December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: One Big Telecoms Company
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:23 PM 11/15/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Progress? Most major cities (when I was a kid) had *several* competing >newspapers, Few realize that NYC today has circa 20 daily newspapers (circa 5 in English and circa 15 in other languages). In addition, I can read a hundred daily newspapers (or more) on the nets. DCF

2 1

Re: THAT is what makes ---Snipshit---------
by dshipman＠ewol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> time for ------Snipshit--------- >> An excellent --------Snipshit------------- > >In that case ---------------Snipshit------------ >Jai Maharaj >%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:% Splash!! Another one falls from filter to Crap Bucket. Damn, a week ago I didn't even know how to *use* a filter! DLS --------------- A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:00 ìì 16/11/1996 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >Rich Burroughs <richieb(a)teleport.com> writes: >> >I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of >> >nonsense. Please do us all a favor and try to sue John. I'm sure >> >that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they >> >can come up with a viable cause of action. And John has deep >> >pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue >> >"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists. >> >> Such a case would obviously fail. John has the right to ban anyone he >> wants from a list that he is hosting. > >Sure he does - I've been saying all along that John Gilmore has the right to >act dishonorably, which he exercises. Yet the censorship supporters keep >attributing to me the diametrically opposite view - that the state can force >John to carry even the opinions he disagrees with. This is not what I've been >saying, of course. John Gilmore lied when he attributed this opinion to me (as >quoted by Declan McCulough). Only his honor could force him to do that, but he >has no honor and no credibility. John had the right to exercise censorship on >his private mailing list, which is precisely what he did. > >> I do question, though, whether or not it was the best way to handle the >> situation. As I have argued, the availability of end-user filtering made >> banning Dimitri from the list unnecessary, IMHO. And the list owner giving >> people the boot sure doesn't fit with the picture I have had of what >> cypherpunks was about. YMMV. > >Same here - I used to have respect for John Gilmore, but now I don't. Neither do I, or my friends who heard about it. What worries me is that people still subscribe to the cypherpunks list after this assault on free speech takes place. If pimps like Gilmore ever succeed in controlling people in the Net, it will be because of people accepting to become prostituted. I am not a petty nationalist, but where I come from, after such an expulsion a lot of people would unsubscribe, and the issue would appear in the daily newspapers (several pages of which every week are devoted to Internet news and activities). Pity I'm too busy nowadays (in dictionary software production). I would gladly write articles on Dimitri's expulsion and the facade of Free Speech in mailing lists etc., as I occasionally have written articles as a part-time journalist. Believe me, the nature of the (cypherpunks) list as well as the importance of the person expelled (at one time I wanted to interview Dimitri for other things he exposed), makes VERY HOT NEWS indeed. But since I have no time, it's likely someone else will report this. What we're REALLY interested in, is exposing fallacies about Freedom of Speech when "private mailing lists" are the biggest threat to it, nowadays, ever since the Net was invented. I will pass this on to relevant people and see what happens. Sincerily George A. Stathis P.S. already cross-posted this to "Eleftherotypia", perhaps the biggest and most democratic-minded newspaper in Athens, Greece. (if it bounces, I got the address wrong and will resend).

2 1

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:52 ìì 16/11/1996 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> Thank you in advance for your filtering instructions (yawn). >> >> BTW, why would anyone give a shit whether you killfiled anyone or not? > >But, Dale, that's the whole point of censorship: people like Alan Olsen >and John Gilmore and Jim Ray aren't satisfied when they've killfiles a >source of noise they consider annoying so it doesn't bother them anymore. >They feel compelled to silence it altogether. They claim altruistically >that they don't want the noise to bother anyone else, such as the clueless >newbies who keep subscribing to this mailing list and don't know how to >use mail filters. (Sandy Sanford's concern for them was soooo touching...) Rather infuriating, too, that newbies are PATRONISED. It's well known among my own circle that forcible expulsions from mailing lists serve the purpose of controlling the information-flow to _newbies_ mostly; since hard-liners and experts know how to killfile anyone anyway... But sometimes, in other mailing lists, "killfile-terrorism" appears, meaning an attempt to influence EVERY newbie into killfiling someone whose messages are no longer read, but the messages of his critics are read. It's a return to the MIDDLE AGES, because it means that the words of the prosecutor are heard, but the defense of the accused is deleted. Greek friends and I have been studying this Mechanism of Repression for rather a long time. It's probably encouraged by the EFF, too, in the sense that (the goal is): Turn the Internet into cows and sheep flocked together by pimp-cowboy list-owners. It nearly turned me into a Yankee-hater till I realized there are quite a few open-minded Americans similarly infuriated and concerned. One Net-friend of mine (an American lady) has a doctorate in History and Law and remarked that FEW PEOPLE IN THE STATES REALIZE WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, and how EASY it is for the freedom-bashers to succeed. Lastly, I have now read nearly ALL of Dimitri Vulis' postings (in the F-K list), and consider it CRIMINAL censorship if anyone tries to stop him from speaking out. His talent at exposing fallacies is magnificient. This is the beginning of the END of pimping-on-the-net in the name of "privacy". George

