December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[QUADRUPLE]-- Rewards for errors in _Digital Cash_
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just saw the movie "Ransom" where Mel Gibson gets to be cool by doubling the reward for the capture of his son's kidnappers. In that spirit, I'm doubling my reward again. What was once a reward of $10 for information about a technical error in the book is now a reward of $40. Also, I've opened an account with Mark Twain bank so I can pay the rewards in Digicash. Or, if you prefer First Virtual, I can handle that as well. Or, if you're old fashioned and want my signature, you get the proverbial check in the mail. The details are simple. The first person to report a technical error in the book gets $40. You're also welcome to make suggestions for ways to improve the book. I may pay a reward for these, but I can't make a blanket promise. I'm reaching my deadline so this offer will only be good until the end of November, 1996. So far no one has reported any technical errors. A few have made suggestions that I've taken. I hope more will continue to offer suggestions for improving the book because they're a great help and I will reward them. Here is the ``fine print'': 1) My decisions on what constitutes an error are final. I could declare something a ``feature'', not an error. Or I could lump many errors together and label it ``one''. So if I left out a page, this could be one error, not 200+ errors in the page number on all subsequent pages. But I hope to use this power benevolently. 2) Technical errors are eligible. Errors in spelling and grammar aren't. It's just too hard to come up with a logical definition of correct grammar. Technical errors also involve some amount of judgement, but I think they are tighter. 3) My decision on who is the ``first'' person to discover an error is final. I may choose to reward two people who obviously work independently. I just want to defend against people saying, "Okay, let's mail him this simulatenously." 4) This offer may be withdrawn at any time. Check my webpage for details. 5) Copies of the book may be obtained by purchasing them from 1-800-3131277 or from your local bookstore. Peter Wayner pcw(a)access.digex.net http://www.access.digex.net/~pcw/pcwpage.html 410-433-8275

1 0

U.S. CIA employee caught spying
by Tim Scanlon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is on the local DC news; Harold Nicholson age 46, a CIA employee was arrested for spying today at Dulles airport. He allegedly has been working for the Russians for the past 2 years. He was caught after he failed a series of polys, and bank account irregularities had been noticed, as well as suspcious travel. They got him on hidden video apperently photocopying documents that he intended to pass along. Tim

1 0

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:55 AM 11/18/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >> >> Informally, I don't know anybody who has suffered due to a loss of >> >> privacy. >> > >> >Your circle of associations must be limited. >> >> Examples [of people who have suffered due to loss of privacy]? > >Phil Zimmermann often tells the story of a woman whose marriage >was destroyed by the revelation of a long-past indiscretion. >After her husband divorced her, she committed suicide. Deceiving your spouse is not a good reason to protect your privacy. >Any number of celebrities have been stalked, attacked and even >killed by obsessed fans who found them through public records. Unfortunately most readers of this list do not have this problem. >Every year, children and business executives are kidnapped for >ransom. The proximate cause of these kidnappings is a breach in >privacy about the whereabouts and schedules of the victim. Or this problem. >Hitler's gun registration in Germany allowed the Jews to be >disarmed. I'm sure you are aware of the ultimate consequences >of that little invasion of privacy. Not a bad example, but genocide happens rarely. Those alert enough to protect their privacy in advance might be alert enough to get out in time, anyway. Subjective utility: low. >The US Post Office co-operated in the identification and >imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during the second >world war. 97,000 victims over a ~100 year period. Doesn't really show up on the scope, sorry. (Plus downside bad, but few were murdered.) >The problem with having a whole lot of private information about >you floating around in public is not what damage it can do to you >now, but rather the problems it potentially could cause in the >future. Just about everyone on this list has been to university. >Not long ago, a college education was essentially a death warrant >in Cambodia. Prior to that, a degree was considered a good thing >there. People saw no reason to hid the fact that they had been >in school. Trouble is, things changed. > >And the trouble today is that things can change now, too. Think >about the things that you have publicly done or advocated. Even >if they are as legal as church on Sunday NOW, how comfortable >will you be about them if there is extreme right or left takeover >in the future? Start to get the picture? These things CAN happen. Will they happen? Odds are low. BTW, are you operating under your True Name?

4 3

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:38 PM 11/17/1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: >Before we complete your school assignment for you how about letting us >all know the due date and the credit value first. > >On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >> Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? >> >> Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds >> that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >> outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >> typical reader of this list. Insult is not enlightening. URL? Book?

1 0

Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brian Davis writes: > I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property > rights. I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds with freedom of speech. They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's a different fla...er...discussion. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet History is not usually what has happened. History is what some people have thought to be significant.

