December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Fighting the cybercensor.
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Otto Matic <ott0matic(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Tue Jan 21 16:57:46 1997 > > >"Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> writes: > > > >> Mission: > >> > >> Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > >> this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? The Web > >> was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > >> between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > >> speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > > >Phil, when I saw the subject, I thought this was another article > >condemning Gilmore, Sandfort, and their disgraceful censorship. > > What's up with this one getting censored? You didn't say cocksucker or fuck > anything? Alles Kriticismus auf der Listfuehrer Gilmore und Obercensor Sandfart ist stricklich verbotten. Heil Kocksucker Gilmore! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Armenians want to know...
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ray Arachalian sure gets around... >From AARARATY(a)aua.am Wed Jan 22 07:01:23 1997 >Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) > via UUCP; Wed, 22 Jan 97 07:30:15 EST > for AARARATY(a)aua.am >Received: from fsaua.aua.am (fsaua.aua.am [10.1.0.3]) by ararat.aua.am (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA08515 for <cismap(a)dm.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:24:30 +0400 >Received: from AMI/SpoolDir by fsaua.aua.am (Mercury 1.21); > 22 Jan 97 15:08:11 +0400 >Received: from SpoolDir by AMI (Mercury 1.30); 22 Jan 97 15:07:39 +0400 >From: "Ara Araratyan" <AARARATY(a)aua.am> >Organization: American University of Armenia >To: cismap(a)dm.com >Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:07:36 +0400 >Subject: Request For Information >Priority: normal >X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 >Message-Id: <7E1ABE2475(a)fsaua.aua.am> > >Dear Sir, > >If it is not hard for you, please, send me more information about >your organization. > >Sincerely, >Ara Araratyan

