December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: ITAR financial crypto exception?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:25 PM 11/1/96 -0800, Greg Broiles quoted: >According to the "United States Munitions List", 22 CFR 121.1, Category >XIII, "Auxiliary Military Equipment": > >"Information Security Systems and equipment, cryptographic devices, >software, and components specifically designed or modified therefor" are >included in the munitions list; but not if they are > >"[s]pecially designed, developed or modified for use in machines for >banking or money transactions, and restricted to use only in such >transactions. Machines for banking or money transactions include automatic >teller machines, self-service statement printers, point of sale terminals >or equipment for the encryption of interbanking transactions." (22 CFR >121.1, Category XIII (b)(1)(ii)), > >or if they are > >"[l]imited to access control, such as automatic teller machines, >self-service statement printers or point of sale terminals, which protects >password or personal identification numbers (PIN) or similar data to prevent >unauthorized access to facilities but does not allow for encryption of >files or >text, except as directly related to the password of PIN protection." (22 >CFR 121.1, Category XIII (b)(1)(v)). I don't think either of these exclusions would cover the reference implementation of the SET protocol. I don't think it would cover an electronic commerce application running on a personal computer/workstation either. Therefore I conclude that the ITAR is contributing to the vulnerability of our emerging electronic commerce infrastructure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Tired of Dole/Clinton? | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | Vote 3rd party. I'm | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Voting for Harry Browne | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:13 AM 11/2/96 -0800, John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> wrote: >As stated by Dr. Vulis, he is no longer on the cypherpunks mailing >list, and indeed majordomo(a)toad.com HAS been instructed to ignore his >requests to resubscribe. > >I removed him, on my own initiative. I got tired of asking him to >stop stirring up flames. When he posted a message saying that we'd >have to use technical means to stop him from flaming the list, I said, >"OK". [snip] This all seems really silly to me. Are people on this list not sophisticated enough to be capable of filtering his posts if they don't like to read them? What's to stop him from using reailers or nymservers? Are you going to block them, too? By doing something like this you give him far more attention and encouragement than he deserves. It's a big mistake, IMHO. Rich

4 3

Sorry, nyt
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We were unfair to call news-reading by gatekeeper.nytimes.com of jya.com "snooping." We apologize to gatekeeper for that mischaracterization. And for disclosing here access info which should be private. The site is open to anyone, the more anonymous the better. Use anonymizer.com.

2 1

[NOISE] Re: Thank you, John Gilmore, for protecting freedom of speech against Dr. Dmitri Vulius
by darius＠hotliquid.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:45:54 -0800 John Anonymous MacDonald <nobody(a)cypherpunks.ca> wrote: > Thank you, John, for being so brave and protecting our freedom of > on-topic speech. You are a true cypherpunk. > > Thank you, Timothy C May, for advancing cryptography by posting 100% > crypto-relevant messages about loans to other countries and your > collection of assault weapons. > > John and Timothy just made the cypherpunks list better. ---------------------- Well, here's the wonderful thing about cypherpunks. It's a privately run list. There isn't freedom to flame wantonly, there isn't a 'right to insult' Vulius has plagued this list for quite some time. I'm glad he's been removed. We return you to your regularly scheduled on-topic posts. darius(a)hotliquid.com

1 0

[NOISE] Vulis, Censorship on cypherpunks & all this b.s.
by Tim Scanlon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After reading about the great moral indignation & general dispeptitude people seem to be finding over Dimitri's removal, I basicly have one response. Get a life. I mean really, the guy was (and is) freakin intolerable. He just caused major noise on the list and that's about all. The bottom line is that his removal just makes the list a more sane, less crap filled place. As for all the upset & indignation, well jesus, like you people can't find better things to get indignant about? How bout spending the same amount of time writing to your congressman about the bletcherous crypto policies being promoted by government facists? Or the same amount of time on sticking an html interface to an anon remailer in your web page... etc. It just comes across as sanctimonious and incredibly irrelivant b.s. for people to be "upset" in any way over some nitwit being jerked off the list after he's been given far, far, more reasonable alternatives than to act the way he had been. Tim

1 0

No - Re: www.anonymizer.com down?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:02 PM 11/2/96 -0800, iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) wrote: >I would, but it seems to be unavailable. There is currently no response >on www.anonymizer.com:8080. I just tried it, and it's very slow, and asks for cookies, but it works. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk Imagine if three million people voted for somebody they _knew_, and the politicians had to count them all.

