December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: ONE MILLION CHILDREN.....
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:26 AM 1/5/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> At 10:57 PM 1/4/97 -0800, Toto wrote: >> >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> >> I used to be at 212-666-6984 for some 7 years. > >> > Aha! > >> You figured it out, too, huh?!? Take the word "devil," remove the >> vowels and you get dvl. Rearrange slightly, and it's "dlv." > >I can't resist this any longer. Pity the poor slobs who have me >in the filter. > >1. Dale Thorn is very similar to Damien Thorn. >2. The Roman numerals in my name add up to 555. For a 'C' programmer, > this can be the equivalent of 666 for a Basic programmer, taking > one digit at a time. >3. If you sign (with a pen) the name quickly, using counterclockwise > loops only, it will look exactly like 666, which BTW was a significant > paragraph in a lawsuit between myself and a former employer (they > initiated the paragraph). The devil you say! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

EAR Amendments
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have revised the hypertext EAR to include amendments of the four succeeding revisions: License Exceptions, December 4, 1996, which amends Parts 732, 736, 740, 742, 744, 746, 748, 750, 752, 758, and 770. Licensing of Key Escrow, December 13, 1996, which amends Parts 734, 740, 742, 762 and 774. Computer Revisions, December 23, 1996, which amends Parts 740, 770, and 774. And the latest: Encryption Transferred From the USML to the CCL, December 30, 1996, which amends Parts 730, 732, 734, 736, 738, 740, 742, 744, 748, 750, 768, 772, and 774. ----- At the same URL: http://jya.com/eartoc.htm

1 0

Re: The Problems are Gay
by Casey Iverson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:20 AM 1/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >Most of the time, the problems are Gay... > >I rest my case. > The arrogant, clueless, ignorant, homophobic Vulis tentacle has no idea what the problem is.

3 2

Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree with Sandy Sandfort and many others that things have gotten way out of hand on the list. He and I feel that the only proposed solutions likely to succeed involve inserting human judgement in the cypherpunks posting process, rather than mere automation. So I am supporting this experiment, primarily by setting up a few more mailing lists on Toad and by automatically moving the current set of subscribers to the moderated list. You will be able to move yourselves back to the unedited list if you don't want to participate in the experiment, or if, partway through, you decide you don't like the results. Sandy will be gone til Tuesday evening, so don't expect further answers from him (or many from me, I'm swamped with other activities) until then. Meanwhile I'm interested in your discussion (on the list) of the idea. We'll modify it before starting, with good ideas from you. John Gilmore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Like many of you, I have become very disenchanted with the quality of discourse on this list. As others have pointed out, I believe a great deal of the blame can be laid on the lack of civility between list (and non-list) members. I think this, in turn, is the result of the list being open. As such, it has no feedback mechanisms to discourage gratuitous insults and personal attacks. The result has been an escalation of such behavior--something that no amount of personal mail filtering can rectify. Recently, I made a couple of rough proposals to John Gilmore to see if there was some way to reverse this trend. We have gone back and forth on several issues, but we finally reached an agreement whereby I would partially moderate the Cypherpunk list for a one-month test period. If the consensus of list members is that the test is going well, it can be extended. If members think it sucks, it can be dropped or modified. Even before we start, though, you may wish to contribute suggestions. The following is our general plan. I'm sure there will be questions that have to be answered as they arise, but the basis outline is a follows: 1) The test will run from January 11 through February 12. 2) I will review all incoming messages for purposes of preserving decorum and reducing obviously unrelated spam. Other then that, I will not overly concern myself with off-topic posts. I will, however, expurgate all posts containing flames, insults and other irrelevant personal attacks, as well as spams, before forwarding the remaining posts to the Cypherpunk list. 3) Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so by taking advantage of either of two optional lists. The first (cypherpunk-flames(a)toad.com) will consist solely of messages expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list. (Those who subscribe to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating decisions.) The second (cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com) will contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks. It will be the equivalent of the current open, unmoderated list. It will appeal to those who don't want list moderation. 4) During the test month, polite discussion of the test will always be on topic. In the last few days before the 10th of February, I will call for opinions as to whether moderation should be continued, modified or eliminated. John has agreed to abide by the consensus of the group with one proviso. Because of the large volume of bandwidth eaten by the lists, he does not want to maintain both the "flame" and "unedited" versions of the list. If list members decide to continue to have the list moderated, one of those lists will probably have to go. 5) If list members decide on a moderated list, I will be happy to assist in the ongoing process. Though I will continue to be available for duty as moderator from time to time, we will need a set of rotating volunteers to take turns acting as moderator. Volunteers are always welcome. 6) Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was perfect. I will do the best job I can, within the constraints listed here. If I err, it isn't fatal. Everyone who wants one will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts. Sounds fair enough to me. What do you think? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PS: The new lists aren't set up yet, so there's no point in trying to subscribe or unsubscribe to them yet. We'll let you know when they are working. -- John

