December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

{Rich Graves Only} Enclosed
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power Subject: Re: Nomination: The Right Reverend Colin James III for Kook of the Month References: <gRqNTD2w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> <50i362$71q(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> In <50i362$71q(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> llurch(a)stanford.edu (Rich Graves) writes: ! shlomo(a)bwalk.dm.com () writes: ! >The Right Reverend Colin James III got Andrew Mathis <fresh(a)jews4jesus.org> ! >fired from his second job in two months (at the Princeton Review, on Thursday). ! >I hereby nominate the dear bishop for both the Kook of the Month for September ! >1996 and for the Golden Killfile Award. Vote early and often! ! ! Vulis, you've already earned your Kook of the Month laurels. It's nap ! time. Since you know that is Dr. D, why did you blame the harassment of Ingrid on Rev. Ron?!????? It looks like you did it to pin it on the doctor, or more likely, you saw the opportunity to harass Rev. Ron, even after you feigned praise of him! It's the same damned header, IDJIT. Of course, I never saw the headers for the unidentified harasser to the Zgrams list, was that the same header, too? It looks like you did it or you know who did it and you want to compound harassment on to nswpp! How Gravesian! Is Dr. D your friend your talking about? Dr. D, defect, defect! He's a jerk, jerk! -- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | _|__|__|__|__ /--------------\ | | | 0 0 |--\ | * | | | \-------/ | | | \_____/ |__/ \______________/ Æ×õ áîšõä

2 1

Letter to the Observer [re: Internet paedophile]
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded to me by a friend: Path: reboot.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon! muir-et2.staff.demon.net!SERVER!not-for-mail From: malcolm(a)muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm Muir) Newsgroups: demon.announce Subject: Letter to the Observer Followup-To: demon.service Date: 1 Sep 96 07:25:38 GMT Organization: Demon Internet Ltd. Lines: 188 Approved: Malcolm(a)demon.net Message-ID: <32293a72.0(a)muir-et2.staff.demon.net> Reply-To: pr(a)demon.net NNTP-Posting-Host: muir-et2.staff.demon.net X-NNTP-Posting-Host: muir-et2.staff.demon.net X-Newsreader: TIN [Windows/NT 1.3 950824BETA PL0] The following letters were delivered to the Editor of the Observer last week as a request to publish a retraction of their article relating to the Internet that appeared on Sunday 25th. August. Since a full retraction has not been published, we feel it is right to circulate copies of the letters to our customers. Copies of the letters may also be viewed on the World Wide Web at: http://www.demon.net/observer1.html (Solicitors Letter) and http://www.demon.net/observer2.html (Open letter from the Chairman) Malcolm Muir Demon Internet --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Green Russel Solicitors Apollo House 56 New Bond Street London W1Y 0SX 0171-499 7020 The Editor The Observer Newspaper Guardian Newspapers Limited 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER 30th August 1996 By Hand and Fax: 0171 713 4250 Our ref: DRJ/JHG/[c]423395/9403.047 Dear Sir, RE: Our Clients: Demon Internet Limited and Mr Clive Feather We act on behalf of Demon Internet Limited and Mr Clive Feather both of whom were the subject of articles which appeared on the front page and on page 19 of your newspaper in the edition of Sunday, 25th August. In the offending article you have represented that our clients are "Pedlars of child abuse" and are "Key links in the international paedophile chain". You have represented that both our clients actively support the supply of paedophile material. This allegation is entirely false and is a most serious and outrageous libel. Our clients are most distressed by the publication of the offending statements which are inaccurate and grossly defamatory of them and which will cause damage to their goodwill and reputation, professionally, commercially and socially. Both Mr Feather and Demon Internet Limited have been the subject of serious expressions of concern and outrage from various of the readers of your newspaper. The damage that you have done to our clients cannot, of course, be undone but it can be mitigated. We require that you mitigate the serious damage that has been done to our clients by publishing the enclosed letter from Mr A W Mudd, Chairman of Demon Internet Limited. You were well aware, when you decided to publish the false article in question, of the damage that would be caused to our clients which is already very considerable and which will form the basis of a claim for special damages. It is open to you to mitigate that substantial loss at the earliest possible time by publishing a full retraction and apology in this coming Sunday's edition of your newspaper. We shall, within the next week or so, issue a Writ and deliver a Statement of Claim. In the meantime, we reserve all our clients' rights in the matter and nothing contained in this letter or in the enclosed letter from Mr Mudd shall be regarded as a diminution or waiver of those rights. Yours faithfully, JEFFREY GREEN RUSSELL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Demon Internet Limited Gateway House 322 Regents Park Road London N3 2QQ 0181 371 1000 Our ref : AWM/SC/28-08 The Editor The Observer Newspaper Guardian Newspapers Limited 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER 30 August 1996 Dear Sir THE PEDLARS OF CHILD ABUSE Banner headline: Front page and Page 19 : Sunday 25th August 1996 I refer to your articles on the front page and page 19 of last Sundayís paper. I regard these as highly defamatory as well as a poor piece of journalism that sensationalises a serious issue and clouds fact with emotion. I am appalled and outraged that The Observer has printed such a misleading, abusive and inaccurate article - giving the impression to readers that Clive Feather and Demon Internet are the "Pedlars of child abuse". This libellous reporting, littered with malicious lies not only defames the good character and reputation of a valued employee, but also destroys the genuine efforts Demon Internet has been making in conjunction with the police and the DTI to deal effectively with the problem. The articles clearly aimed at sensationalism at any cost with the intention of misleading readers by stating that our employee is an "Internet abuser" immediately after using the word "paedophiles". As the UK's largest provider of Internet access, Demon has taken the lead in discussions with all relevant parties and is in the process of announcing restrictions to illegal material and processes to classify content, enabling users to monitor and report on what is viewed. Demon Internet is also the first European Internet Service Provider to deliver Microsoft's new browser software, 'Internet Explorer' which incorporates a classifications standard. Demon Internet has been taking action to ensure that the Internet in the UK has informed and appropriate legislation guarding the interests of users. This report not only confuses an extremely complex and sensitive issue but also smears the integrity of an honourable, family man. Demon Internet is committed to eliminating this scourge from this new and rapidly expanding market. The Internet is bringing great benefit to millions of users not least your own journalists. For you to pick on one aspect in total isolation and present it in such a lurid fashion, does not help the DTI, the police or ourselves who are genuinely striving to solve the issues. Would you please publish this letter in your edition of 1st September. Your unreserved apology and full retraction, to be given as great prominence as your original articles, would also be greatly appreciated Yours faithfully, A W Mudd Chairman -- Malcolm S. Muir Demon Internet Ltd. Sunderland 322 Regents Park Road England London N3 2QQ

