December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Scandinavian Goverments provide PGP to postal customers...
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:50 PM 1/25/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>Interesting piece of trivia: I recently talked with a fellow from Intel. They are looking to purchase keyboards with smartcard readers built in. They hope to get them at $30/piece from suppliers in Asia. The lot size? 10 million. > > >I suppose this is good news. I just hope they implement a system, like >Chaum's low-knowledge/zero-knowledge systems, which make it difficult or >impossible for snoops or tampered hardware to leak useful information. I understand that Intel's main problem at this time seem to be to find a keyboard manufacturer that understands that for the device to be effective, the CPU should not be involved in its operation. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Remember too those ads for male sexual lubricants - you cannot use > > a condom with those lubricants. Safe sex, I don't think so. > That does not come close to a theory that would explain HIV away. The virus I believe is best explained by the numerous articles that were published in the 1970's on "gene splicing", and the fact that we now have two certified (official) government requests on paper that call for the development of an agent precisely like HIV, which were in fact funded. One was requested in 1979 (I think) by someone representing the Ft. Detrick folks ($10 million), and the other request was formally made by the World Health Organization. Why would the WHO want to develop a nasty bug like HIV? Use your imagination. Does the virus actually cause the immune collapse? That's still controversial, from what I hear. Try to find some of the material by Jakob Segal, who is heavily suppressed in the USA. Also check out Jon Rappaport (who also did some excellent on-the-spot interviews in OKC after the bombing), also Dr. Robert Strecker, whose brother was murdered trying to investigate the political threads of the origins of AIDS/HIV. > > In October 1959, after lapsing into a coma from a massive sinus > > infection, I was given "a million units of penicillin" in the > > children's hospital when first admitted. I recovered OK after > > two weeks, so I'm certainly not opposed to antibiotics for those > > who really need them. OTOH, our U.S. economy today is antibiotic- > > and-hormone crazy, injecting cows, pigs, and chickens to name a few > > animals, all in the hopes of raising production. So why is the rate > > of cancer going up so high? It seems nearly everyone I know is > > getting this degenerate disease when they get older. Check out the > > videos by Howard Lyman, who used to be a big-time "chemical" farmer. > > One quote: "My soil after a few years was like asbestos". > > As far as I understand, 1) no one really understands why cancer rates > are up so much and 2) since people live longer, they are more likely do > have cancer. True if all other things are equal. Try subtracting out some of the cancer factors, and perhaps they'd die of something else. > What you said is one of the hypotheses. I personally feel that > environment and bad greasy food are other major contributors. The > way they cook all these fries, with overheated grease, is very bad. Try an interesting experiment. Get an ordinary hamburger at McDonald's. Take the "meat" out of the bun and break it in half, then hold the broken edge up to your nose. It helps to have good sense of smell, but you'll probably get the picture anyway.