4 6

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn writes: > Dave Hayes writesL: > > [For those who's assumptions rule their perception: I am *not* arguing > > that all speech should be subsidized. I am merely pointing out that > > the organization that is spending the money to broadcast is > > controlling the speech, hence it is *not* free speech in terms of > > freedom or cost.] > Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast. Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.

2 1

Re: Warfield's audience is terminated
by Sven 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I have been advised by my associates that you are a waste of my time. >My audience for your comments is therefore terminated. Right on -- that guy came across as a masturbator with the "I'm my own p0stmastur!1!!1" response and it's probably more effective for both of you to work separately. Fuck flames, Feed trolls. Sven |__ |--> SVEN: a.k.a. Chris Blanc Internet consulting/Web design [ http://www.loop.com/~sven/ ] Some only sample the dark wine of life's blood...

1 0

Re: Security hole in premail
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Mixmaster wrote: > *** premail.orig Fri Dec 20 18:46:01 1996 > --- premail Fri Dec 20 18:55:54 1996 > *************** > *** 3574,3579 **** > --- 3574,3582 ---- > } > for ($triesleft = 2; !$done && $triesleft; $triesleft--) { > $pass = &getpass ($x); > + if(!-O $ps) { > + &error ("Secrets file exists and is owned by another user\n"); > + } > $status = &decrypt_secrets ($ps_pgp, $ps, $pass); > if (!-s $ps) { unlink $ps; } > $done = (!$status && -e $ps); That patch doesn't work. It will always return an error. I have tested the following patch and it does work as intended: *** premail.orig Wed Oct 30 22:25:10 1996 --- premail Sat Dec 21 15:45:41 1996 *************** *** 3631,3636 **** --- 3631,3639 ---- $invoc .= ' > '.$ps; $invoc .= ' 2> '.$errfile; &pdv ("Invoking PGP as $invoc\n"); + if(-e $ps) { + &error ("Premail secrets file already exists\n"); + } $status = &open_pgp ($invoc, $pass, ''); $err = &read_and_delete ($errfile); &pdv ($err); Sorry about the previous mistake.

1 0

Re: Ebonics
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Mark Rosen wrote: > No. Speaking in Ebonics is the same as speaking with an accent. You can't > control their expression; you learned to speak with a Southern accent as a > child, while other people learned to speak with an Ebonic accent (?). By > condoning speaking in a Southern accent, you condone speaking in Ebonics. Whatever rational basis your arguments may have had were eradicated by the ludicrous logical conclusion drawn above. > I can't understand thick Southern accents. No matter how smart you are, > I'm not going to hire you because I can't understand you. How do you feel? Oh so sad. Let me make this clear, an accent is far different from grammatically incorrect speech. I can speak with grammatic perfection and a drawl so heavy it'll make your eyeballs hurt. (Of course, being from New Orleans, my normal accent is more like brooklyn than Nashville -- four years in Mississippi changed all that) > Replace the word Ebonics with "Southern accent" and "black English" with > "Southern twang" and you'll see how hypocritical you are. Also, why do you > make an exception for foriegn accents? They're just as difficult to > understand. And can still be spoken with proper grammar. I make an exception for foreign accents because we are dealing a completely separate language. Speakers of ebonics are certainly not bilingual in this sense (and neither am I). I don't see hypocrisy at all. I do see an apologist, pampering, paternal point of view, however. And we southern folk jes' don't abide that sorta thang. > Language is completely different from intellect. You can't control whether > you were taught, Ebonics, a Southern accent, or "normal" English. I wasn't "taught" a Southern accent. I absorbed it in daily conversation. I certainly wasn't taught a Southern dialect. I was taught the English language. I'll say it again...the notion that Ebonics exists as a separate language -- not derived as slang from standard English -- is absurd. me _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________

1 0

[Fwd: To unsbscribe, unscrivive, or ubsribibe]
by Carl Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Reply to:toto@sk.sympatico.ca "There's only one two." To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> Subject: To unsbscribe, unscrivive, or ubsribibe From: Carl Johnson <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 06:18:30 -0800 Organization: TOTO Enterprises References: <2BJaZD31w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> ABB Electrical Engineering <abbee(a)ritsec1.com.eg> writes: > Can anyone tell me please how to unsbscribe and not to receive such mail. To unsbscibe, unscrivive, or ubsribibe, just send eMail to fuck(a)yourself.up. He will be happy to send you an executable program that will ensure that you will no longer get any mail from this conference. Glad I could be of assistance. -- Reply to:toto@sk.sympatico.ca "There's only one two."

1 0