December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks > > > on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous > > > remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames > > > mailing list. > > > > I don`t think I read the article (even though I subscribe to the > > unmoderated list), can you forward me a copy. > > As I understand it though, from other comentaries, it was junked > > because it was in response to a message by Dimitri who, given that it > > is Sandy that is moderating the list, is no doubt filtered by > > different criteria than anyone else on the list, in my opinion a > > censorous and fascist restraint as Dimitri has recently been posting > > more crypto relevant material, besides which whatever the content of > > his posts they should be open to review before a decision is made on > > if they are to be junked or not. > > Has Paul reversed his previous pro-censorship stand and decided to > learn something about crypto from people who actually know some? There is no change of stance needed, I happen to believe you are knowledgable about cryptography and sometimes post worthwhile commentary and information, however, you also post a lot of dreck and flammable material which means I respond in kind. That does not mean I believe you, or anyone else, should be censored. > > > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the > > > criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy. > > > > Yes Sandy, please enlighten us, what is the criterion you use to > > moderate the list if not crypto-relevancy. I suspect an element of > > self preservation and protection of the list fuhrer and diktat maker > > John Gilmore (who, until the disgraceful incident with Dimitri > > commanded some respect on this list). > > I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing > me, turning list moderated). Now I only have disdain for him. I agree entirely, Gilmore was a respected man (despite the EFF being a corporate whore) who threw any respect and admiration others had for him away. > > > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy > > > the current readership. > > > > I don`t think this is the point, John Gilmore is free to appoint > > whoever he wants to moderate his list, he is free to censor all > > messages which criticise him and his censorship, however, subscribers > > to the list should be told they are being censored on these grounds > > and not on some facade of "crypto relevancy" or another thin veil > > drawn weakly over content based censorship to protect a certain class > > of list members. > > Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated > cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his > "moderation experiment". I notice and appreciate the quotes around "moderation experiment", this is, without doubt, a permenant measure to silence members of the list who dare to offer criticism of anyone an element of {x: x a friend or co-censor of John Gilmore} I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was. Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an opportunity to prove me wrong). Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May the self-admitted child molester possesses a rudimentary dick less than one inch long, half the size of his mother's clitoris, that barely makes a fistful. Thereby hangs the root of this Jew-hating sissy's sick fixation on little boys and Usenet forgeries. /\ /\ + \______/ + / . . \ < / > \ \--/ / ------

1 0

Re: Get Set for War/ American Dissident Voices
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, J Durbin wrote: > Aga <aga(a)dhp.com> wrote: > > >You keep ALL of your replies to usenet, or ELSE! > > Note recent, hypocritical, unsolicited email reply to a Usenet article > from aga(a)dhp.com: > That was not an adversarial reply. It is the *adversarial* e-mail and/or complaints which are the prohibited and deemed legal "harassment," since the party "KNOWS" that it is unwanted. It is the "intent" that counts > > Received: from proxy3.ba.best.com (root(a)proxy3.ba.best.com > [206.184.139.14]) by shellx.best.com (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id > GAA25960 for <jed(a)shellx.best.com>; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 06:39:17 -0800 > (PST) > Received: from dhp.com (dhp.com [199.245.105.1]) by proxy3.ba.best.com > (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id GAA04244 for <slothrop(a)poisson.com>; Sat, > 18 Jan 1997 06:38:53 -0800 (PST) > Received: from dhp.com (dhp.com [199.245.105.1]) by dhp.com > (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA05322; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:38:46 -0500 > Newsgroups: ne.internet.services,alt.fan.speedbump,alt.god.grubor > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:38:43 -0500 (EST) > From: aga <aga(a)dhp.com> > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > cc: "Dr. Grubor" <drgrubor(a)aol.com>, J Durbin <slothrop(a)poisson.com> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Victory Party] > In-Reply-To: <32E0D65F.7442(a)earthlink.net> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970118093420.3890K-100000(a)dhp.com> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > Hey you fucker; you pay my expenses and I will come. > You get a one hour lecture and one hour of questions and > answers afterward. Everybody gets frisked for guns at the door, > since we do not trust some of those cypherpunks. > > -- > jason durbin > slothrop(a)poisson.com > stop reading here <--- > > So, that was not an "adversarial" response, and therefore it was permitted. aga administrator UseNet Freedom Council

1 0

Re: Public Key Partners
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:50 PM 1/25/97 -0500, DataETRsch(a)aol.com wrote: >Do you know of a way I can contact Public Key Partners by e-mail or phone? >Thanks. Time travel? (PKP dissolved when the partners sued each other. There's a Cylink ex-partner, and an RSA ex-partner, available at www.*.com ) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Ultimate Flames List
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis- > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems. It > suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated > or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a > healthy person can get it from the virii alone. It has been suggested that disease is merely an attempt by Nature to 'moderate' the species. One could make a strong case for Nature merely 'sorting' individuals into physical lists, one of which is her own 'flames' list. It remains to be seen whether Nature also plans on dropping the 'flames' list after her moderation experiment is over. Toto

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hun wrote: > I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing > judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is > questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames: It is whatever the moderator decides it is, depending upon h/is/er intelligence, understanding, mood, command of language, sobriety, etc., etc., etc. > and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our > own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any > filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse > the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?" I am certain that there are members of the controlled media who are ROTL at the CypherPunks following in their footsteps, after having belittled the media for years for their sheep-mentality. > unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that > a) net anarchy does not work > b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy > c) we're loose cannons on the deck > d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect We are also demonstrating that all of the CypherPunk rhetoric about cryptography and freedom and... was just a lot of 'smoke' being blown by a bunch of pretenders who folded like a busted flush when they were 'told' that the man who owns the Machine will now subject them to the whims of whatever moderation he sees fit to impose on the list. Cryptography is about privacy. Apparently, however, the New List Order is of the opinion the Privacy Without Freedom is an obtainable goal. > --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you > enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' > and 'police?' It doesn't matter if the 'owner' of the list/Machine decides that s/he is now the government, with the power and/or right to make all decisions concerning the list. > good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday > when you start and finish the onerous task! I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is already crazy. For the record, I don't think that either John or Sandy is crazy. I think that they have their own pre-established goals which others on the cypherpunks list are not privy to. Of course, this is my personal opinion, and I could be wrong. On the other hand, I could be 'right' like I am about everything else. Toto

