December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >any recognition of this fact. > >........................................................ > > > >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > > Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > using encryption. Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there is a clear need for an AP bot. Do you feel like writing it? - Igor.

1 0

Re: Moderated list is missing headers
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SpyKing wrote: > I mean no disrespect by this but this list is funny. The CypherPunks list is, and always has been, a 'hoot'. I have followed it since its inception, in various guises. It is the only list I still keep tabs on when I'm hiding under a rock to escape persecution, prosecution, and/or prostitution. I once read over a year's worth of postings in one stetch, after having surfaced following an unfortunate incident behind the Iron Curtain. That was when I fully realized that the course of the universe could be reliably predicted by following the CypherPunks list. (Picking the winner in the Kentucky Derby being one notable exception.) > I've never seen so much > bickering about moderation. I know you were a subscriber to the surveillance > list that's why I mention this. When I moderate I ONLY cut out the spam... > we haven't even had one flame yet... You have one of the best moderated lists that I have seen. Some of the posts are a definite 'stretch' as far as being on-topic is concerned, but we live in a world where people make different kinds of connections inside their brains, and I have always believed that keeping too tight a rein on the human animal will lead to crushing the spirit within. Several years ago, when the CypherPunks were on the cover of 'Wired', I inserted a short post suggesting that their philosophies regarding anarchism, privacy and free speech would be put to the test when recognition, money and power entered the cypher-picture. I only became active on the list, under my present persona, about a month before 'moderation/censorship', as a result of receiving word that changes were in the wind that would make my prediction prophetic. It has been said that one can reliably predict the future course of civilization by following the progress of men of genius and the insane. To this, I would add the CypherPunks list, which seems to fully encompass both arenas. > I suppose if we had someone like the > guy who flames Tim May all the time it would be necessary... The Tim May flames were a simple matter of office politics. He could not be counted on to 'go quietly into the night' in regard for the plans for the New List Order. Anyone who chooses to spend the least amount of time analyzing the UCE/Spam content of the CypherPunks list can easily ascertain that there was a concerted blitzkrieg of postings aimed at creating an atmosphere wherein the BrownShirts could move in to address the 'problems' being created for the list. It was a classic 'takeover' of the list by those involved. It used the "Tim May" and "Make $$Money$$ Fast" UCE/Spams to implement a moderation/censorship system which could be used to bring the jackboot down on those whose postings do not fit in with the future socio/politico directions envisioned by those directing the takeover of the list. The forced unsubscribing of Dr. Dimitri was merely an opening salvo, to test the waters. He was the Saddam Hussein of Cypher Storm. Tim May presented a different problem. As a veteran, respected member of the CypherPunks list (respected, for the most part, even by those who violently disagreed with him), he needed to be eliminated through a combination of public humiliation and withdrawal of support by the elitist members of the list. The current moderation/censorship, and the process by which it was instituted, is a disgrace to the memory of a list which was, at one time a bastion of free speech. The CypherPunks list of the past is now dead. It has already been decided that, in the future, it will be controlled and directed, through censorship, to further its prostitution to the new financial frontiers of cryptology. > P.S. Those Tim May flames are hilarious although I probably wouldn't think > so if I were him... Hang on to them, they are now 'collectors items', probably worth a lot of money. If Tim May had a better sense of humor, he might have parlayed the posts into a guest spot on 'Letterman'. Toto

1 0

Trigger-Words...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, does anybody know any contact points/Web pages, where I might get some information on e-mail filtering via trigger-words? I am interested in how this technology specifically works and a collection of trigger-words would be nice too :) Thanks in advance... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMuhpbjltEBIEF0MBAQGiOwf+N61i3Vj1XjmhKLm+qispHDxsu4Wde8nb BtMkVOAt9MGlihKftUAvp7l8aUcr5+D5jFh4/1VllO+QeZ4Yni9kM40xBLry1LYD yiLqpeNMfz2Zf6XMqGaNc8lblx9qyNHyJBHf5p8OfJWN47LcIn8CYkhDSq6b3Sch rHNBg8RjuCKQGD3XlCkwZLrYCUiCPFmSkKeuYpSaPkXgqgf7Zku68RrmqhRzbF1m UneIgxMXqWFetIBHe8PIcQpLrN0X+lRMCnCFVY9x7Rsy4QJc3f8lZ7YKo2xDiGXb Ly+wiA6sexlwwf+BdLDRu3fshI4eCpe7KbfWmzf3z0pdpvdRfUiJuw== =KEb+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

