December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: WHO IS MAKING A MOCKERY OF WHOM?
by Marc J. Wohler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:55 PM 9/24/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 06:15 AM 9/24/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > >>C'punks, >>Time for another informal poll. >> >>On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote: >>> What a joy to make a public mockery of Tim Mayo! >> >>Do list members think Anonymous' posts make a public mockery of >>Tim May or Anonymous? Let me know whose reputation you think >>is enhanced or tarnished by these posts. I'll post a summary to >>the list in a week or two. > I vote for Anonymous. Also, it seems evident that some non-anonymous posters aka KTOM seem to understand how to *abuse* our American freedom's but don't understand about *responsible* use. Is this a deliberate attempt to damage this list or is it that some folk just can't handle freedom? M. J. Wohler

2 1

PEA_nut
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-25-96. WaJo reports on yesterday's suit challenging Georgia's crackerdown on the Internet, including its prohibition of anonymity. Ms. Dyson avidly supports anon, it lies. --------- http://jya.com/peanut.txt PEA_nut

1 0

Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 25 Sep 96 at 5:59, Brian Davis wrote: > I disagree that that will be the response, but you should be willing > to allow one group of people to fight fire with fire. But generally, it has been found a much better solution to fight fire with water, and this is why I am not convinced of the ideological effectiveness of AP, although I don't doubt it's operationnal effectiveness at all. I will take that sentence only slightly out-of-(specific)-context and make a still pertinent remark about it: This is *exactly* what Jim Bell, because of his opinions, envision to do with the AP system. I find that absolutely hilarious! jfa Please reply by e-mail since I am not on Cypherpunks anymore.

4 3

Re: reputation, e.g. www.ffly.com (was: Not reputation again! (Was: The Nature ofthe Cypherpunks List) )
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As Bryce addressed this to me as the primary recipient, I have to assume he's ascribing these ideas to me. At 12:19 PM 9/25/96, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >It's silly to conflate ratings of people with ratings of >people's opinions with ratings of people's ratings of etc. > > >Some of the people I work with have awful opinions on politics, >other people, music, movies, books, and food, but great opinions >on computer hardware, algorithms and programming languages. ... I never said there is going to be a simple scalar rating. In my last major post on this, several weeks ago, I even elaborated, saying that even Alice's rating of Bob, for example, would have multiple components, such as her rating of his taste in movies, his taste in restaurants, his political beliefs, his technical expertise, etc. This area is complicated enough to talk about with oversimplifying-and-then-critiqueing. These are usually called "straw man" arguments. --Tim 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: Esther Dyson and anonymity
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're right, I was too mindlessly rantish about Esther Dyson's WSJ comments. However, I bought Esther a bottle of champagne in NYC a few days ago, sent it to her table signed "An Admiring Cypherpunk." She came over to say hello, and we chatted a a bit about her recent messages on Cypherpunks, which I complimented her for posting. She still doesn't know my name, I said I was "Anonymous." She grinned and staggered away. The champagne brought her over to the side of Anonymous, that's it. AYA

1 0

Re: unsubscibe
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:00 PM 9/25/96, Chip Mefford wrote: >unsubscibe "unsubscibe" is not a word. Nor is "unsuscrive," or "unscrive." Send the correct word to the correct address, stated often here, and you will be unsubscribed. --Tim May (Hint: majordomo(a)toad.com, with message body of "unsubscribe cypherpunks" (no quotes)) 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