1 0

Re: Unix User Password File Encryption
by Three Blind Mice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Erp wrote: > Compare the outcomed encryptions -- And find a pattern in them.. Now in There is the flaw in this logic. If you do find a pattern, then this means that the algorithm is *BROKEN*. --3bmice

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by Computer Virus Help Desk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:34 AM 11/2/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 02:13 AM 11/2/96 -0800, John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> wrote: >>As stated by Dr. Vulis, he is no longer on the cypherpunks mailing >>list, and indeed majordomo(a)toad.com HAS been instructed to ignore his >>requests to resubscribe. >>I removed him, on my own initiative. I got tired of asking him to >>stop stirring up flames. When he posted a message saying that we'd >>have to use technical means to stop him from flaming the list, I said, >>"OK". >[snip] >This all seems really silly to me. >Are people on this list not sophisticated enough to be capable of filtering >his posts if they don't like to read them? > >What's to stop him from using reailers or nymservers? Are you going to >block them, too? > >By doing something like this you give him far more attention and >encouragement than he deserves. It's a big mistake, IMHO. >Rich Well put! I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this list. Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive filtering capability of Eudora. I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me. We have become what we fear the most. How prophetic and pathetic. I agree.... a very BIG mistake, indeed....

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Will French 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It's only authoritarianism if the government is involved. > Clearly, the government isn't involved in this matter. Until now, I'd considered the list as a model of a libertarian society, with the listowner as the government. My point is that if a mailing list (where physical force is generally not a factor) can't be run without arbitrary sanctions against members, how could anyone ever hope for a whole society, with a real, gun-toting government, to run that way? Will French <wfrench(a)interport.net>

4 4

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:52 PM 11/2/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: >On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote: > >> Are people on this list not sophisticated enough to be capable >> of filtering his posts if they don't like to read them? > >The short answer is, No. More specifically, we constantly have >a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks. Some are >technically sophisticated; some are not. I am guessing that people who come to read cpunks are probably more likely to have a grasp of filtering technologies than the average Net newbie. I may be mistaken. >In either case, new >readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for >Dimitri's big lies. Is telling the truth a requirement for participating on the list? ;) How about posting a mini-FAQ about Dimitri or something? Responding to speech you dislike with more speech? >Nor do they have any way of know what an >abberation his sort of behavior is on this list. I think you underestimate people's ability to evaluate the situation. You mean well, but this type of paternal, well-meaning censorship is censorship nonetheless. (I know this isn't censorship in the strictest definition of the term, as in government restriction of speech, but I'd like to see us err on the side of keeping the forum as open as possible. YMMV.) >"So this is >what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable >misinterpretation of what we're all about. Judging any Usenet newsgroup or mailing list based on it's kookiest member could produce the same result. I'm relying on people to be able to pick a kook out of a crowd. Would you prefer that the representation that people get of Cypherpunks be of a group that kicks people off the list who disturb them? Are Cypherpunks that thin-skinned? I have never been forced to read one of the KOTM's messages -- it has always been my choice to. After the last Bernstein hearing, Tim and I ended up at the same table for lunch, along with two other people. The four of us began discussing Scientology, and partway through the conversation I realized that the Tim I was talking with was Tim May, and that we had already covered some of the same ground on this list. Tim was very persuasive in his view that the Scientologists should be given the widest latitude to spread their views, and that their right to speak be guaranteed. While I consider myself a free speech advocate, I am not an absolutist, and I loathe the CoS leadership. I was much more equivocal about their rights. As the conversation went on, I found my self more and more drawn in by Tim's arguments, as they were very much in line with my feelings on other speech-related issues. I found his points very persuasive, and they have had a lasting impact on my view of the situation, and my posts to alt.religion.scientology. I find it ironic to see someone kicked off a list for bad-mouthing Tim, who I found to be a very eloquent defender of free speech. > What John did was >appropriate. I still think it's a big mistake. How can you really keep him off the list? Limit posting to subscribers? Ban remailers and nym accounts? Don't you think he'll try to make himself a martyr; a victim? Will that make Cypherpunks look better? Rich

1 0