uae_1.html
by Lynx_User＠linux.nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ Monday January 27 9:50 AM EST UAE Launches Service To Censor Internet DUBAI - The United Arab Emirates's monopoly Internet provider launched a service Saturday to censor sites in cyberspace that breached local moral values and traditions. Officials from state telecommunications company Etisalat said the new Proxy Service would be compulsory for the UAE's 9,669 subscribers, who will have to configure their web browsers that navigate the net by February 2. "The service was launched today as part of our efforts to improve the Internet service to our subscribers after lengthy study and research," said one official at Etisalat. "We were working on it before some official statements were made on the need to control access to some sites on the service," he told Reuters. The move follows repeated calls to regulate access to the Internet in the conservative Gulf region, where most women are veiled, magazine pictures revealing cleavage or bare legs are blacked out and questioning the existence of god can be punishable by death. Some are worried about the spread of pornography as well as religious and political material through the worldwide network of interlinked computers. Last year, Dubai Police chief Major General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim created a rare public row in the UAE saying the information ministry and the police, rather that Etisalat, should be authorized to issue Internet licenses as it was their job to monitor data coming into the UAE and maintain security. Telecommunications experts say the Proxy Service will not be "fully water-tight," but would help block access to known and unwanted sites -- a list of which could be constantly updated. The proxy server will be pre-fed with Internet addresses where access is blocked off, industry sources said. But the server will be unable to block access if addresses of prohibited sites are changed, as frequently happens. Etisalat says it will disconnect any customer who abused its Internet services and violated "order and clear laws." "Singapore has succeeded to a great extent in its drive to control harm done by the Internet," said another Etisalat official. "Why cannot we?" Singapore government measures to regulate political and religious content on the Internet and keep it free of pornography became effective in July last year. They require all Internet service operators and local content providers to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >I predict that within the next five years these >slander/libel laws will be used by some organization to prosecute defamation >of their Internet presence (eg web page graffitti). Within 10 years this >area will be one of the hotest areas of the new communications law. Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Corporate plaintiffs, if they chose to bring suit, would in many cases prefer to sue in federal court. (Federal juries tend to be more conservative and hence pro-corporate; they're also more likely to be friendly to an out-of-town corporation suing a local individual). To sue in federal court, the plaintiff needs to find a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Other causes of action (like copyright infringement, trademark dilution, or false designation of origin) would provide a federal question and hence federal jurisdiction. Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. Confusion aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. >If they don't >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand >what is best, let along convince anyone else? There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing up once in awhile. Perhaps you've never screwed anything up (although your summary of US defamation law ought to count), but the rest of us do, from time to time. Were I involved in computer-related litigation, I'd choose an attorney who could talk to a jury over an attorney who was good with computers, hands down. Not even a question. And I'd pick an attorney who owned up to making mistakes sometimes over someone who imagined him or herself somehow superior to people who fuck up now and then. >It has been proposed by at least one party that a district attorney or other >public prosecutor would not act on such events. This is also naive. I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, and you'll get a different answer. Duh. >The >ramifications for their political opponents to use this 'insensitive and >clearly self-interested' refusal to act as a perfect example of how that >prosecutor is interested in their own political career and not in the >interest of the people they are charged with protecting as well as a good >demonstration of their technological ignorance. It would be very difficult >to get re-elected in such an environment. Yeah, I'll bet that your local prosecutor's failure to prosecute Toto is going to cost them dearly in the next election. You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". >All that I ask is that instead of jumping the gun and saying 'it ain't so' >you simply consider the ramifications from 'their' perspective. It truly is >amazing what one can learn by walking a mile in another mans shoes. For if >there is one truth to be learned it is that this discussion is not about how >it is, but rather how it will be and how it should be. Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it should be", beyond the idea that people should learn more about digital signatures. You've forwarded lots of information from other people's web pages about defamation liability in different jurisdictions, but no discussion about why the rules we've got now are good ones (or bad ones). Other commentators have suggested that defamation law is obsolete (Tim May) or should be reconsidered in light of a victim's ability (via the net) to reply to a defamer (Mike Godwin). Do you have a proposal along these lines? Your message suggests to me that you're very pro-plaintiff with respect to defamation (at least when you're the plaintiff), but you haven't explained why other people should adopt your perspective. You did suggest that juries are also likely to think it's in their best interests to find for plaintiffs (because they might find themselves in similar circumstances someday); but it's unclear to me why that reasoning wouldn't make them equally likely to side with defendants (because they might be wrongfully accused of doing something bad), or why your logic wouldn't apply to every case, not just defamation cases. And, for what it's worth, juries aren't supposed to consider "what is in our best interest" either as individuals nor as a community, nor is that a legitimate topic for argument to the jury with respect to questions about liability or guilt. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