1 0

Cellular phone triangulation
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark M. wrote: > I wonder how expensive it would be to put a GPS receiver in a cell phone and > have the option to transmit the coordinates on a separate channel. There > would be little difference between this and forcing cell phone companies to > triangulate every call. > The primary motivation for this is almost certainly > "location escrow" to make it easier for the feds to track drug dealers. Replace the words 'drug dealers' with the words 'everyone', and I think this becomes not only a correct statement, but a very revealing one. It doesn't matter whether the subject is crypto, cell phones, or any communications item or issue, the 'answer' to the proclaimed 'problem', according to the government, is to increase the government's ability to monitor every citizen, everywhere, at any time. Our prisons are overflowing with drug dealers and drug users who were put there by quite ordinary means which didn't involve violating or discarding the rights of the ordinary citizen. Yet we keep hearing cries from the government for the desperate need to infringe on the citizen's right to freedom and privacy, again and again, in order to jail the guys who were supposed to be jailed by the 'last' infringement on the average citizen (and the one before that). So far, as a result of the plethora of laws passed to enable law enforcement agencies to 'catch drug dealers', I have seen only a few minor criminals who are claimed to have been brought to justice as a result of these laws, while seeing documentation of hundreds and thousands of ordinary citizens being harassed and having their human rights violated by these same laws. And still, we have people like Mark, who seem relatively intelligent and informed but who still echo the party-line of Big Brother when He proclaims that the average citizen must be subjected to new and better ways to monitor the movements and activities of His citizens in order to 'protect' them from 'drug dealers'. I am certain that the issues (and the debates about them) will be the same as today, when the dawn finally comes where we hear the announcement about the plans for identity-chip body-implants. I am sure that the government will tell us that our privacy and rights will be protected by the Key Escrow encryption in the identity-chip which will only be compromised for the purpose of catching 'drug dealers' and other 'scum'. I am sure that the statement above will be pooh-paah'd by many as an example of reactionary-paranoid thinking, but the same could be said for all of the rights and privacy-infringing realities that we currently live under. (Like having to provide samples of bodily fluids to keep your job as a janitor--in case you've been dipping into the coke stash of the CEO, who does 'not' have to piss in a jar.) Five years from now, you may well be wearing an identity-anklet at work (to combat employee-theft, etc.) and still laughing at my ludicrous example of body-implant identity-chips. ("It's not like they make us wear them at home, they are just for protecting us from unfair firing by our employer.") Ten years from now, you may be wearing your identity-anklet at home, and still laughing about the idiot who predicted body-implant identity-chips. ("It's no trouble wearing it at home, especially if it helps catch those damn 'drug dealers'. They are the only ones who leave their house during the curfew hours, anyway.") A couple years after that, you will welcome the government announcement that they have found a solution to the 'problem' of having to wear the identity-anklet all of the time--the new, improved, identity-chip solution--the body-implant ID-chip. Naturally, you will pooh-paah the naysayers who claim that the body-implant chip will eventually have the capacity to read your mind. ("The guy saying that is the same idiot who predicted that we would all be wearing body-implant identity-chips... "Well, OK, that's a bad example, but...") You can fight the increasing hi-tech machinations of Big Brother to control our actions, movements, and our thoughts, but it will cost an increasing amount of time and effort to do so. Not to mention larger and larger amounts of money. But, maybe if you became a 'drug dealer'... Toto

