December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! Sorry for the off topic. I want to ask how to install Netscape3.0b5a under NT. I keep getting "Netscape is unable to locate the server: home.netscape.com. The server does not have a DNS entry." Thanks

1 0

Periodic Mix-to-DOS Port Inquiry
by kdf＠gigo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Please reply via netmail - I haven't regular list access.) Is Mixmaster ported to DOS yet? Thanks... -- : Fidonet: John Erland 1:203/8055.12 .. speaking for only myself. : Internet: kdf(a)gigo.com

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >Nope, not true. Say what you will about California, but the one >thing it did right was pass a law that said anyone found in your >house at night is presumptively a threat to which you may respond >with deadly force. Shoot on sight, in other words. I find it hard to believe "anyone". If "anyone" happens to be law enforcement, as has been proven again and again: yer screwed no matter what (either dead or in jail forever). //cerridwyn//

2 1

Re: MSNBC and cookies
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:25 AM 7/19/96, Joel McNamara wrote: >In attempting to check out different Net media coverage of TWA 800, it >appears the msnbc.com site won't let you in without a cookie. Repeated >cookie cancels with Navigator 3.0 drop you into an indigestive loop of the >server continuing to try to force feed you cookies. When you finally click >OK, you get in. > >Am I spacing, or is this the first site anyone's stumbled on that requires a >cookie for access? I've never been shut out of a site for canceling a >cookie. The first cookie request does have a user ID field. If the server >(or client) isn't misbehaving, this seems like a wee bit of a privacy issue. > >I tried accessing the page (http://www.msnbc.com) on 7/18/96 around 9:15 PM >PDT. Anyone care to confirm this. Microsoft and GE, the parent corporation of NBC, are participants in the FBI's "Web Awareness Program." Like the FBI's "Library Awareness Program," which tracked which books were being checked out by which patrons, the Web Awareness Program tracks user interests at Web sites. The WAP has already allowed the FBI and other intelligence agencies to check up on several people who appeared to have an unusual interest in the TWA 800 case. (Don't spend too much time in certain sites, friends.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:27 AM 7/19/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> >> > If you had a metal door, you would have enough time to wake up >> > and assess the situation. >> >> This is good advice though. Ironically, the only person I know >> with such a door is an ex-cop. Who should know better? > >That was the essense of my letter. The problem of Tim's approach is that >he has no time to react to a situation. The intruders will kill him >faster than he will be able to shoot. Look, I took this discussion to private e-mail with Igor earlier today, figuring the rest of you had already gotten my basic point in my main article and did not need further explanations. However, as Igor is imputing motives and plans to me, I have to comment. First, as I explained to Igor in e-mail, my home has _multiple_ (7 or 8) windows on the ground floor, several (3) sliding glass doors, and a couple of outside doors. The expense of fortifying each to Igor-recommended, Ninja-resistant levels would be quite high. (And I have seen houses with bars on all the windows...not a pretty sight, and not something I moved to my hill to turn around and imprison myself with. Not only are such bars ugly, they are expensive. And a potential fire hazard, as several cases have shown; people have been trapped in burning homes, unable to unlock the bars.) Second, and in line with Sandy's comments, I am quite aware--and quite careful--when visitors or guests are staying in my home. The scenario of my not realizing a noisemaker is one of my guests is implausible. In any case, most of the time I have no guests. Those who train with guns understand the dangers, the risks, and the proper handling of situations. Third, there are no plausible scenarios for "someone peaceful who entered your home with good intentions." If someone is in my home, uninvited and without my knowledge, the law in California and in most other states says that I am justified in firing. Period. I don't have to read him his rights, I don't have to ask if his intentions are peaceful, I don't have to have proof that he plans to shoot me. All I have to have is reasonable fear that I or my family/guests could be in danger. (The exact legal wording is something like this, but may be slightly different.) I know of few if any cases where a prowler was shot in a darkened house--or even during daylight--and any successful prosecution or lawsuit resulted. Fourth, the huge increase in "home invasions" in