December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Create Prospects Daily! Watch Your Business Explode!
by sunshine＠kcii.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fuck_You_Nerds, I thought this might interest you. DON'T PAY ANYBODY FOR E-MAIL NAMES!! You can extract your own with our software. No matter what you are marketing, you need prospects. Our system can allow you to reach all the prospecst you can handle. And even more exciting is you don't have to BUY addresses, our software extracts them from anywhere on the internet!! I presently have over 400 responses in my mail folder, and every few minutes or sooner I receive more responses. Find out why we are all so excited about our results. Send a blank e-mail to star-yvonnegarcia-netcontact(a)nicers.com and you will have the information sent to you. NO PROSPECTS = NO SALES!! Have a great day, Yvonne Garcia P.S. Also FREE ELECTRONIC MARKETING TRAINING AND SUPPORT GROUP AVAILABLE. AND FREE AUTORESPONDERS! This is YOUR KEY to successful Internet Marketing!

1 0

Vandalism in New York City
by varange＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Xmas day vandals overturned 75 headstones in the Calvary > Cemetry in Long Island City, near the residence of Earthweb's > associate network administator Ray "Arsenic" Arachelian. So? New York City is so culturally ugly vandalism can only improve it. -- Cheers!

1 0

Vandalism in New York City
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Xmas day vandals overturned 75 headstones in the Calvary Cemetry in Long Island City, near the residence of Earthweb's associate network administator Ray "Arsenic" Arachelian. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

[Fwd: F*$%K plaidworks.com]
by Carl Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

RUL_let
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12-24-96. "New encryption export rules probably won't be issued until early next week" Rules probably won't be issued until just a day or 2 before they go into effect on January 1, officials said Monday. Greg Simon said section of rules requiring detailed business plans from encryption companies is likely to be changed. [Markoff wrote last week the rules were due out December 22; any sightings?] ----- RUL_let (3 kb)

1 0

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:24 PM 12/26/96 -0500, Brian Davis wrote: > >On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 12:31 AM 12/26/96 -0500, Brian Davis wrote: >> >> I would argue that if the bank can be forced to help the government enforce >> the law, the bank should also become liable for damage done as a consequence >> of complying with such requirements. While it's a different area, within >> the last few years a decision was made (SC?) that companies which had made >> Agent Orange for the US Government during Vietnam can be held liable >> (without recourse against the government, apparently) for the damages caused >> ex-servicemen for selling dioxin-tained Agent Orange to the government, but >> manufactured totally according to government specifications. (and used only >> outside the US, under government direction, by government agents, in an >> entirely different legal jurisdiction, to boot!) Seemingly, doing >> something at the behest of government does not immunize one. > >The fact that a bank complied with a federal regulation governing the >bank is not similar to a business selling a defective product. Wrong. They're not _identical_, but on the other hand it is indeed similar in many respects. Remember, "complying with a federal regulation" is actually a misleading statement: If _any_ leeway is allowed in how to "comply," the organization involved is, presumably, liable for the exercise of that freedom. Or, at least, they should be if the rules were followed. While admittedly this is an off-the-wall example, if a bank reported these transactions by sending them by car driven by a license-free 16-year old, and he lost control and killed a dozen people in a crowd, the fact that the bank "was complying with a federal regulation" wouldn't save them from hefty liability. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

confidential banking?
by troubled＠mailmasher.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I saw a posting on alt.privacy a couple of days ago from 100022.1345(a)compuserve.com (Mark Mage) advertising the availability of what he called "the safest kind of bank account legally available", something called "an anonymous 'Sparbuch'" account in Austria. He said "The anonymous account is a bearer's account without a name or, alternatively, may be made out in whatever pseudonym you choose (as long as it is not obscene or otherwise illegal)." I'm not at all familiar with Austrian banking law or this type of account. Would someone tell me if this is worth checking into further? 'Mark Mage' says these accounts usually cost $200 - $400 to set up, but he's asking "considerably less".

2 1

Re: IDEA: "Site Cloaking" Technology
by Alexander Chislenko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anybody would care to comment on this? At 11:43 AM 12/26/96 -0800, Chris Hind <chind(a)juno.com> wrote on the Extropian list: >A few weeks ago, I came up with this idea for a new technique I like to >call "Site Cloaking". It's possible to create a Perl CGI script that would >grab a file or webpage from another site & display it for the user without >telling the user the original location like a proxy. This way you could put >a CGI script on your website with links to country-specific censored texts >or webpages and not tell anyone the site locations so that they can't shut >them down. A person could put up a so-called subversive webpage in that >specific country and tell this proxy the address and thus protect the site >without giving out it's real address forcing the ISPs in that country to >scan ALL WEBPAGES on their servers making the process more difficult. You >could put up any so-called subversive and censored information on your >webpage and people could access them without getting shutdown because only >the CGI script would know where the source site is and you could even >cipher the script's site list so even the owner of the proxy website can't >locate the sites. You could then have a website or even a web search tool >where you'd load all these sites into and acquire even more sites because >you'd be offering protection and the sites would stay up indefinately. If >the FEDS get pissed, simply wipe the file and the list is gone but the >sites remain. > >A person I talked to over IRC claimed that a CGI Perl script such as this >isn't all that difficult to do but I myself have zero experience in >programming Perl. Perhaps someone on this list who can program in Perl can >try it? > >"Some people dream about worthy accomplishments while others stay > awake and do them." > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Chris Hind (chind(a)juno.com) Upward, Outward, ACTION! >NeoReality (Personal) http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6810/ >Ethereal Outlook (Extropian) >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6810/outlook.htm > > This seems complimentary to anonymous browsing (e.g., www.anonymizer.com) I doubt that ciphering the site list can assure that the site can't be found, as somebody could match incoming and outgoing requests. A chain of "Anonymous Rewebbers" / Recloakers could help here. An important thing here would be to make sure that the search engines can still find the sites. Other difficulties would be caching and getting credits for ads. Do you think it's worth doing? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Chislenko Home page: <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html> Firefly Website recommendations: <http://my.yahoo.com> ---> "Firefly" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Shit F. Brains
by Shit F. Brains 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Shit F. Brains wrote: > > You don't say!

1 0

Re: RUL_let
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:11 PM 12/26/96 -0500, John Young wrote: >12-24-96. > >"New encryption export rules probably won't be issued until early >next week" > > Rules probably won't be issued until just a day or 2 before they > go into effect on January 1, officials said Monday. Good move on part of the USG. It will keep public discussion to a minimum. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

2 1