(((( Cool new marketing technique discovered, cheap & very effec
by jlkmiec＠concentric.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following should be of interest to you, if not please disregard you are NOT on a list and will not receive future mailings. AMAZING DIRECT MARKETING TECHNIQUE DISCOVERED We have after spending years researching developed a way for a company to sell ANY product more effectively. It is not bulk E-mail, it is much more effective. It is ideal for anyone in MLM who needs to contact only interested MLM partys or any other company for that matter. All you need to do is say how many people you want us to contact and we will give you a rate and implement the system. You get qualified leads that are easy to close. You can sample this for as little as $20 which will put your product directly in touch with 5000 people. All you need to do is E-mail us a little about your target audience and we will take care of the rest. From the information we relay to you, you should have a list of very qualified cantidates for your product. Special 50,000 contacts only $100!!!!!! Copyright 1997 Innovative Concepts

1 0

(( New marketing technique discovered, cheap & very effective)))
by jlkmiec＠concentric.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following should be of general interest to you. If it is not please excuse the intrusion. You are NOT on a list and will NOT be contacted again. AMAZING DIRECT MARKETING TECHNIQUE DISCOVERED We have after spending years researching developed a way for a company to sell ANY product more effectively. It is not bulk E-mail, it is much more effective. It is ideal for anyone in MLM who needs to contact only interested MLM partys or any other company for that matter. All you need to do is say how many people you want us to contact and we will give you a rate and implement the system. You get qualified leads that are easy to close. You can sample this for as little as $20 which will put your product directly in touch with 5000 people. All you need to do is E-mail us a little about your target audience and we will take care of the rest. From the information we relay to you, you should have a list of very qualified cantidates for your product. Special 50,000 contacts only $100 (Save $100)!! Copyright 1997 Innovative Concepts

1 0

How to subscribe
by Theodor.SCHLICKMANN＠BXL.DG13.cec.be 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have learned from the discussions in this list that there are other lists related to this one. Can anybody send me information on what is available and when this confusion created by having different lists will stop. cypherpunks : unmoderated and uncensored cypherpunks : unmoderated and censored cypherpunks : moderated and uncensored cypherpunks : moderated and censored cypherpunks : US eyes only -- export restrictions cypherpunks : Europe cypherpunks : private mail Theodor W. Schlickmann

3 2

Re: World's first Ecash note
by Marc Briceno 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:26 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Jeremey Barrett wrote: >The world's first Ecash note has been printed! > >A USD 0.01 note made out to anyone can be found at: > > http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ecash/1_cent.html > >The data portion of the note is a PDF417 2-D barcode, containing a >standard ecash payment of 1 US cent. Congratulations to Jeremey for printing the world's first Ecash note! I hereby declare Jeremey the winner of the "encoding Ecash as 2D-bar code" contest. The money will be awarded this Saturday. Now, we need decoding software. :-) [There is a $100 reward (out of my own pocket) for the first freeware decoder. Source required. This is a "just for fun" contest. I know that $100 won't pay for the time spent on the project.] -- Marc Briceno <mailto:marc@digicash.com> Ecash(tm) Electronic Cash Evangelist/Developers Support <http://www.digicash.com/>

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Ed Falk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.?

1 0