recent years should cause anyone to stop and ponder self-protection. ("Home invasion" is the practice of a gang of robbers hitting a house hard and fast, tying up or shooting the occupants, and then ransacking the place for anything they can carry. Often the occupants are shot execution-style.) Cops are not likely to be of much help. Fifth, when intruders, robbers, wandering drunks, and home invaders think there is no chance of a homeowner defending himself, crime rates tend to be high. In communities of the West where large percentages of homeowners have shotguns and assorted handguns, the crime rate appears to be much lower than in "disarmed" places back East. (We could argue the statistics on this til the cows come home, and I don't plan to. Talk.politics.guns is the place.) >Also, do not forget that if you sleep at night, your eyes will not be >used to bright light. Thus, an intruder with a bright flashlight would >be able to make you almost blind (and yes, you can keep the flashlight >away from your body). Your point being? I have no idea if intruders are planning to use flashlights to blind victims, but I rather doubt it. The nature of the most common intruder-defender situation is that the intruder typically does not want to awaken the defender...indeed, he tries to strike when he thinks the defender is away. (And most cases of intruders killing the defenders is when the defenders surprise the intruders.) Obviously there are all kinds of scenarios, but I'm skeptical that flashlights are a useful strategem for either side to count on. (I am thinking about getting a ultra-bright flashlight, though.) >I of course have no idea about Tim's accommodations, but in my apartment >it takes about one second to break into my door if you have a heavy axe. >Then three seconds after you break into the door you are in my bedroom and >can shoot at me. Would a gun under my pillow help? I don't think so. The good news for we defenders, and this applies to both the gun case and the hypothesized "flashlight" case is that most intruders are poorly trained in gun-handling, are armed with fairly wimpy guns (e.g., .38s), have practiced very little, and rarely carry high-power flashlights (such as the extremely bright "Sure-Fire" tactical flashlights). Cops are, of course, another story. The point being that a citizen who practices at the range, firing at least 500 rounds a year or so at combat-range targets, is usually _much_ better-prepared to win a firefight with a street punk carrying a .38 or .25 he's never fired before. (Ninjas are another story, of course.) (However, to a person who is unarmed, a shot from a .38 or a .25, or even a .22, can result in death.) >Now if I had a good door, I would have tim to wake up, cock the gun, >maybe call for help, and so on. Quite a different situation. Yeah, fine, you've now made your "good door" point several times, here and in private mail to me. So get a "good door" already! (BTW, my door is a solid-core heavy door, with Schlage lock and deadbolt, so it ain't wimpy. Ninjas have special tools to zap even such doors, but, frankly, I'd expect them to come in through the windows. As I said, I don't plan to spend thousands of dollars installing Lexan windows and bars, for various reasons. And windows are almost always the point of entry for burglars, not crashing through the front door.) >If you do not believe me, refer to the rec.guns FAQ. It has all >been discussed there. Puh-leese! As Perry would say, don't teach Grandpa how to suck eggs. I've been shooting since 1974 (not counting childhood target practice) and am pretty well-versed in such things. >I am not asking Tim to get rid of his gun -- I am merely suggesting >how to _improve_ security. Yeah, but you have a one-track mind ("get a good door"). And bringing in all the nonsense about bad dreams and sleepwalkers and lawsuits by people strolling through living rooms for "peaceful purposes" (though not invited by the owner!) and the like...this set of nonsense can only be interpreted in the context of your thinking that having guns in a house is dangerous. Do as you wish, Igor. Please, by all means, replace your apartment door with a heavier one, even a steel-core one. But don't conflate this advice with nonsense about dreams, sleepwalkers, getting arrested for defending a home, and suchlike. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: New Infowarfare Panel
by Llywarch Hen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I'm certainly not saying "information warfare" is impossible--for example, >I did some work in the late 70s for DARPA on knocking out satellites with >particle beam weapons. Specifically ... There is an interesting document at http://www.rand.org/publications/electronic/. _Strategic Information Warfare: A New Face of War_, by Roger C. Molander, Andrew S. Riddile, and Peter A. Wilson. -- Llywarch Hen

