December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Troy Denkinger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:07 PM 7/18/96 -0700, you wrote: [Cerridwyn Llewyellyn's text snipped] [Lucid argument snipped, I was with you until right around here] >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. We have an interesting problem here, though. You say that the government has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo. However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even "national security" to guide it. [snip] I'll preface my following remarks by saying that I'm not a libertarian. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). First point first. The "propaganda" taught in schools is generally aimed at teaching our children how to think. Perhaps rote learning and cultural naivete make us all comfortable at night and let us sleep better, but in a world where critical thinking is undervalued I'd rather have my and my childrens' views challenged than constantly affirmed. (Btw, I have no children at this moment, so it's quite possible to contend I'm talking out my ass here; time will tell.) Public school funding is way off topic, so I'll concede your "point" and let it slide. [Now the meat of the queer bashing, how charming. Sad to see you sully what was a decent argument up to this point with ignorant foolishness] >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). When was the last time a homosexual attempted to force their practices on you? I'll leave your fictitious children out of it for the moment. Are you an active eschewer or simply a theoretical eschewer? Have you ever been hit on by a gay person? I have; I told them I wasn't gay and that was that. No one forced their "AIDS-spreading practices" on me. >I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed >for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no >tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on >such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay >for the research. I usually read your posts to this list and often find them insightful, however the above statement leaves me wondering if some ignoramus has taken control of your keyboard or if the above was a simple, but remarkable, typing error. Following your reasoning, it's also proper to say that cancer and heart disease as well as violent crime resulting in death of a victim are also "evolution in action" isn't it? Your assertions are absurd and unfounded. Your final point that those who "introduced the new vector" should pay for the research for a cure continues to spotlight your inchoate notions on this topic. Pray tell, who introduced the vector? Who was responsible for the spread of the virus? Who are the victims of this disease? Who are the future victims of this disease--do they have to pay because obviously they're engaged in some kind of risky behaviour? What part does an unresponsive worldwide health structure have to pay? How responsible are you for the social blight that leads the underclasses to participate in risky behaviour through hopelessness or lack of education? Really, Mr. May, look further than your own front yard for a change. You live in a world -- welcome to it. Troy Denkinger

6 6

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order (fwd)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SternFUD claims: > There are exceptions to ITAR for this purpose (overseas offices of US > companies). Clearly UnProfessor failed to read recent Phil Karn's testimony at the Senate Subcommittee. Phil, representing both himself *and Qualcomm* explained how Qualcomm had attempted to export a Triple DES application to their own Hong Kong office, *for use by the AMCIT employees there* to communicate with Califunny. The request was denied with a FORM LETTER checked "resubmit a non-Triple DES method" or words close to that. Further, Phil told the Subcommittee that every time they need a bug fix on the CDMA code running on the system in HK; they must resubmit the whole package back for approval. A BUG FIX! They've been through this many times, each one taking eons. Just suppose ARCO needed all new permits every time they adjusted the crude mix, or retuned the cat cracker? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Netscape
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! There appears to be some new Netscape files with US encryption in ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming/ netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10 netscape-fts2-nt.exe Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz SSL 3.0 source code netscape32us-30b5.exe Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT By the way, is it possible to get a certificate for the Fast Track 128 bit servers outside of north america? Or would the certificate issuer be conspiring to export crypto if he exported a certificate?

2 1

PictureTel Licenses Cylink Security Technology For Encrypted Videoconfe (fwd)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Message-ID: <BcylinkURQwQ_6lJ(a)clari.net> Clarinet reports: SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 19, 1996--Cylink Corp. (NASDAQ: CYLK) today announced that it has licensed its patented security technology, the Diffie-Hellman, Hellman-Merkle patents covering public key cryptography, to PictureTel Corp. (NASDAQ:PCTL) to be used in its System 4000 group videoconferencing systems. The Cylink license allows access to all implementations of Public Key cryptography, including Diffie-Hellman key exchanges and Digital Signature Standard (DSS), ..... ============== Hmm..... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