15 28

Re: Judge Bork on Ebonics
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rich, Thanks for your passionate and intelligent response. Before I attempt to address some of your objections to the passages Mr. Bork's book, let me say that while I agree with some of his observations I find his objections and perscriptions (including a legislative check on Supreme Court decisions) too little too late. BTW, the lead in and Bork material was taken from an article on alt.libertian (i.e., not my words or sentiment). >From the book's liner notes: The root of our decline, Bork argues, is the rise of modern liberalism, which stresses the dual forces of radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of the limits of personal gratification). The roots of modern liberalism are deeply embedded in the past two and a half centuries-and perhaps-arise from the very nature of Western civilization itself. [snip] >> Vietnamese and Polish children were put into English-speaking >> classes and were competent into English long before the Hispanics >> in bilingual schools. > >No evidence for this assertion exists. See, generally, "The Failure of Bilingual Education," ed. Jorge Amselle (Washington, D.C.: Center for Equal Opportunities, 1996). > >> That leaves the partisans of bilingualism only >> the choice of saying that Hispanic children are not as capable as >> others or admitting that they, the educators, are driven by hostility >> to American culture, and the rewards to be had by teachers' unions >> and educational bureaucrats. > >No. I choose to call you on the bullshit assertion that Hispanic >children don't learn English. This prejudice is rooted in the small >but visible segment of the Hispanic population that comprises recent >immigrants. It is indubitably true that illegal immigrants doing odd >jobs and domestic work -- the segment of the Hispanic population most >visible to sensitive anglos -- tend not to speak English. >Extrapolations from this population, though, are invalid. > >> Often, the bilingualists do not care whether immigrant chil- >> dren learn English. The key to success for the students is "self- >> esteem. . . . Children do badly in school because of their feelings >> of 'shame' at belonging to a minority group rather than the 'domi- >> nant group.' For the children to do better, teachers must "con- >> sciously challenge the power structure both in their classrooms >> and schools and in the society at large." As Richard Bernstein >> writes, "Bilingual education ... is an act of rebellion against white, >> Anglo cultural domination." > >Note the only evidence offered by Bork to bolster this straw man >he's building is a similar slew of bald, unsupported assertions by a >friend of his. He might as well be quoting himself. See Richard Berstein, "Dictatorship of the Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America's Future," (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 244. The interior quotation is from Jim Cummins, "Empowering Minority Students," California Association for Bilingual Education, Sacramento, 1989, p. ix. [snip] > >> Public dissatisfaction with the linguistic fracturing of society >> has led to calls for an English-only amendment to the Constitu- >> tion. The frustration is understandable, but there is no need to >> amend the Constitution to achieve an English-speaking nation. All >> that need be done is the abolition of bilingual education and the >> repeal of the Voting Rights Act's requirement of different language >> ballots. > >You'd better hurry, too, so that you can disenfranchise people before >they know about it. > >> once they begin to see its results. Immigrant parents want their >> children to learn English and become Americans. The opposition >> to that, manifested in bilingual education, comes from American >> elites who form an adversarial culture, alienated from the culture >> of the West and wishing to weaken it. > >Who are these "American elites"? Who's in on the conspiracy? What's >in it for them? Ah, a very good question, and one which Bork spends a considerable time upon. In the short, they are the radicals of the '60s who have taken over or heavily modified the cultural institutions they once sought to destroy (e.g., Clinton, many intellectuals, the media (esp. Hollywood), university faculties, etc.). Special attention is given the Supreme Court (although obviously they are older than the '60s radicals) and its misguided and, in his opinion, unconstitutional basis supporting many liberal decisions (e.g., abortion and affirmative action) in the past 20 or so years. > >> In 1989, the Commissioners Task Force on Minorities in New >> York concluded: "African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto >> kicans/Latinos, and Native Americans have all been the victims of >> an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized >> the culture and institutions of the United States and the European >> American world for centuries." All young people were being >> "miseducated" because of a "systematic bias toward European cul- >> ture and its derivatives." Bernstein asks, rhetorically, "Could the >> multicultural animus against 'European culture and its derivatives' >> emerge more clearly than that? Here we have a direct statement >> that the Western culture is harmful to nonwhite children ." > >The interesting thing about this attack is that you need to accept >the Task Force's mode of analysis in order to accept Bernstein's >conclusion. What if you don't? What if you say that this "European >culture and its derivatives" thing is bullshit, all we really have is >modern culture, and be done with it? Then Bernstein's statement and >the Task Force's statments are equally nonsensical. True, but its not clear what "modern culture" is, as its constantly evolving. As you correctly point out, and Bork discusses elsewhere, there is no single "Eurpoean" culture. However, no society has prospered by failing to formally educate its youth in its cultural basis. Without substantial cultural unity a fractured and contentious society is a likely result. In Federalist No. 2, Publius (John Jay) wrote: Providence has been pleased to give this one connected coun- try, to one united people, a people decended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same reli- gion, attached to the same princinple of government, very simi- lar in their manners and customs... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of bretheren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties. Despite the fact that we have increasingly become a hetrogeneous society, our culture and law is clearly Protestent English-based. It was not European or, as we now say, Eurocenteric. -- Steve