3 2

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199701260712.XAA10405(a)toad.com>, on 01/25/97 at 11:03 PM, Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> said: + I fail to see how any supposedly intelligent members of the +CypherPunks list can possibly be content to fall for the line, + "Bend over, baby. I'm only going to moderate you 'a little bit'." attila sez: no matter if one perceives the "need" for a moderator or not, I find it hard to accept --even to eliminate the grossly obscene attacks by a few members against other members. I wonder if we need a 'childish' excluder? I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames: personal attacks? profanity? politically [in]correct speach? historical revisionism? and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?" unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that a) net anarchy does not work b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy c) we're loose cannons on the deck d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect and this can go on and on and on... But, the minute we, as a group, start to tell other members of the group to 'clean up your act' we are violating the principal "ethic" which we claim: freedom. sure, we can claim we are entitled to total libertarianism, or anarchy; but there is a responsibility to create a workable, cooperative social order, if for no other reason than protecting us in the wilderness, or feeding us, or clothing us. anyone here wish to return to survivalist modes of a head of household 200 years ago? we can have pure communism, the LDS Brotherhood, the Shaker house, or even true anarchy where you may do anything you wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights or property of another. --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' and 'police?' when basic human ambition to better oneself is literally killed... good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday when you start and finish the onerous task! == "you may not be next, you may not be last, but you are too late to have been first. --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMusMbr04kQrCC2kFAQFXYgP/aK2vEs0skEaYNbwWiDXS+GcYKIRJ52/c y87akjVm/d1U+LDheHN0cvFxHiMCNRCIJKKa7hHNr3AYDXzJtehthP/pi+L5NPTD kYY58tUFy0p/t0hN4vze4i0wnxkymAVCnIVNkfGyAGwXytCxCmPUCHcV5ZzlYcI+ jrXv2nuBsos= =ZTbB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Re: Corelation
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > Has anyone actually 'seen' John Gilmore, lately? Since there > have been a number of postings indicating that the writer > 'used to respect' Gilmore, I am wondering if perhaps this > moderation experiment is not actually an attempt by someone > to discredit him. Well I saw John last night at the C2Net party, but I guess that's not much reassurance. :-) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis- > > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems. > Why do they take antibiotics? Just curious. Both male homosexuals and IV drug-users have always suffered from an inordinate amount of infections, etc., because they are engaging in physical behavior that Mother Nature had not anticipated, since the behavior fulfills more of a psychological need than a physical one. Perhaps Mother Nature is homophobic and anti-drug, but, at any rate, she did not design the butt-hole to allow virus-free insertion of outside objects, nor blood-veins to be pierced regularly in order to insert condensed chemical combinations. As a result, those who engage in these behaviors have always had to deal with the physical effects which result from Nature's 'error'. IV drug users have always had high incidences of jaundice, etc., while male homosexuals have had to contend with various forms of venereal disease, etc. In both cases, they end up in a continuing cycle of antibiotic use. > Also, I haven't heard that antibiotics were bad for immune system, > has that been proven? There has been great concern raised among those in the medical profession regarding the end-effects of their wholesale prescribing of anitbiotics for colds, aches and pains, etc., leading to the development of new strains of virus which are immune to the older antibiotics. This leads to development of stronger (misused) antibiotics, which then leads to stronger strains of virus. There have been a number of studies which point to the fact that the human immune system is now caught in a battle between increasingly potent virus and antibiotics and is losing its capacity to fight its 'natural' enemies. Humans tend to base their 'judgements' on psychological critera. Thus someone who puts a quart of scotch in their system every day can turn around and call someone who is putting outside objects into their butt-hole a 'pervert' who is doing 'unnatural' things to their body. Personally, I prefer to kill two birds with one stone, so I put a quart of scotch up my butt-hole every day. Toto > - Igor.

1 0

Ultimate Flames List
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis- > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems. It > suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated > or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a > healthy person can get it from the virii alone. It has been suggested that disease is merely an attempt by Nature to 'moderate' the species. One could make a strong case for Nature merely 'sorting' individuals into physical lists, one of which is her own 'flames' list. It remains to be seen whether Nature also plans on dropping the 'flames' list after her moderation experiment is over. Toto

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dale's hypothesis seems at odds with the linkage of aids and blood > > transfusion and transmission through needles. > > Nurses who contract aids through contaminated needles do not, > > normally, have devastated immune systems. > It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab > with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses > go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also > (on average) drug users extraordinaire. Nurses have free access to all types of antibiotics and high-inducing drugs, and a good many of them are regular users of both. Hospitals are notoriously bad places for healthy people to go, as many go in with little diseases and come out with big diseases (for which they are often re-hospitalized). Also, outward appearances rarely have a whole lot to do with indications of a superior auto-immune system. Plants have been bred to 'look pretty' for the consumer, so we now have unblemished food stuffs which require huge applications of poisonous chemicals in order to survive, because they have lost their natural ability to defend themselves against even ordinary plant pests and diseases. Toto

