December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >> Stephen Boursy wrote, along with a horde of others with no lives: >> [lots of worthless crap snipped out] >> > None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list. >> > When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered >> > a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem >> > here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. > > Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis. In this case, I'd quote a poet who said "I am not sorry for the poets who were left without an audience, I am sorry for the audiences who were left without any poets". I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many accounts he has lost". For two reasons: (1) As I read Mr. Boursy's postings, I see no indication that he is either deranged, or evil, or lacking sanity or maturity. If he had these qualities, they'd sooner or later show up inside the F-K list, to which I subscribe for several months (nearly a year?). (2) The situation inside the "less official" side of thje Internet, at the moment (aka mailing lists) is so notoriously repressive that perhaps a _minority_ of mailing lists do not indulge in so-called "forcible unsubscriptions". E.g. what about the "Orgonomy mailing list" kicked out an eloquent critic of its owner (Dr. Demeo) (can find all names and details if you like) just because he opposed Dr. Demeo's "experiments" in an Israeli desert which (allegedly, according to the critic) resulted in people's deaths. I mention this case, because I was present there, and because (just like the "Cypherpunks" list) it was directly or indirectly related to issues of Freedom ("Orgonomy" being the "Alternative Psychology" of a rather unconventional thinker called Wilhelm Reich who died in an American jail after the McCarthian State framed him). > Ignore him. It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks list for instance). Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... This was my objection also inside the F-K list, for _some_ of the postings in the past, but none of these postings was connected with acts of censorship, or with "sweeping generalisations" without evidence. On several occasions that I searched and found who or what they were talking about, I discovered they were talking about people whose activities were indeed horrifying (forged cancellations etc) and who also fought back. But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might avoid. First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis. Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy. Then... When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me. (You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-( Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-) George Stathis

3 2

Crypto Bounties: Another Thought that crossed my mind.
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here we go again: There are is a lot of software that we would all like to see developed and deployed right? There are a lot of people out there who write code, sometimes even freely redistributable code, but they have to eat, and get their net access right? Well, I was thinking, what if a "Crypto Software Bounty Server" were set up, so that someone could propose a tool that they would like to see, along with an initial bounty. Others could contribute toward that bounty (anonymously if they wish) until either the tool was delivered. The original issuer sets standards for the software (i.e. "easy to use interface to mixmaster remailers for Macintosh", then must define easy to use; Software considered delivered when in [alpha beta late-beta &etc.]). The first to present software meeting these qualifications gets the bounty, with the caviate that the software must be either gnu-copylefted, or some similar "free use" copyright, after all, "The Net" paid for it... Some of the problems (and potential solutions) I can think of in this: 1) Refusing to honor the contract--Maybe when a project is proposed, some other people (for a small percentage of the total) sign on as judges. When they feel that it reached the stated goal, then it is done. -Or- Money put up is non-refundable, and the bounty stays in the "bank" until claimed. 2) If the money stays in the bank until claimed, people might not put up that much (or enough) to make a specific project worthwile-- This could be solved by allowing the "bounty" to lapse in one of 3 ways: A) <x> length of time after the initial proposal (bad because i) someone could already be working on it; ii) bad because other people might add to the bounty, so a potential programmer might not start until the "pot" has grown to a certain level. B) <x> length of time after the last addition to the bounty, bad for both i & ii above. These can both be gotten around (and other problems) by allowing programmers to "register" with the service that they are working on a project (either anonymous registery, so that people will still contribute to the project, or list those registered so that people know [if who] someone is working on it) 3) Funding: The server (in both the machine and the organizational sense) could be funded by: A) Interest on the money accumulated. B) A percentage of the bounty (say 10%) C) Both A & B. Has anything like this been proposed before? I know that the FSF (IIRC) accepts contributions, but I am thinking of something more targeted, more "market driven" if you will. This could be expanded to non-crypto software as well, just think, if half the X Window users ponied up $5 a peice for a "good, easy to use non-motif word processor", how long do you think it would take for someone to start coding a MS Word killer? Comments? Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