1 0

Re: Experiments on Mailing Lists
by wireinfo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM, dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com writes: >"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: >> Except for the one of using the versions of majordomo (which exist, as I >> understand things) which only allow posts by subscribed members. This may >> nuke anonymous posts, but so what? The _possibility_ of anonymity, which we >> mostly all support, does not mean that people have to listen to such posts. >> And since the junk from anonymous posts is getting to be a serious >> problem.... >> >> Another possibility is that anonymous posts get kicked into a file for >> later approval or nonapproval by someone. Nothing fancy (that is, no >> "tokens" and complicated accounting systems, such as have been proposed), >> just a manual "moderation" by someone, or some set of volunteers, etc. >> Enough moderation to let the "Red Rackham" sorts of good posts through >> while blocking the "Make Money Fast" and barnyard insults from making it. ah, yes: "good" becomes so well-defined, as the "banyard insults" shoe drops. a lie, my grandmother used to tell me, is halfway around the world before the truth has even got its boots on. >Timmy seems to be VERY bothered by those anonymous posts and would >surely like them to stop - perfectly illustrating why the "cypher punks" >are enemies of free speech. Timmy can killfile anything he doesn't like, >but he wants to prevent everyone else from seeing whatever information >Timmy doesn't want to be disseminated. > >You lose, Timmy. The truth wants to be free. or somewhere around $19.95 a month, anyway. -just another internet MessAge Processor

1 0

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
by dws 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonathan Littman's book on Kevin Poulsen, "The Watchman : The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen" is coming out this month, so I checked into Amazon (http://www.amazon.com) to see if it had been released yet. It has an interesting blurb for the book: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Synopsis: Drawing on exclusive interviews with serial killer Kevin Poulsen, who's ^^^^^^ currently serving time in federal prison, journalist Jonathan Littman takes readers along on the wildest, most colorful crime spree in the annals of cyberspace... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Yikes! Seems this book will have more revelations than I had previously thought. Maybe CoS will take down that page with all the bad stuff they say about him (http://www.theta.com/goodman/crime.htm) now that he's out. -- D.

1 0

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:34 PM 1/5/97 -0500, dws <dws(a)intercom.com> wrote: [snip] >Drawing on exclusive interviews with serial killer Kevin Poulsen, who's > ^^^^^^ >currently serving time in federal prison, journalist Jonathan Littman >takes readers along on the wildest, most colorful crime spree in the >annals of cyberspace... >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- And I thought he just rigged a few radio contests. Maybe there was more in that storage compartment the cops searched than computer stuff... >Yikes! Seems this book will have more revelations than I had previously >thought. Maybe CoS will take down that page with all the bad stuff they >say about him (http://www.theta.com/goodman/crime.htm) now that he's out. BTW, I've see people make links to that article, even on pages purporting to support hackers. That article originally occurred in "Freedom" (sic) magazine, published by CoS (they have a trademark on the word "freedom"...), and it had a few insidious purposes, IMHO: 1) To whip up fear about Internet crime, to aid the CoS strategy of branding the critics who have allegedly violated their copyrights as computer criminals. 2) To smear (or "dead agent" in CoS lingo) Dennis Erlich, a critic that CoS is suing for copyright infringement, by placing him in the company of some of the country's best known hackers. Dennis is not a hacker by any means -- he didn't even use remailers when he posted Scientology "scriptures." 3) To smear Justin Tanner Peterson ("Agent Steal"). It has been rumored that Peterseon did some wiretapping for a CoS-employed PI in L.A. -- they may have wanted to distance themselves from him, and/or to make him less credible in case he reveals any dealings with them. #3 is pure speculation on my part, but the first will be pretty obvious to people who have followed the Scientology campaign against their Net critics. Personally, I would advise people against linking to this article as a resource about computer crime or hacking. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

Tell me more
by Ronald Taylor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

how does it work

1 0

A vote of confidence for Sandy
by Marc J. Wohler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have the utmost confidence in Sandy and his efforts to revive the quality of our list.

18 54