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:16:00 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > Jim Choate wrote: > > '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. > > And Germany was Hitler and the Nazi Party's own country. And your point is? Are you equating a specific individual or organization with Hitler or the National Socialist? > Do you really want Clinton and GingWretch having a say in how we run > our No, and I have a vote to express that sentiment with and a 'press' (ssz.com) by which I may express my views irrelevant of how that vote may resolve itself. If the people in those counties want to give away their freedom that is their business (and right), not mine, yours, or this countries unless there is evidence they are trying to take their views and impose them here. Do you have said evidence? In reference to Hitler, had he stayed in his own country WWII and the ensuing half century of conflict would most likely not have occured. I say, let them filter themselves into economic collapse, intellectual nihilism, and political suicide. Suicide, assissted or otherwise, is a right any and all individuals have whether acting as individuals or as groups. Remember Masada! Never forget, a tree can exist without a forest but a forest can not exist without trees. It is a one way street however much some people may want to convince us otherwise. > It may be 'their' country ('their' being the government), but it is > 'their' world ('their' being the people). A goverment is people. This reminds me of the argument of the sanctity of law that so many people have. It is only ink on paper that people agree to go along with until they get their fill. Consider, history is full of examples of this process and with California and Massachusettes move on legalizing medical marijuana we may be seeing the first move of a return to states being much more adament on what they can and can't do (per the 9th and 10th). > There was a reason that the > Western powers didn't return East Germans who broke the laws of their > country by climbing over the wall and running for freedom. > Making information available does not 'force' a view on anyone. If those people agree to support a system that limits or controls what information they get to see that is their choice. It didn't work in Russia and it won't work in Singapore or China any better. If the US were to continue to press forward on oppressive legislation and the people don't do anything actively to fight it the same thing will happen here, economic collapse which forces a political collapse. However, we won't get there because the more the government employees and officials 'crack down' the more resistance they will get. You can fool most of the people some of the time, some of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. The key to democratic success is not compromise but rather the unwillingness to compromise. > > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > > data in a easily digestible format. > > No. The internet was conceived so that the DOD could monitor the > communications > of physicists and researchers who thought it was awfully nice of the > government > to provide this wonderful method of sharing data and information. The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. The original goal of the Internet was to allow computers to be connected in a nuclear conflict and the period afterward when communications would be most critical. How people may have bastardized it since then does not change the original reasons (unless you accept revisionist history as a valid endeavour, I don't). One of the biggest problems this country has right now is the inability of people like yourself to differentiate the difference between the ideals of the country and the people who impliment it. The problem is not the government or the ideals it was founded on but rather the way we impliment it. Our government is people, who put their pants on the same way you or I do (assuming you wear pants that is). They are not inherently some mineon of Hell, they are people who in general either don't give a damn and it's just a job or else they really believe what they are doing. Our government is NOT some ideal or non-real entity, despite how many citizens may rail about it in that manner. It just don't make it so. Accept and deal with your schizophrenic tendencies and help solve this national problem we face. Let's try to solve it now so that our grandchildren won't have to fight this fight again. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:16:00 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > Jim Choate wrote: > > '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. > > And Germany was Hitler and the Nazi Party's own country. And your point is? Are you equating a specific individual or organization with Hitler or the National Socialist? > Do you really want Clinton and GingWretch having a say in how we run > our No, and I have a vote to express that sentiment with and a 'press' (ssz.com) by which I may express my views irrelevant of how that vote may resolve itself. If the people in those counties want to give away their freedom that is their business (and right), not mine, yours, or this countries unless there is evidence they are trying to take their views and impose them here. Do you have said evidence? In reference to Hitler, had he stayed in his own country WWII and the ensuing half century of conflict would most likely not have occured. I say, let them filter themselves into economic collapse, intellectual nihilism, and political suicide. Suicide, assissted or otherwise, is a right any and all individuals have whether acting as individuals or as groups. Remember Masada! Never forget, a tree can exist without a forest but a forest can not exist without trees. It is a one way street however much some people may want to convince us otherwise. > It may be 'their' country ('their' being the government), but it is > 'their' world ('their' being the people). A goverment is people. This reminds me of the argument of the sanctity of law that so many people have. It is only ink on paper that people agree to go along with until they get their fill. Consider, history is full of examples of this process and with California and Massachusettes move on legalizing medical marijuana we may be seeing the first move of a return to states being much more adament on what they can and can't do (per the 9th and 10th). > There was a reason that the > Western powers didn't return East Germans who broke the laws of their > country by climbing over the wall and running for freedom. > Making information available does not 'force' a view on anyone. If those people agree to support a system that limits or controls what information they get to see that is their choice. It didn't work in Russia and it won't work in Singapore or China any better. If the US were to continue to press forward on oppressive legislation and the people don't do anything actively to fight it the same thing will happen here, economic collapse which forces a political collapse. However, we won't get there because the more the government employees and officials 'crack down' the more resistance they will get. You can fool most of the people some of the time, some of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. The key to democratic success is not compromise but rather the unwillingness to compromise. > > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > > data in a easily digestible format. > > No. The internet was conceived so that the DOD could monitor the > communications > of physicists and researchers who thought it was awfully nice of the > government > to provide this wonderful method of sharing data and information. The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. The original goal of the Internet was to allow computers to be connected in a nuclear conflict and the period afterward when communications would be most critical. How people may have bastardized it since then does not change the original reasons (unless you accept revisionist history as a valid endeavour, I don't). One of the biggest problems this country has right now is the inability of people like yourself to differentiate the difference between the ideals of the country and the people who impliment it. The problem is not the government or the ideals it was founded on but rather the way we impliment it. Our government is people, who put their pants on the same way you or I do (assuming you wear pants that is). They are not inherently some mineon of Hell, they are people who in general either don't give a damn and it's just a job or else they really believe what they are doing. Our government is NOT some ideal or non-real entity, despite how many citizens may rail about it in that manner. It just don't make it so. Accept and deal with your schizophrenic tendencies and help solve this national problem we face. Let's try to solve it now so that our grandchildren won't have to fight this fight again. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Digital signatures
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[unt] May was born when his mother was on the toilet. \\\|||/// ======= | O : O | Timmy C[unt] May \`_^_'/ _|^|_

1 0

Fuck Sandy Sandfart
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a test. This is only a cocksucking test. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Fascist censorship
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I notice that both my highly crypto-relevant, flame-free article and Igor Chudov's response to it were rejected by the fascist moderator Sandfart and showed up immediately on the cypherpunks-flames address. Apparently Sandfart automatically rejects any submissions with my name in them. Or he's already dead from AIDS and has been replaced by a 'bot. I also notice that John Gilmore's employees from Cygnus Support are flaming me on sci.crypt and accusing me of homophobia. Please help expose Cygnus Support as a homosexual fraud. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: David Kahn advocates GAK
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is indeed a shame, and Carl's response was (of course) excellent. The last chapter of the revised edition of the Codebreakers is reasonably pro-government in the way it lays out the issue of key escrow, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. (I'm told that David's sojourn at the NSA museum was unexciting; they wouldn't tell him much.) :) -Declan On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Carl Ellison wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > It might also be that David's year long sabatical at NSA's crypto museum > which recently ended put him in touch with people who believe in GAK. > > I found it interesting that he noted the argument that each additional > day of government access is a good thing. This is the kind of belief > we know that NSA holds -- a.k.a. "not on my watch" -- but I haven't seen > it publicly admitted before. > > - Carl > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBMuZ35lQXJENzYr45AQEcfwQAqMftG0DXn1nr6faA6IHeAtqSXYanwnZb > DiwqppU4nJqPtIvtFw8eOVVwyYCzIv046dFtwR2mk8HeL1v8I3R2sWm7waknFjlm > TM84+vLamlVnBNPUAXRYOrFiEhPQm/iitR4GVrcga9mHJ+vrI38XQGzi0lxdg310 > pWjq5Fxahag= > =xhF7 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > +------------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | > | PGP 2.6.2: 61 E2 DE 7F CB 9D 79 84 E9 C8 04 8B A6 32 21 A2 | > +-Officer, officer, arrest that man. He's whistling a dirty song.--+ > > >