Feds trying to stop judicial review of Commerce Dept export controls
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[They appear to be trying to transfer all the export controls from the State Dept to the Commerce Dept -- including all the unconstitutional and heavy-handed parts. -- John] Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:34:23 -0400 From: <djw(a)cdt.org> (Daniel J. Weitzner) Memorandum To: Interested Parties Re: Proposed Amendments to Preclude Judicial Review in the Export Administration Act of 1996 (H.R. 361) Date: September 25, 1996 Failed U.S. encryption export controls continue to threaten Internet security, individual privacy, and the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Proposed amendments to H.R. 361, The Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1996 (see attached), would make this problem worse by preventing judicial review of Commerce Department export control decisions, and should be defeated. These Amendments: * Would further entrench a failed U.S. encryption policy * Would provide extraordinary relief that is unjustified, and would shift the balance of power in the ongoing public debate over Internet security. * Will prevent judicial review of a broad area of public policy affecting the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. * Are inappropriate legislative meddling in ongoing controversies * Are unnecessary as the EAA already contains strict judicial review provisions. On balance, the Amendments would shelter the highly sensitive area of Internet security from much-needed judicial scrutiny . The Amendments are inappropriate, unjustified, and should not be approved. The Amendments entrench a failed U.S. encryption policy -- Administration export regulation of encryption keep U.S. computer users from protecting their privacy online and damage the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Three active cases in Federal Court are challenging these export controls. Three bills have been proposed in this session of Congress with bipartisan support to address what many believe to be the inappropriate application of export controls to encryption exports. The Amendments would further entrench these controversial regulations by sheltering them from much-needed judicial scrutiny. The Amendments provide extraordinary, unjustified relief -- The Amendments would preclude all judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, including challenges to arbitrary and capricious rule-making or improper statutory interpretation. They would extend the already limited judicial review provisions in the original EAA and H.R.361 to preclude nearly all substantive review. Congress has made no findings that would suggest that such unusual relief is warranted. Typically, relief from judicial review might be granted in areas where excessive or inappropriate litigation is feared in areas that Congress feels are well-settled. Such is not the case here. The problem with encryption export controls has not been too much litigation. The Amendments prevent judicial review of decisions that implicate First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights -- Export controls have been the Administration's exclusive vehicle for the its key escrow encryption proposals -- which have a grave impact on American's First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment right. The Amendments would thus preclude judicial review in an area broadly affecting the rights of individuals and the growth of a new medium. The Amendments will likely interfere with important cases and controversies -- These Amendments would raise a serious impediment to those seeking judicial relief from what many believe to be unfair encryption export control policies. Judicial review provisions in the EAA and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) were the basis for a federal judge's recent dismissal of a challenge to the encryption export controls. The EAA provisions will soon take on added significance as it is widely believed that the Administration will shift jurisdiction over encryption export controls from the State Department to the Commerce Department in the near future. The Amendments are unnecessary -- H.R. 361 as passed by the House already contains significant judicial review limitations. The bill already provides unusual constraints -- on both subject matter and venue -- for challenges to Commerce decision-making under the Act. There is little to indicate that the further extraordinary relief of these Amendments is required. * * * * * Encryption export controls represent an area where it is widely believed that the Administration is abusing its discretion in order to use powerful export regulations to influence the domestic market for and use of important technologies. Without recourse in the Executive Branch -- or in Congress this session -- concerned parties have been forced to turn to the courts. It is in just such a critical area where parties are most in need of judicial review. The Amendments suggested would serve to deny individuals and companies their much-needed day in court, have not been justified, and should not be approved. For more information, please contact: Daniel Weitzner, Deputy Director <djw(a)cdt.org> Alan Davidson, Staff Counsel <abd(a)cdt.org> Center for Democracy and Technology (202) 637-9800 Amendments to The Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1996 (H.R. 361) 1. Amendment to Section 112 (Administrative and Judicial Review) Text: On page 125, at line 17 in Section 112, insert: "The provisions of this section shall constitute the exclusive basis for judicial review of any agency action taken pursuant to this title and the regulations promulgated thereunder." On page 126, at line 1 in Section 112(a)(2), insert "only" between "reviewed" and "by appeal". On page 126, at line 3 in Section 112(a)(2), insert "and only" between "Circuit," and "to the extent". On page 126, at line 6 in Section 112(a)(2)(A), strike (A) and replace as follows: "(A) regulations fail to provide for procedures required by this title;". On page 126, at line 12 in Section 112(a)(2)(B), insert "procedural requirements of" between "violates" and "this title;". On page 127, at line 5 in Section 112(a)(2)(H), insert "procedural" between "with the" and "requirements". On page 127, at line 7, add a new paragraph (3) to Section 112(a) as follows: "Preclusion of Review. -- Substantive decisions of the Secretary and other officials on (i) whether to impose, expand, or extend export controls on any commodity or technology, (ii) whether and how to revise the Commodity Control Index, (iii) whether and under what conditions to grant, deny, or modify any export license, and (iv) any other questions of law or fact under this title (except as otherwise provided in subsections (b)-(d) of this section), shall be final and conclusive and no court shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise." ============================================================================ Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Director <djw(a)cdt.org> Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.9800 (v) 1634 Eye St., NW Suite 1100 202-637.0968 (f) Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org/ * PROTECT THE INTERNET AND THE FUTURE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE INFORMATION AGE * Join the legal challenge against the Communications Decency Act! For More Information, Visit the CIEC Web Page http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ or email <ciec-info(a)cdt.org>