1 0

Re: "address verification databases"? (was: Netscape download...)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Personally, I don't mind being in a data base of people interested in products with strong crypto. (For another one, ask majordomo(a)toad.com.) BTW, I must be lucky, I down loaded it on the first try. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: "address verification databases"?
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:57 PM 7/17/96 -0700, Tim May wrote: >At 9:45 PM 7/17/96, Jeff Weinstein wrote: > >> Because we have not yet been able to obtain the address verification >>databases that we need for Canada. There is someone working on >>tracking this down right now. When we get the proper database we >>will add access to canada. >> >> --Jeff > >Jeff, can you tell us anything more about what these "address verification >databases" are? > >For example, are they derived from government sources? Census data? (Naw, >can't be, for at least two obvious reasons). Voting records? (Naw.) Credit >card purchases? (??) I followed the links and explored the web site of the "address verification" provider ( http://www.abii.com ). The data they have about me is outdated (by at least a year) and apparently derived from a phone book or directory assistance. I picked up a copy of "The Net" magazine at the store tonight because it's got an article listing several of these Web-accessible address/phone databases. The article doesn't say anything especially fascinating but it does list three such sites: http://www.abii.com/lookupusa/adp/peopsrch.htm http://www.searchamerica.com/ http://www.switchboard.com/ -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

1 0

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd rather say, filtering out TCM is OK. Bert-Jaap

1 0

Re: Netscape download requirements
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I realize you're probably overloaded with email/etc, but as you don't read c'punks, I'll take a chance with a personal note anyway... >> Well one 'ITAR gangsta' can alwas upload the linux version to a >> 'liberated ftp site'. >Great. Convince the government to withdraw our permission >and never to give it again while the current laws stand. >Please don't do this. Allow the government to think that we think it has the right to give us their permission and we've lost everything. The government should need OUR permission, not the other way 'round. To give the government the impression that we will bow to it's power on these matters may be financially beneficial for a corporation, but is unacceptable and humiliating for free individuals. >I'd bet on the first. Why screw with this? We worked hard >to make this possible and you want to ruin it. Sheesh. Because freedom doesn't come in degrees, it's all or nothing. >"I hate the government so I'll blow up a federal building >and then the FBI will get more money and attention and >power and, um, that'll show 'em, er, ah....." Exporting crypto-systems and killing people is comparing apples and hand grenades. Please come up with a relevant analogy. >For those of you who think some of our info requests go too far: well, >my position to the US was: I want to do a download. I'll do what it >takes. Given all the ITAR vagueness and total lack of case law, I >think both sides did very well. While I don't agree with the While I am one of those who believe your info requests do go too far, I also appreciate the fact that you wouldn't be able to "do a download" without it. I thank you for your efforts on these fronts, and have two things to say regarding: 1) Please don't chastise individuals who take direct action and use civil disobediance as a measure to change bad laws and policies (ie by making your companies software available internationally). When done on a mass scale, the long-term benefits FAR outweigh the short term consequences. While you as a corporation find it much more difficult to take such actions, as they would most likely ruin your corporation, individuals acting in this capacity cannot be ruined quite so readily. 2) Please don't misuse the information you gain by logging all your network traffic. I like using Navigator, and would hate to have to give up using it due to some breach of trust by Netscape regarding someone's personal info. >wrong place to wage battle. Rather than attack some odd piece >of enforcement, participate in the debate over the regulations >themselves. Strides are being made. This is a good time for >your voice to be heard. If you don't like this mechanism, don't >use it. It's your choice. I agree mostly. I would rephrase, however, to say: In addition to attacking odd pieces of enforcement, participate in the debate over the regulations themselves. Besides, contrary to your gist, this is probably one of the most prominent pieces of enforcement, and therefore a very logical candidate for attack. //cerridwyn//

8 18