December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The daily word of advice regarding Tim Mayo
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What a joy to make a public mockery of Tim Mayo!

2 1

Re: crypto anarchy vs AP
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 AM 9/23/96 -0700, Clint Barnett wrote: >>to create the appearance of as free a life style as they can for >>individuals > >ever read "1984"? the appearance of a free lifestyle is most definitely >not a free lifestyle. I am hardly a friend of the state, and far from >being an advocate of the church, but multinational corporations running >the world for their own fun and profit makes my sphincter clench. I think you're under a mis-impression here. At least in the libertarian circles where I do most of my political discussion, it is generally suspected that corporations grow large and powerful primarily BECAUSE OF assistance by and due to the policies of government. (heavy regulation favors large companies by keeping down small competitors, etc) Of course, that cause/effect relationship is intentionally hidden, and most of the public sees the show put on which appears to have the opposite effect: Anti-trust lawsuits, etc. Over time, the public is gulled into the false belief that if you get rid of the government, you get rid of the "only think that stands between us and the multi-national corporations." They believe this because the only government actions they see and recognize are anti-corporation. If they were aware of the truth, they'd realize that these large corporations are actually afraid of a free market, and that the companies consider big government to be their friends.. Just look at an excellent example: Intel versus IBM. Intel used to be this tiny upstart chip company from the Bay area and IBM was smokestack America. Now, Intel is the biggest (by dollar volume, anyway) chip company in the world and IBM is, well, considerably cut back from its heyday. At least in hindsight, IBM would have been "smart" to squash Intel, or buy it up, or have the government over-regulate it. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :(
by tank 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, We have temporary removed radikal 154 from xs4all. We did this because the german ICTF and BAW continued to stop IP-traffic to and from xs4all. They not only blocked the web-server (with more than 3100 homepages from users and compagnies) but 2 Class C-networks. The pressure was to high for both xs4all and it costumers (more than 12500 users). They were not able to mail, ftp, www in large parts of germany. The 47 mirrors of the radikal site made it possible for us to remove issue 154 from xs4all. All 47 mirrors are still accessable by german netizens. There is no filtering of traffic to these servers. The ICTF and BAW now have to deceide if they will block all ip-traffic to and from all 47 servers, or they have to stop their censoring actions. In both cases we will put the issue radikal 154 back online. We are still calling for more mirrors. The more mirrors, the more pressure on the ICTF and BAW to stop their censorship. You can get a copy of the who archive from ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming or from one of the mirror-sites. regards, henk (SPG)

1 0

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:23 PM 9/23/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> If California were to, say, ban speech critical of women's or homosexual's >> rights, would not the First Amendment trump this attempt? > >Not necessarily. > >The Supreme Court has upheld Title VII's ban on workplace "harassment." >The Court said it occured when "discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and >insult" in a workplace create an uncomfortable "working environment." > >Then there's public accomodation law, under which the (I recall) Greek >owner of a privately-operated diner was held liable for using the word >"nigger" where a black woman could overhear. Whoops! I didn't mean to intersect with "workplace" issues--I mean simple, pure, nonworkplace-related speech. To make this clearer and to separate Title VII stuff out: If California were to, say, ban speech which included the word "orange," or to ban speech which mentioned "Allah," wouldn't the First trump this attempt? As to Title VII and all that garbage, I think the First Amendment means what it says, and that there's something desperately wrong when many blacks call each other "niggers," as in "Yo, Nigga!," but nonblacks can be hit with lawsuits for letting this word slip out. By the way, I just read chunks of Ronald Dworkin's new book on the Constitution, and he makes some interesting comments on the feminist view that words hurtful to women ought to be censored...he's against such interpretations, and argues that if speech hurtful to women, or images hurtful to women, etc., are banned, then why not ban speech critical of Creationists, and speech insulting to Flat Earthers? --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."

3 3

Re: Go away CIA
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:32 PM 9/22/96 -0500, Shane Brath <sbrath(a)froglit.scitele.com> wrote: >On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Wearen Life wrote: >> I wont be suprised if they where ALSO watching who was visting your page. >But how would they go about globaly watching who goes to your URL, unless >they hack into your server and look at the log, or have a network sniffer >at a access point feeding you? 1) Spooks can do anything :-) 2) Network Solutions Inc., who runs the NIC, is run by spooks. While they don't run all the root-level domain name servers, they influence most of the US ones. It wouldn't be surprising if they can track DNS requests to the root servers, which would let them find which ISPs are looking for the addresses of which second-level domains. This isn't very informative when somebody at aol.com wants an address of compuserve.com (which will get cached at aol.com's DNS server anyway), but tells them a lot more when small-isp.com asks for skeeve.net's address, especially when they know which Usual Suspects are at small-isp.com . 3) Added-paranoia mode, for people who believed 2) :-) Suppose you've got a vanity domain name, like skeeve.net, and they really want to track you. So they hack the data in the .net nameserver to respond to requests for skeeve.net with 198.81.129.94, which tells you that www.skeeve.net is 191.127.0.42, which runs an http server that fetches the information from 203.28.52.181 that you're asking for and an SMTP relay hack that forwards the mail while keeping copies for itself. (Even if you're running SSL encrypted, it can probably still play active eavesdropper, knowing who's talking to 203.28.52.181, though it can't read the encrypted packets. If SSL is currently including IP addresses in the encrypted information to reduce spoofing, it can still at least hose the conversation.) Your ISP will cache this, so the next time somebody wants to talk to skeeve.net, it'll take care of that for them. This really doesn't work well for targets on aol.com, compuserve.com, prodigy.com, ix.netcom.com, worldnet.att.net, and uunet.net that are a bit big to filter all the traffic for, of course, but it catches most of the interesting people. 4) If they _do_ participate in the Network Access Points (e.g. fnords.net, on one of the Metropolitan Area Exchange FDDI rings, is really a CIA plant) they could probably sniff packets for people they don't have peering arrangements with. If you don't see the fnords, they won't eat your packets. If you do see the fnords, they will eat your packets, so you won't see them. This doesn't work as well for switch-based NAPs such as Big Hairy Routers or ATM switches, but ATM Virtual Circuits have fnords all over them anyway; that's why there are _5_ bytes in the header. # 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