1 0

Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:16 AM 9/4/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >Timothy C. May writes: > > > Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as > > "slander" and "libel" precisely because they cause more harm > > than good. Currently, there is an illusion among ordinary > > citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him for > > libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical. In > > that way, the law actually adds credibility to what should > > be an incredible claim. Eliminate libel suits, and you've > > eliminated any presumption that because it's been spoken or > > is in print, it's likely to be correct. I didn't write this. I agree with it, though. --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."

1 0

Re: Learning time for you
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From fiction!squirrel.owl.de!mix(a)golden-gate.owl.de Wed Sep 4 03:05:08 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Wed, 04 Sep 96 06:45:37 EDT for dlv Received: from golden-gate.uni-paderborn.de by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA10409 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Wed, 4 Sep 96 03:05:08 -0400 Received: by golden-gate.owl.de (Smail3.1.28.1) from fiction with uucp id <m0uyC04-000JP6C>; Wed, 4 Sep 96 09:03 MET DST Received: by fiction.pb.owl.de id m0uyC1m-00005mC; Wed, 4 Sep 96 09:05 MET DST Return-Path: <mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 200); 4 Sep 1996 05:33:42 -0000 Date: 4 Sep 1996 05:33:42 -0000 Message-Id: <19960904053342.25462.qmail(a)squirrel.owl.de> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: Squirrel Remailer <mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> X-Comment1: This message did not originate from the X-Comment2: above address. It was automatically remailed X-Comment3: by an anonymous mail service. Please report X-Comment4: problems or inappropriate use to X-Comment5: <postmaster(a)squirrel.owl.de> Subject: Learning time for you Vulis, your comments include the following: >Comments: Dole/Kemp '96 and you have yelled about Harry Browne enough. LEARN TO SHUT UP! This is a Perrygram. Just can the constant noise for a day 'till I get back to my computer at home, where you are killfiled. Keep it down to a reasonable number of messages a day, or you will see others respond as you do.