Re: BIG_dif
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Because of these concerns, Mondex has been modified in > the United States so that banks will be able to track > card use. That will allow them to audit for fraud, if > not recreate every transaction. Data from Mondex cards > will be used for various product marketing. > > "We believe there should be privacy, but there is a big > difference between privacy and anonymity," Dudley Nigg, > executive vice president of Wells Fargo, said. So, how will the identity of the cardholder be tracked when they are transferred physically from one person to another? Presumably bank tracking will only work when the card is submitted to a "public" terminal. "Wallet" transfers won't be tracked immediately. Also, if an API is realeased, interesting possibilities are created. DCF

1 0

The risks of information warfare
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to put forth the assertion that "society", of late, has become exceptionally poor at judging relative risk. I think this is due in large part to the sensationalism of the media (although this is not an entirely new phenomena - "remember the Maine"). I will cite a few examples: 1. Radon causes 25% of all lung cancer. Of course every study but one shows no link between radon and lung cancer. Still, Americans spend billions testing and reducing the "threat". 2. Second hand smoke kills. Probably, but the only statistical link was found by picking and choosing which studies to use. And the freedoms of millions of Americans are dramatically restricted based on this premise. 3. Terrorism is a big threat to the "national security". Of course more people are killed in the bathtub than by terrorists, but that is beside the point. My reason for bringing these up is that I think much of the "information warfare" 5th horseman is overblown hype - in the same category as 1-3 above. Of course, many security professionals will disagree, because it is in their best interests to do so - their level of funding depends on it. Sure, there have been break-ins and some loss of $$ (of course that is what insurance companies are for). I have seen nothing, to date, that would justify massive increases in government power over the private sector; this of course, has never stopped them before. The desire to "do something" appears to infect every politician, fortunately our system has checks and balances to limit the ability for them to "do something" - because more often than not it is the wrong "something"! Unfortunately, these checks and balances have been seriously eroded over the past 60 or so years. It is now much more necessary to actively oppose such idiocy as the FDA regulating tobacco or the govt imposing "policy" over the entire information infrastructure. It is hard to "buck the tide", but those of us who are skeptical of government "solutions" to "problems" that may or may not exist must actively oppose them. Clay *************************************************************************** Clay Olbon II * Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer * PGP262 public key on web page Dynetics, Inc. * http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html ***************************************************************** TANSTAAFL

2 1

Re: Responding to Pre-daw
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-=> Quoting In:hallam@ai.mit.edu to Harka <=- In> If you want to own guns then you should accept the fact that you risk In> having your head blown off in the middle of the night by a SWAT team. In> Just as the car has introduced the risk of being killed in a trafic In> accident the gun has introduced new risks. If society dosen't like the In> risks then it can opt to ban the technology. Except that getting killed in a traffic accident IS an accident (mostly :)) while having black clad Fed's storming into your house was _consciously_ decided by them, because THEY have a problem with YOUR guns (?!)... Harka ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]

1 0

VRML
by brianh＠u041.oh.vp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Does anybody know of a mailing-list for VRML? I have tried www-VRML(a)wired.com but there is nothing, least not returned. Any help and/or direction would be appreciated. Thanks in Advance, brianh(a)u041.oh.vp.com UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN :-)

1 0

Kellstrom Calls for DT Funding
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a "briefing" on TWA 800 when one of the reporters tossed Big Jim Kellstrom (Deputy Director in Charge of the New York Office) of the FBI a softball question about what he needed to fight terrorism; he took the opportunity to call for full funding of the Digital Telephony Bill. He said the usual about how bad guys conspire and we need to tap. DCF

2 1

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:45 PM 7/19/96, Troy Denkinger wrote: >We have an interesting problem here, though. You say that the government >has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo. >However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to >allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them >and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that >that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that And? After all, when Coca Cola offers only one formula for Coke (these days, at least) and yet keeps the formula a treade secret, is this not similiarly restrictive of "choice"? The fact is that consumers never have full freedom about what other agents or companies offer to trade to them. >exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing >and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think >that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward >the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational >corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even >"national security" to guide it. Magazines, newspapers, and other such sources routinely make editorial decisions about what to cover. And no, they do not necessarily publicize the inner workings of their editorial process. Are we to be "scared" that "Newsweek," for example, has their own filters and is a multinational corporation (gulp)? "Newsweek" has many secrets of their own; the most recent being that their own Joe Klein was the author of the anonymous novel "Primary Colors," and the publisher knew it. People and companies have their own agendas, their own filters, and their own reasons for doing things they do. Get used to it. --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