~~~ F.Y.I. ~~~
by ReplyOnly＠ByMail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend, The Only Internet Book you will ever Need.... So you're on the Internet, but don't know what to do, where to go, or how to do it. This EXCITING 175 page, 14 chapter, E-Book will cover everything from the World Wide Web, Veronica, IRC Clients, Gopher, Telnet, Advanced Email, and how to set up your own electronic store front. Whether you're a veteran on the net or have just begun, there is something to LEARN from "Your Personal Guide to the Internet". The Internet is growing daily and it is quickly becoming the wave of the future. Have you ever wondered what people are talking about when they mention FTP or client-server protocol? Has it made you feel left out when you didn't understand their lingo? Everyone knows that KNOWLEDGE is POWER, so why not learn more and take advantage of it? Picture this. You buy a beautiful boat, and you go to take it out on the lake. You get there, you can start the boat, but can't get it to go anywhere. That is how many people are on the Internet. They have the software and the ability to go online, but don't know what to do with it. This is where "Your Personal Guide to the Internet" comes in. Just as a boat manual would have been useful to allow you to go on your trip, this guide will allow you to do just about ANYTHING that you can imagine on the Internet. So, how much will this knowledge cost you? Simply, $4.00! That's right, FOUR DOLLARS. Why are we selling it for a such a LOW PRICE? We feel that everyone who is online should be able to use the Internet to their full capabilities. Why go to the bookstore and spend $50 to $100 on Internet books, when you can get everything you need for $4.00? This is a MUST HAVE! Do not pass up this OPPORTUNITY! This is a LIMITED OFFER. **** If you order within 10 days, As a SPECIAL BONUS, you will also receive "1000 Places to Advertise for Free"! **** ORDER FORM (print this out and mail it along with your cash, check or money order): Name ______________________________ Address ____________________________ City _______________________________ State_______________________________ Zip Code ____________________________ Phone Number (if sending check) ______________________ Email Address ________________________@_______________________ Would you like this on diskette ($7.00 includes S & H) or emailed to you for only $4.00? (circle one) Make All Checks Payable To: Creative Financial Alternatives Send check or money order to: Creative Financial Alternatives 14837 Detroit Ave. Suite 135 Cleveland, OH 44107 ***Orders will be shipped within 48 hours upon receipt.*** ***Please Note: All checks are held for 5 business days.. ***Due to the Overwhelming demand Please Don't Reply Back By E-Mail.

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 ìì 16/11/1996 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> ...I would gladly write articles on Dimitri's expulsion and the >> facade of Free Speech in mailing lists etc.,...But since I have >> no time, it's likely someone else will report this. > >What was that from Thomas Paine about summer soldiers and >sunshine patriots? Three cheers for George and his commitment >to "Free Speech." I know I'm impressed. You mean that if I launched an entire publicity campaign against the censorship of Dimitri Vulis and similar evils, I would not thoroughly enjoy it, or not get paid the newspapers here, for it? (the standard rates per column)? Poor soul! :-) What you see as 'voluntarism' or 'sacrifice' is in reality quite the opposite. Which is why... NOT writing about it is an act of generosity, NOT the other way round. (Which is why I'll make sure SOMEBODY writes about it). Tsk, tsk, tsk George

1 0

Re: RFC: A UNIX crypt(3) replacement
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:51 PM 11/16/96 -0800, "Joshua E. Hill" <jehill(a)w6bhz.calpoly.edu> wrote: > I'm trying to think of a function to replace UNIX's crypt(3). >My design criteria are as follows: ... >NMAC(k, m) = H(k1, H(k2, m)) .... >Would (n . P . n ) be better? NMAC is probably a bit stronger, but the real question is why you want to reinvent crypt(3). It was fine for logging in from a hardwired or dialup dumb terminal, but in a network environment you really need some sort of one-time password system. S/Key, for instance. # 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

1 0

RE: Another apologist for John Gilmore's censorship