Barlow/Taylor censorship debate
by rod＠wired.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Come join in John Perry Barlow's Brain Tennis debate (www.wired.com/braintennis/) versus CDA supporter and president of the National Law Center for Children and Families, Bruce Taylor, over government censorship and free speech. Taylor has also been a Justice lawyer and prosecutor for the city of Cleveland, where he prosecuted, among others, Larry Flint. Their debate will last from today through next Wednesday, October 2. To post, go to: http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.25733 See you there! Roderick Simpson Associate Producer Wired Online

2 1

Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:10 AM 9/24/96, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: >like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me >from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to assasination >politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's ideas. If you >don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are going to regret it >just as the left regreted having the USSR or the RAF associated with them. I for one don't respond well to extortion threats, so write your damned article. --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."

6 5

Re: Snake-Oil FAQ
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:34 PM 9/23/96 -0400, Mark Rogaski <wendigo(a)pobox.com> wrote: >I disagree, I think AC is a pretty scary book for the kind of people who >need the Snake-Oil FAQ. I think the primary target audiences are IS >professionals who are considering integrating crypto into their data >communications and end users who want to send encrypted mail. Neither Besides, it's a good excuse to bash that great purveyor of snake-oil, MicroSoft. Are there _any_ Microsoft products that have "password protection" or "encryption" features that aren't totally wimpy? Word and Excel come with stuff that might keep out your kid sister, but probably wouldn't keep out _my_ kid sister... # 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: Where to write crypto?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 AM 9/23/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >Switzerland is not the most liberal (libertarian) of countries. >Getting a work permit can be very tough. However, there are crypto >companies and research groups. Haeglin and ETH-Zurich (ETH is Swiss >Federal Institute of Technology) spring to mind. > >Adam One does not need a work permit to travel around Europe staying in various places and writing crypto. Work permits only apply to residents. DCF

2 1

Ways to deal with cops
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Way to go! >Path: ...!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!oak!zeleny >From: zeleny(a)oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) >Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,la.news,misc.legal >Subject: Man Facing Death Sentence For Killing Trespassing Cop >Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:46:21 GMT >Organization: ptyx >Lines: 62 >Message-ID: <51ul9d$21e4(a)uni.library.ucla.edu> >NNTP-Posting-Host: oak.math.ucla.edu > >Do you wonder what happens to civilians unwilling to lie down for >police abuse of power? Daniel Allan Tuffree, 49, a former high school >teacher, the testimony in whose trial ended yesterday, has been charged >with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Officer Michael Clark >13 months ago, after three warrantless police officers traipsed on his >front lawn with their guns drawn -- to check on his welfare. The case, >which is presided over by the notoriously prosecution-friendly Judge >Allan L. Steele in the Simi Valley courthouse that hosted the acquittal >of Rodney King's uniformed assailants in their first trial, will go to >the jury in early October after jury instructions are drawn and lawyers >make their closing arguments. Tuffree faces a possible death sentence. > >Clark was one of three police officers sent to Tuffree's home on >August 4, 1995, after reports that the former Chatsworth High School >teacher had been drinking alcohol, taking Valium and was possibly >suicidal. A gunfight began shortly after police walked into Tuffree's >backyard and started asking him questions, refusing his order to leave >his property. Defense attorneys have argued that Clark fired on >Tuffree first and that police acted improperly. They called expert >witnesses who testified that police should have walked away once they >realized that Tuffree was not hurt or suicidal. > >Lou Reiter, a retired Los Angeles Police Department commander, >testified that Simi Valley police officers made one mistake after >another when they came to Tuffree's home. According to Reiter's >testimony, the three police officers were working with third-hand >information when they arrived at the scene. Before taking action, >they did not devise a plan in case a confrontation occurred with >Tuffree, who was a known gun owner. And they did not announce >themselves before walking into Tuffree's backyard with their guns >drawn, all actions that could have aggravated a distraught man who >reportedly had been drinking alcohol, taking Valium and who had >stopped answering his phone. "No one had anticipated or made an >evaluation of what would happen if things didn't go right," said >Reiter, a private consultant on police procedure who was an LAPD >officer for 20 years. He also told the jury that he believed Simi >Valley Police Sergeant Anthony Anzilotti to have been negligible in >his role as the supervising officer on scene that day, testifying that >"in [his] opinion [Anzilotti] didn't supervise at all." And he said >Clark erred by not walking away from Tuffree's kitchen window once he >realized the former schoolteacher was conscious and not injured: "The >emergency is over; therefore, the right to be in his backyard is >over." > >Reiter denied the claims of two other police experts called by the >prosecution, both of whom testified that Simi Valley police officers >sent to Tuffree's house last summer had a "moral, ethical, and legal" >obligation to follow through with the request to check on Tuffree's >welfare, having no choice but to get close enough to make direct >contact with Tuffree in order to ensure that he was safe. But Reiter, >who retired from the LAPD in 1981, said that "officers always have a >choice," explaining that there are situations in which police can walk >away once they have determined that a person is safe. "There are a >lot of people in their homes that are not confronting a medical >emergency who just want to be left alone," he said. > >See http://www.latimes.com/HOME/COMMUN/NEWS/ZONE26B for more information. > >Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." >Zeleny(a)math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." >itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ(a)ptyx.com >ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

1 0