1 0

Re: Corelation
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> writes: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > > > Has anyone actually 'seen' John Gilmore, lately? Since there > > have been a number of postings indicating that the writer > > 'used to respect' Gilmore, I am wondering if perhaps this > > moderation experiment is not actually an attempt by someone > > to discredit him. > > Well I saw John last night at the C2Net party, but I guess that's > not much reassurance. :-) Let me rephrase Toto's question: has anyone with some credibility left seen Gilmore lately? (I last saw Gilmore in September. I'm trying to remember if he looked like he lost weight. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto and Jim Choate were having a little disagreement about the rights of nations to maintain the boundaries of ignorance around their "citizenry", and Jim said that no one outside a nation's boundaries should feel moved to interfere with the program: > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. ............................................................ Normally, I would agree that people who choose to live within a certain locale and choose the kind of government that they will live with and the kind of policies that they will accept as impositions upon their lives, should be allowed to "enjoy the fruits of their labors". But on further examination of the situation in 'foreign' countries, these things must be realized: . Individuals do not agree with each other 100% . Individuals living within the boundaries of a nation will not agree with each other 100% about the kind of government they should have . Many of the individuals living within the boundaries of *any* nation do not have 100% control over which policies, or the quality of them, they will have to live under . It is not uncommon for "leaders" of nations to take advantage of their position to benefit more from the contributions of their citizenry than vice versa (the citizenry benefitting from their leadership) . It is not uncommon for there to be proportionately more people in favor of living in a state of dependence than not; and it is not uncommon for those who favor dependence to favor proposals which seem to put them on the receiving end of "benefits" (versus being contributors); and it is not uncommon for these "benefits" to be derived at the expense of such virtues as freedom and liberty . Many individuals reside within a nation not because they favor its po litics, but because they feel more comfortable among their own kind than with strangers elsewhere - for example, Chinese who have lived in China all their lives (and whose ancestral roots are there) will wish to stay there and do what they can within the boundaries of that nation, rather than for instance moving to Canada, when the going gets rough. Given these things, nevertheless it is true that the internet , among other events in our "modern" world, is opening up avenues towards advantages and benefits hitherto difficult to comeby. As many of you are aware, many people are beginning to identify with a global network of friends and co-workers according to their particular (or peculiar) interests, rather than with the "Old Order". It is becoming moot what nationality or what government or what company one works for - the loyalties of the past are being tested and re-configured in the minds of those who now do business and communicate and share things and develop friendships, acquaintances, and empathies, on the net. So to speak of "having a say" on how Singapore or China or any other nation-state runs "our web" or vice versa "us" having a say on how they run "their web" is becoming irrelevant. Economics will be determining how the web is run, and by whom. The identity of those who use it will be not "those who are citizens of Singapore", but: "my friend who lives in Singapore and is having a hard time accessing a file that I wanted him/her to have". Affiliations will be seen differently by those who connect in cyberspace, and if certain of one's cyberspace friends are having problems - if, say, a Hitler were to suddenly rise up in their midst - then the netizens could send their emergency alert out to anyone and everyone on the net about a problem brewing which perhaps someone could help them deal with, according to their ability to do so. It is true that individuals still live within the physical boundaries of "nations" which have formed in the past, and they still hold the concepts of these boundaries in their minds and they still identify closely with these, and they still vote problems upon themselves. But it is becoming an anachronism, and it is becoming inaccurate to speak of "what Singaporians want for the internet". This phrase would describe many of those who live in Singapore, but not all of them. It is more accurate to speak of what "individuals who use the internet" want, of what "individuals who want to communicate" want, of what "individuals who want to connect with others" want. The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those who would take it away". .. Blanc

2 1

DataETRsch
by Gemini Thunder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apparently intimidated by the response from the Cypherpunks list, DataETRsch has begun spamming mailing lists with ads for their UDCM/IMDMP Windows DLL. It reared its ugly head in linux-c-programming(a)vger.rutgers.edu today.

1 0

PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anyone running Windows 95 who hasn't grabbed the beta of PGPmail 4.5 from http://www.pgp.com/ is crazy. It works seamlessly with Netscape 3.0 and Eudora Pro 3.0. The 30-day demo of Eudora Pro is at: http://www.eudora.com/prodemo/. It is easy to use. I just installed it and pointed it at my old pubring.pgp and secring.pgp files and went to work. All my messages have been signed since then and some have been encrypted. The installation program found my existing copies of Eudora and Netscape and installed the PGP add in without any fuss. My only problem was finding the controls for the add in which (in the case of Eudora) consist of buttons to encrypt, sign, bring up the program, insert a copy of your key, and actually modify the message. The controls only appear on the message create, and message read windows. Easy to use. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMuuKMYVO4r4sgSPhAQFfzAP+LkDjOecHxz0iEVVggLLABxAOE9tVyOLl AIkKlagFqK+lBboo7fETCZtSpmDHcNsJG6Et6BWO5aYf7Artw+jXj+734c+w4RWj zcj6+351LUqT60TmcukH02p2MT0sd8w1dAnhD8+o1E13G5h5N1CF/p6KQjmHOiQ6 9T1ehMax0jE= =E8Pu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0