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM dv: Why the quotes? John Gilmore censored me with no quotes. bw: Don't worry about it. dv: No. John Gilmore's actions are contrary to free speech, but his own principles clearly don't include free speech. He has no credibility. bw: I guess you think this will bring me anguish. dv: Not true. An honorable person would tolerate all speech and either ignore it or respond with more speech. A dishonorable person, such as John Gilmore, seeks to silence the speech he doesn't like. bw: You're not obliged to be dishonorable even if others are. dv: .....Note also that he hasn't pulled the plugs of other very rude people, like Timmy May (fart). bw: He's not obliged to be rude only according to your preference. dv: Speech is not action. Action is not speech. bw: But the principle regarding the tolerance of insults is the same in both cases. dv: I don't think John Gilmore's sexual practices are *that* bizarre. The Kinsey report estimates that 10% of the population shares his practices. bw: I guess you think you're talking to someone who gives a flip. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News-Reply
by Raymond Mereniuk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> aga <aga(a)dhp.com> 11/16/96, 02:26am >>> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote: >Yes it WAS!! He censored the mode and manner of the speaker. >He censored the personal attacks and the rants and the racial >diatribes! And that SUCKS! Gilmore was a fucking asshole for >doing it! And Gilmore is the WORST kind of censor that there >can be, one who censors a person's "style." >-aga.admin >InterNet Freedom Council You state that Mr. Gilmore censored someone but yet I still see that someone's messages being propagated by `cypherpunks(a)toad.com'. If Mr Gilmore was really trying to censor someone he sure did a bad job of it and can be criticzed for that much as I still see mail from the censored party. Have you every lived, or been involved, in a society where censorship, or local distortion, of facts was the norm?? Do you have any idea how the powers that be discredit any voice in which they don't like the message (or even the tone) and the lengths they go to ensure the offical line is only one which is presented in a reasonable form?? Have you ever been arrested and interrogated by the local anti-corruption police because you made too much money and dealt with a company where one particular person was known to accept brides so therefore you must be corrupt?? So far no big deal, a simple misunderstanding - but the anti-corruption police know how you live your life and since you work long hours you must be cooking the books. There is censorship in this society but it is so not so blatant and is probably more dependent on what the established media choses to report or not report. Mr. Gilmore only made it slightly more difficult for one particular player, who was misbehaving badly, to be heard but did not totally remove that player's ability to be heard. If you are truly concerned about censorship you should be more concerned about how the current administration's polices in regards to cryptography will affect your future freedoms to communicate in a manner in which is completely private and will subject you to no government review of the subject matter discussed. Virtually Raymond(a)advcable.com

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:08 ðì 17/11/1996 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >The problem with people too used to dictatorships is that they grow >so accustomed to taking those favors and incentives which are dictated to >them that the freedom (and responsibility) of "financial gain" seem like >too much work. Boy oh boy!!!! :-) Financial Gain being "too much work"??? :-) Hey dude, I work for myself, you know. Ever since childhood, I learned how not to rely on ANYBODY. I experienced no "favors" nor "incentives" whatsoever, all my life. The taxation here is designed to drain the blood of all SMALL businesses (like mine) and favor the big businesses. There is very poor welfare here, too. America is almost... socialist in some respects compared to the Greek welfare state. Your 'model' of what's going on is more appropriate for the Russians and the Eastern Block (former) dictatorships, in which case I agree! :-) >The free market will ever be the only real path to free speech, because, >in essence, it is free speech. The free market is the _precondition_ for free speech. But Free speech does NOT necessarily follow from it. What happened in GREECE and CHILE in fact is a living proof of this: Such countries had ENTIRELY free market and NO FREE SPEECH. This is right-wing fascism, as you know. I hope you agree with these clarifications. I don't see why not... >Much easier to just work for food. "The all-knowing General Pinoriega >would have given us money if we needed it." The 'all-knowing' dictators of Chile (installed by US involvement) gave NO money to ANYBODY (but big businesses and American corporations). As for the Nicaraguan case, the scandal of the C.I.A. financing the contras using drug-money from selling drugs to American Blacks has been thoroughly exposed in the rest of the world. The only 'all-knowing' philanthropists around the world have been the Stalinist lunatics who are nowdays replaced by (more 'professional' Mafiozos). You should be glad to be American, in fact! :-) (At least you are ruled by