold if such images use the likeness of a child because of ongoing trauma to the child, Kozinski says." The only way this makes sense to me is that a child might be horrified to find their face pasted onto the body of a 20-year old involved in sexual activity. But this doesn't seem like a problem for criminal law to solve, it seems like a tort law problem, and I'm still inclined to think that the First amendment protects speech which upsets or horrifies someone. The other rationale I see is the "child porn makes susceptible people go molest children" argument. (And the consequently molested child would then endure ongoing trauma.) The only difference I see between this argument and the argument (which has been rejected in U.S. courts, as far as I know) that adult porn makes susceptible people hurt women is the changing focus from "woman" to "child". But I don't see a big difference between ongoing trauma in adults and ongoing trauma in children, such that one merits special restrictions on otherwise protected speech and one does not. But maybe that's why I'm studying for the bar and Alex Kozinski is on the 9th circuit. :) -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

Re: "Remailers can't afford to be choosy"
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 13-SEP-1996 04:33:21.66 >By the way, today's remailers appear to be primarily _experiments_ or >_casual services_, not altruistic services for some nebulous idea of "free >speech." (Besides, if it's illegal for "spammers" to use remailers, so much >for "free speech.") Umm.... freedom of the press is freedom for he who owns the press. The remailer operators own the presses; why shouldn't they use whatever means they see fit to determine how they can be used? I encourage people not to discriminate on the basis of the political orientation of what's going through... but spam isn't political speech. (I agree that the government should not be in the business of determining what is spam and what is political speech - all speech should be protected - but remailer operators are not governments.) -Allen

1 0

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Admin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:21 PM 9/13/96 -0600, you wrote: >At 19:02 9/12/96, Ross Wright wrote to cypherpunks(a)toad.com and >remailer-operators(a)c2.org and...: >>On Or About: 12 Sep 96 at 17:48, Rabid Wombat wrote: >>> However, since others may think like you, I guess I'll have to add a line >>> above my link stating that email not related to the purpose of my site >>> will be happily proof-read at the rate of $200 per hour, >> >>Just great. That sure takes away any anonymity you had about being >>"on the cutting edge" of the information age. That 1952 "proof-read" >>crap went out in the 70's. How can you hope to enforce it? It's a >>joke, right? :) Maybe not, since it's on your sig-line. > > >Hey, that was my too-long sig, Ross. There is obviously more than one >person who disagrees with your assertion that listing an email address >somewhere is an open invitation for mail to that address on any topic or >for any purpose. > >Also, I charge $500 per message. I've always liked flat fees. :-) > >------- Forwarded Message ------- >At 21:50 9/11/96, Ross Wright <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> wrote to >cypherpunks(a)toad.com and remailer-operators(a)c2.org: >>As I said having a website invites comments. It's like being a >>public figure. In effect you are publishing your e-mail address. > > >Interesting perspective. However, placing an email address on a web page >is by no means an offer to take "comments" (i.e., marketing spams) on >anything that strikes the spammer's fancy. How would you know what the *intent* of these other people is in placing mailme: tags on their public pages unless you have been to the specific pages. You speak only for yourself, yet you try to imply that you speak for everyone on the www who has placed a mailto: tag on their pages. > >The context in which any email address is mentioned will tell you what >sorts of messages are expected at that address. Would it make a difference if the message to the webmasters mailto: buttons said "Nice webpages you have, when you get a moment check out my designs". Remember the thread is about an Artist who sent out only his URL to encourage visitors. This is and was a NON commercial site. >To maintain otherwise is >just a flimsy excuse for "seedy low life multi-level-marketing jerks" who >want to cover their postage-due unsolicited advertising/promotional email >in some false cloak of respectability. *Respectability* is subjective to the definer... > >To continue the comment box analogy, the stuffing of salsa sample comment >boxes (next to the salsa sample booth in the grocery store) with ads for >anything you're pushing is most decidedly not what the comment box is for. Without a disclaimer on the box stating specifically what cannot be placed in it there can be no knowing what the boxholder finds of personal interest... >-- >"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet >deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. ... 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." > -- Judge Stewart Dalzell > >Unsolicited advertising/promotional email proofread for $500/message! Your >sending such a message to me is an explicit request for my services! Inane, off-thread, unsupported weak analogous attempts at reasoned argument received, but not read - simply deleted, for $1000/message. Sending OR posting the above to me or a Newsgroup that I may happen to read constitutes your accord and acceptance of the above contract. If I must read them, the fee is $2000/message. admin <>________________Lowest_Priced_Long_Distance__________________<> ||Long Distance 9.9¢/min |Helping hardworking people || ||9.9¢ Anytime, Anywhere in US! |like yourself pay the || ||Free sign-up, 6 second billing |lowest possible price for || ||http://www.superhot.com/phone |high quality LD service. || <>-----------------------1_303_692_5190------------------------<>

2 1

unwanted mail..what can I do?
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recieved mail from netfree.com.. I tried mailing it back (it def. had a forged address, but I got the netfree from the mail header.....) So anyway..... I tried sending to root@netfree....my mail was rejected (not unknown ...it was rejected by the system) said it wasnt authorized... so I tried support@netfree...same thing. It ISSSSS rather annoying...any sugestions?

2 1

Re: Unrequested mail from Mr. Babayco
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:24 PM 9/13/96, Z.B. wrote: >Even if you are serious about this, the fact that you signed up to a >mailing list entitles you to all of the messages that go over this list, >plus people's replies to your posts. The point of my original message >was that mail from a non-commercial individual, such as yourself or other >people on this list is welcomed, but mail from people trying to sell me >something is not. Perhaps I should have made that more clear in my >original post. And by having a public mailbox, you are in no position to say some entities cannot mail to you. While unwanted e-mail is bothersome, so are unwanted telephone calls, unwanted faxes, unwanted regular mail, unwanted conversations at parties, unwanted attention in general, and "unwanted unwanteds" in their most general form. But unless such unwanted things become frequent beyond some threshold (as repeated phone calls may be, or as "fax-bombing" can be, or as "stalking" situations occur, depending on various laws), the the law does not offer convenient solutions. Nor should we want the already overcrowded courts and jails clogged with "He sent me a message I didn't want!" whines. The solution is screening calls with an answering machine or using something like Caller ID to screen incoming calls, having an unlisted number, turning off a fax machine except when expecting a fax, using Eudora or procmail to filter messages. In other words, the equivalents of fences, locks, doors, gates, and other barriers. --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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0