1 0

No Subject
by Craig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject Line: Infowar.Com > ---- D I S T R I B U T E W I D E L Y ---- > >WWW.InfoWar.Com is now open. > >The Definitive WWW site for Information Warfare & Information Security. Created and managed by Winn Schwartau, Infowar.Com is designed to be "The" place to be seen and be heard. Be seen. Be linked. Our goal: To be a clearinghouse for all IW and InfoSec. > >News. Infowar. Articles. Discussions. The Latest. Experts. Reviews. Opinion. >Civil Defense. Info-Security. Controversy. Privacy. Crypto. Chats. List-servers. >Espionage. Military. C4I. Civil Defense. Global. > >Be seen. Be heard. Globally. Dynamic. New. Interactive. > >Yes, we're starting off small - manageable, but within a few short months look >at what we will have - on-line, bringing in tens of thousands of infosecurity >and information professionals. With your help, we'll be everything you want us >to be. > >* Timely Articles and Commentaries >* Military/Government infowar treatises hot off the press >* News that concerns you - As it Happens! >* Infowar.Com List Server and Private Discussion Groups (to begin with) > Infowar > Civil Defense > Terrorism > OSCINT > Hacking >* Over 600MB of on-line utilities for the Net >* On-Line Searches for Infowar and Infosec >* The Infowar and Infosec Papers That Set Standards >* Press Releases >* What's New!?! >* Audio Conferences >* Video Conference >* Specifications and Standards >* Product and Company Listings - Worldwide >* Contracts and Bids >* Specifications >* New papers and reports in all areas of Infowar >* Extensive International participation >* Compilations of the Best of Infowar and Infosec >* Hundreds of Security Utilities >* Over 50 different encryption tools >* User customized search engines for the entire site >* Interactive Infowar-Chat lines >* Who's Who of Infowar and Info-Sec >* Gigs and gigs . . . . >* And more . . . stuff we won't even tell our mothers about . . . yet . . > >We've always been interactive minded and we will count upon our users and >sponsors to guide us to provide better and better service. But, we will not >react to editorial extortion, either. <G> We have made our reputation on >brutal honesty and opinion and we will keep it. Might lose an advertiser from >time to time, but those is the breaks. > >We hope to see you there, contributing, interacting, discussing, commenting, >posting and contributing. Contributions: betty(a)infowar.com or webwarrior(a)infowar.com All submissions are gratefully accepted however, will be reviewed for relevance and content prior to being published. IF - you hear something hot...see something hot..... be a good Warrior and call Betty at 813-367-7277 and leave a message that you have e-mailed the info. That way we can be sure to look for it and get it out on distribution. You want to add some Warriors to our ListServ: betty(a)infowar.com or webwarrior(a)infowar.com > >If you happen to be interested in Infowar.Com Sponsorship opportunities, please give us a ring: Our rates are very competetive.... and get on the bandwagon so we can *lock-in the rate. > >Betty(a)Infowar.com >or call >813.367.7277 > >Thank You > >Winn Schwartau >and the terrific folks at >Infowar.Com > Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc. > Information Warfare and InfoSec > V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361 > Http://www.infowar.com > Winn(a)infowar.com >

2 1

Re: Anonymous Mail at US Post
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:45 AM 9/25/96, Greg Kucharo wrote: >I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but I was mailing letters >in the "out front" boxes the other day when I noticed a sign. The sign >said that all packages 16 ounces or over had to be taken inside for >disposal into the mail slot. The obvious explanation being that even >though you can abstain from marking a return address, the postal >inspectors would like a nice photo of you with your mail. Yes, this was the chief topic of discussion here a few weeks ago. :-} One of the serious downsides of someone filtering out messages is that all 1400 of us then see the same topics presented again. (This is more serious when people are forwarding long articles or press releases, with sometimes half a dozen copies being received on the list.) --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: Rutgers DIMACS Dist. Trust Workshop
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone who's registered for next week's conference at Rutgers gotten any sort of confirmation? I've been trying for days to do so, and though I've sent mail and called I haven't managed to get hold of anyone who can tell me anything. (And now they seem to not answer the phone at all; I think they got a bigger response than they expected.) -- ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!

1 0