the Trilateral Commission; the Mafia plays only a secondary role in your politics). :-) >Of course the result is an increased dependence on the state. We never run out of saliva spitting on the face of the (Greek) state over here. Same is true all over the world... >Market economies which approach true "free market" status provide no >foothold for regulation. You cannot really have one without the >other. This is a big discussion. The free market _is_ the only way. I agree. However, as I explained in another (private and humourous) posting, for instance, I am a winter-swimmer, and use the facilities of a beach run and owned by the State here in Greece, which will probably CLOSE DOWN, as soon as it is privatised. At the moment, it's a gift to us -10 or 20 'winter-swimmers' operating at a loss, not a profit. One must be on guard for extreme views, neo-liberal or otherwise)... :-) >(Note the coming backlash against free speech and free markets in >the United States). I am in solidarity with your worries, and in favour of both. But... Sometimes one does not 'automatically' imply the other. >Free speech does not, however, require that all speech be universally >broadcast to each and every citizen on the planet free of charge. That's >"subsidized speech." How much should I be charged for every word I utter? In 1990 I was being PAID for every word I wrote. Not so anymore! :-) :-) At least you could afford (as the English say)... 1 penny for these thoughts! ROTFL!!!! :-) >Consider long and hard if that is the path that you would like to take. Me? I voluntarily waste my time, dude, to write my opinions for free! :-) It's the last thing I do for free, after some rare friendships and other rare precious things in life. Don't we al have such things? :-) If we don't write _some_ opinions for free we'd all become... whores waiting for the next pimp to exercise 'list-owner's rights on our speech. Or get bribed to tell lies, and so on! :-) :-) Perhaps my clarifications helped. George P.S. In Logic, Complete Systems are Consistent, and Consistent Systems are Incomplete. Thus, 'extreme views' of any kind are impractical. (theorem of Goedel in Logic and Mathematics applied in practice).

1 0

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:51 ðì 17/11/1996 -0500, Tim Scanlon wrote: >George A. Stathis wrote: >> This was my objection also inside the F-K list, for _some_ of the postings >> in the past, but none of these postings was connected with acts of >> censorship, or with "sweeping generalisations" without evidence. On several >> occasions that I searched and found who or what they were talking about, >> I discovered they were talking about people whose activities were indeed >> horrifying (forged cancellations etc) and who also fought back. > >Horrifying eh? Hmm I found this just a bit to priceless to resist. >I guess it falls under the old 'but I'll defend your right...' way >of looking at things... > >In any case, here you go, this is the latest contribution of software >from Dimitri to the values of freedom of expression and non-censoring >& all that blather. > >#From Phrack 49, file p49-09 published this month: > .oO Phrack Magazine Oo. > > Volume Seven, Issue Forty-Nine > > File 09 of 16 > > by Dr.Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > > A Content-Blind Cancelbot for Usenet (CBCB) > >And what follows, is Dr. Dimitri, defender of freedom of expression, >champion of the anti-censors on the net, posting code to the world to >engage in exactly those activities that everyone has been ranting about >as being so utterly "horrifying (forged cancellations etc)" as it were. > >Amusing to say the least. > >Tim Well, this is why we _NEED_ this discussion; we _NEED_ Dimitri to explain his ideas and his critics ALSO to explain his ideas. My guess is that Dimitri's 'CANCELBOT' is intended to remove pure spam. A little while ago, I received Spam from the same source an 8th time. It even automatically replied to my... complaint AS IF it was not a complaint but a request for info, and it also... forged my E-mail address. If Dimitri Vulis (and others) possess the technical genious to relieve us of such very annoying spam-problems, I don't see at all how this contradicts Free Speech, or the right of people to speak when invited to open meetings. In any case, I am extremely greatful for the info, and would appreciate the full text and the sources of it. Cheers George

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...(CORRECTION)
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 ìì 17/11/1996 -0200, George A. Stathis wrote: >In Logic, Complete Systems are Consistent, and Consistent Systems >are Incomplete. Thus, 'extreme views' of any kind are impractical. >(theorem of Goedel in Logic and Mathematics applied in practice). Boy oh Boy! time to flame myself this time: "Complete Systems are INconsistent, and Consistent Systems are INcomplete". At least in the Predicate Calculus. This is why I look forward to Dimitri explaining his 'Cancelbot' in detail. It's possible that the _misuse_ of such an innovation would be against the original goal (of Spam-elimination etc). In any case, while you all go to sleep, it's me for me to do some work! :-) George

1 0