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:33 PM 9/3/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 10:41 PM 9/3/96 -0500, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >>The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is >>unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility >>for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to >>sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like >>setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it >>prevents nothing. >> >>Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed >>making remailers illegal? > >The Leahy crypto bill introduced early this year made (paraphrasing) "the >use of encryption to thwart a law-enforcement investigation illegal." I >immediately pointed out that while this wouldn't make _encrypted_ remailers >illegal, per se, effectively it would because the moment an investigation >(even a phony or trumped-up one) is started and is "thwarted" by the >encryption used, the remailer operator became guilty of a crime. Is that true? Or is it that the individual user would be guilty of a crime? The real problem, to me, is that the remailer operator might be required to breach anonymity; cf the decision in Finland that led Julf to squash anon.penet.fi. -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: Reputations
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:40 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >And so on. Many of the debates about anonymity seem to ignore reputations, >filters, kill files. It is almost as if the critics of anonymous speech are >saying "If there is not accountability for restaurant recommendations, >we'll all be buried in garbage food." This ignores the _emergent order_ or >_evolutionary_ nature of actors in the restaurant and restaurant evaluator >market. Could be a lack of understanding of the possibility of authentication, which IMO can be necessary for 'reputation' to be viable. >Free speech is often messy. 98% of everything I read or hear is crap, to do >Sturgeon one better. But I use judgement to decide what to read, who to >listen to, and what to mostly ignore. I use _reputation_ to choose >restaurants, books, movies, speakers to listen to, etc. > >Sometimes I listen to anonymous speech, but mostly I don't. Pseudonyms take >a while to gather a "positive reputation," and some never do. This is the >way speech works. "Accountability" is a red herring. I wouldn't exactly say that...but it's more of a personal responsibility thing. Our model should be default acceptance of responsibility for words and deeds, but I see that as a personal issue, not a matter for 'enforcement.' -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:44 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >> Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you >> use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which >> removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and >> should be addressed, not evaded. > >No: The harassment is the problem, not the anonymity that makes it >possible. The harassment is one problem, the lack of accountability another. Which is not to say that 'lack of accountability' should be 'fixed' by some sort of blanket restriction...but it should be acknowledged as a problem. -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:11 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Both terms are _overloaded_, probably to the point of not even being useful >terms for this debate. Everyone comes in to the debate with their notions >of what "responsible" speech is, what "accountability" entails, etc. > >Having said this, and not knowing how your (or anyone else's) definitions >relate to mine, I simply don't agree that I have to take responsibility for >all of my speech/actions. I can think of many cases where I have elected to >use untraceable anonymity, as many others have, so those are direct >counterexamples to your point, thus disproving your "I think we'd all argue >in favor of taking responsibility" point. The semantic point is a good one, but I'd like to see an example of a situation where you don't think you should take responsibility for something you've said or done. I'm not sure whether we agree or not on that one...it could be we're coming from different dimensions... >>Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed >>making remailers illegal? >> > >By "global entity" do you mean the U.N., or the Borg? The G7 issued a >typically vague statement about cracking down on terrorist >communications...this could be construed as the beginnings of an assault on >Cypherpunkish sorts of things. Too soon to tell. Well, we all know what the Borg think. I probably should have said 'governments' rather than 'global entities.' >Within the U.S. there are few ways remailers could be shut down, in terms >of legal action. The various Supreme Court cases have been discussed many >times. My real question is whether there is a real rather than possible legislative threat that demands action now. thx jonl -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: Message Digest
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:31 AM 9/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >> I'm interested in a 256 bits (or more) message digest algorithm >> (C source is better). Any URLs ? >Try HAVAL. It is a variable one-way hash function that is apparently secure >against collisions. It should be on any of the standard crypto FTP sites. Or there's the simple "MD5(x),SHA(x)", which is 288 bits long and has the advantage that the two parts have different characteristics and have been looked at (separately) by many people, so concatenating them should be fairly strong. Or "MD5(SHA(x)),SHA(MD5(x))" if you're paranoid. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: Workers of the Web, UNITE!
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, John Doe wrote: > PLEASE TAKE ME OFF OF YOUR MAILING LIST... Never! Join us in standing up for collective rights and against corporate cyber-rapaciousness! In solidarity, Declan

1 0