1 0

P.S. David Kahn's editorial today
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I just sent the following P.S. to newsday.com ---------------------- There is another reason to have cellular phones which encrypt only the over-the-air portion of a call, besides the fact that we can leave normal wiretap access procedures in place and not surrender civilian crypto keys to the government. If I have a cellular phone which encrypts over the air (between the phone and the base station) and I call you, while you have a normal wired phone, our call is protected by cryptography from interception off the air. If I use an AT&T Clipper-style cellular phone, as David suggested, and I call you on a normal wired phone, we can't encrypt the conversation and it is vulnerable to interception. The protection works *only* if both parties have encrypting phones while interoperate. - Carl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMubl6lQXJENzYr45AQEYagQAmVL47KGCHUyee8246VjGqr7+uubTBhHA s/TtgFiMW7a9W5jbni5ov+kjTDeGpRULfrbyEwYR2fd1E1laNeu+EAQkE56KuU9g iiB0S7TBd290MSHJZ6wQUWsDVgCzOi9gHbCQwY+GMQMXKfphuC4kDavwdSxjAXAM MeZsitFRM1w= =TzsP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | | PGP 2.6.2: 61 E2 DE 7F CB 9D 79 84 E9 C8 04 8B A6 32 21 A2 | +-Officer, officer, arrest that man. He's whistling a dirty song.--+

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > '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. I don't want China or Singapore to have a say in how the web is run which is exactly why I would support any effort to make their filtering systems useless. What I put on my web page is my business and I can change the location of the URL as many times as I want and try to make it as difficult as possible to filter it. These countries have no say in whether or not I can do this. If they want to censor their Internet feed, that's their problem and I'm under no obligation to make it easy for them. > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. The web and technology in general have > no more ethics or morality intrinsicly in them than a 5/8" open end > wrench. Blocking and filtering are an expression of human choice and the > implimentation thereof. If it's forced upon the people, it's not a choice. Ultimately, the people can abolish the government if it becomes tyrannical, but not without a lot of lives being lost. I'd much rather try to make sure that people in these countries have free access to information than watch people getting crushed by tanks. > You don't like it, don't live there and don't try to > call there. You or I have no more right to be on a Chinese or Singapore > Internet than they have in coming into yours or my home without an > invitation. These countries want the benefits of being connected to the Internet without the burdens of the citizens having free access to information. It just doesn't work that way. They can pull the plug if they want. If they don't, then they have no right to complain about how people are smuggling subversive information into their respective countries. If the information was "uninvited", then nobody would be downloading it or accessing it anyway. Countries that want to censor their internet connections have the choice of either facing extreme economic difficulties as a result of not being connected to the Internet, or giving their people access to information that the government doesn't want these people to access. Either way, it will force these countries to change in some way. I think most of them will eventually settle for the latter choice. Allowing these countries to censor their connections will result in violence that could otherwise be avoided. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMubkGSzIPc7jvyFpAQGAjAf8D5rdpWYSde9wAcMYvwIqVBQ1+O1692AN x8BOCzv8SYAA+4fA/zHZ4uEetxCikPP7ZF1Nr/K8Tmq5iK7Ed78jvHNj+FXZUB4q oRKolBTmmgkivO1NAKiNtV/NbSFlW+IV88VGZBPx7dwKjJ4JnpR/1HmwtScuQE14 O32NoQTO+6ujmALROdLTr3cGZo6iLl9pC4ZyFZtgTNSzQswT53usXnYkJ8bKlWC6 oj6XY18Jopyx0d2WAmN5pFX2goTnfQSH/Bw6XzDxDGdZNyIY5VxSPynd3018Slgs KH61gRRQ7ilPF4SyKiu+eH0Bvr6NbKonj60NFX0LzbYBDc1OWMYT2Q== =u+Ou -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0