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199701260712.XAA10405(a)toad.com>, on 01/25/97 at 11:03 PM, Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> said: + I fail to see how any supposedly intelligent members of the +CypherPunks list can possibly be content to fall for the line, + "Bend over, baby. I'm only going to moderate you 'a little bit'." attila sez: no matter if one perceives the "need" for a moderator or not, I find it hard to accept --even to eliminate the grossly obscene attacks by a few members against other members. I wonder if we need a 'childish' excluder? I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames: personal attacks? profanity? politically [in]correct speach? historical revisionism? and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?" unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that a) net anarchy does not work b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy c) we're loose cannons on the deck d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect and this can go on and on and on... But, the minute we, as a group, start to tell other members of the group to 'clean up your act' we are violating the principal "ethic" which we claim: freedom. sure, we can claim we are entitled to total libertarianism, or anarchy; but there is a responsibility to create a workable, cooperative social order, if for no other reason than protecting us in the wilderness, or feeding us, or clothing us. anyone here wish to return to survivalist modes of a head of household 200 years ago? we can have pure communism, the LDS Brotherhood, the Shaker house, or even true anarchy where you may do anything you wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights or property of another. --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' and 'police?' when basic human ambition to better oneself is literally killed... good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday when you start and finish the onerous task! == "you may not be next, you may not be last, but you are too late to have been first. --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMusMbr04kQrCC2kFAQFXYgP/aK2vEs0skEaYNbwWiDXS+GcYKIRJ52/c y87akjVm/d1U+LDheHN0cvFxHiMCNRCIJKKa7hHNr3AYDXzJtehthP/pi+L5NPTD kYY58tUFy0p/t0hN4vze4i0wnxkymAVCnIVNkfGyAGwXytCxCmPUCHcV5ZzlYcI+ jrXv2nuBsos= =ZTbB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto and Jim Choate were having a little disagreement about the rights of nations to maintain the boundaries of ignorance around their "citizenry", and Jim said that no one outside a nation's boundaries should feel moved to interfere with the program: > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. ............................................................ Normally, I would agree that people who choose to live within a certain locale and choose the kind of government that they will live with and the kind of policies that they will accept as impositions upon their lives, should be allowed to "enjoy the fruits of their labors". But on further examination of the situation in 'foreign' countries, these things must be realized: . Individuals do not agree with each other 100% . Individuals living within the boundaries of a nation will not agree with each other 100% about the kind of government they should have . Many of the individuals living within the boundaries of *any* nation do not have 100% control over which policies, or the quality of them, they will have to live under . It is not uncommon for "leaders" of nations to take advantage of their position to benefit more from the contributions of their citizenry than vice versa (the citizenry benefitting from their leadership) . It is not uncommon for there to be proportionately more people in favor of living in a state of dependence than not; and it is not uncommon for those who favor dependence to favor proposals which seem to put them on the receiving end of "benefits" (versus being contributors); and it is not uncommon for these "benefits" to be derived at the expense of such virtues as freedom and liberty . Many individuals reside within a nation not because they favor its po litics, but because they feel more comfortable among their own kind than with strangers elsewhere - for example, Chinese who have lived in China all their lives (and whose ancestral roots are there) will wish to stay there and do what they can within the boundaries of that nation, rather than for instance moving to Canada, when the going gets rough. Given these things, nevertheless it is true that the internet , among other events in our "modern" world, is opening up avenues towards advantages and benefits hitherto difficult to comeby. As many of you are aware, many people are beginning to identify with a global network of friends and co-workers according to their particular (or peculiar) interests, rather than with the "Old Order". It is becoming moot what nationality or what government or what company one works for - the loyalties of the past are being tested and re-configured in the minds of those who now do business and communicate and share things and develop friendships, acquaintances, and empathies, on the net. So to speak of "having a say" on how Singapore or China or any other nation-state runs "our web" or vice versa "us" having a say on how they run "their web" is becoming irrelevant. Economics will be determining how the web is run, and by whom. The identity of those who use it will be not "those who are citizens of Singapore", but: "my friend who lives in Singapore and is having a hard time accessing a file that I wanted him/her to have". Affiliations will be seen differently by those who connect in cyberspace, and if certain of one's cyberspace friends are having problems - if, say, a Hitler were to suddenly rise up in their midst - then the netizens could send their emergency alert out to anyone and everyone on the net about a problem brewing which perhaps someone could help them deal with, according to their ability to do so. It is true that individuals still live within the physical boundaries of "nations" which have formed in the past, and they still hold the concepts of these boundaries in their minds and they still identify closely with these, and they still vote problems upon themselves. But it is becoming an anachronism, and it is becoming inaccurate to speak of "what Singaporians want for the internet". This phrase would describe many of those who live in Singapore, but not all of them. It is more accurate to speak of what "individuals who use the internet" want, of what "individuals who want to communicate" want, of what "individuals who want to connect with others" want. The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those who would take it away". .. Blanc

2 1