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Yes, I understand this. It's quite obvious; being removed from the > subscriber list hasn't slowed Vulis at all. When I was writing the piece > Vulis seemed to have slowed his ad hominem attacks and instead was talking > about censorship (something that is within the charter of the list), but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, Declan, it's not. "info cypherpunks" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)toad.com yields the welcome message to the list -- the closest thing to a charter available. The subjects of censorship and free speech are neither mentioned nor alluded to anywhere within that document. The subjects of censorship & free speech do bear some relationship to the list's expressed subject and are certainly near and dear to most cypherpunk hearts. The government cannot prevent us from discussing the implications of privacy enabled by strong crypto. Free speech & censorship may even be interesting, entertaining, & important topics -- hence their consistent recurrance in discussions. But the above assertion is factually wrong. _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________

3 2

Re: Final Solution to the Crypto Problem
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Namely, once the infrastructure is deployed, once most electronic commerce >is handled via card tokens (and card readers are actually pretty cheap, and >volume will drive the price down further), the President can cite some kind >of national emergency, or widespread tax evasion, or whatnot, to announce >that beginning on suc-and-such a date all cards must be licensed, even to >domestic users. Not to diminish the validity of Tim's alarm, is there not reason to anticipate that these tokens will be crackable. And thus continue the race between crypto enforcers and crackers? In addition to the recent successes against smart cards, there seems to be trouble with the government's program for widespread use of Fortezza cards, according to complaints of various military and civilian sites. The Fortezza site at ljl.com seems to have been set up so that open, easily accessible information could be gotten by the harried military users (see, for example, the list of Fortezza complaints at http://infosec.nosc.mil ). Moreover, there is surely to be continued competition among the players who are trying to increase their market share -- both government and commercial, both domestic and international. Will they not continue to attack each other's crypto products? And will not each nation's government continue to subsidize their favored producers in international economic and military contentions? The point is made on cypherpunks that the odds are increasingly on the crackers even if there are periodic gains by behind-the-scenes plots among the enforcers and there temporary allies (as Tim notes, these are often short- term romances). And that hardware systems are the most vulnerable due to their illusory physical security -- the fatal conceit that brawn can beat brains in crypto, as it claims it used to do in iron- and fire-power (that was before iron became subservient to code). Finally, take a look at the history of these "emergency" Executive Orders outlined in No. 12924 posted by Peter Junger. Then look at the predecessors to those at www.house.gov. They go back through several administrations and confirm what Hal first raised: there is a concerted effort to get around accountability for the continuation of the so-called emergency, and successive Congresses have been complicit in the camouflage.

4 3

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Dr. Jai Maharaj 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 02:24:11 -0200 UTC, in message <199611170424.CAA09647(a)prometheus.hol.gr>, "George A. Stathis" <hyperlex(a)hol.gr> wrote: > [...] > Rather infuriating, too, that newbies are PATRONISED. [...] The practice is widespread in the newsgroups, of course. Years ago when I first started participating in the security and crypto groups I received many messages from vigilantes who instructed me to pay no attention to certain posters. It became quite obvious after only a few days that the persons to be avoided and censored were the creative ones with new ideas and the promise for a better Net. On the other hand, the self-appointed cops were the unimaginative pipsqueaks who were, quite frankly, involved in promoting only their mediocrity. They felt threatened by the wiser and brighter. > Lastly, I have now read nearly ALL of Dimitri Vulis' > postings (in the F-K list), and consider it CRIMINAL > censorship if anyone tries to stop him from speaking out. > His talent at exposing fallacies is magnificient. This is > the beginning of the END of pimping-on-the-net in the name > of "privacy". George His work in exposing the thugs of lava.net aka lava(tory).net is really appreciated here in Hawaii [*] by freedom-loving netters. Thanks to Dr. Vulis and others, the Cabal (spit) and the Lynch Mob (vomit) are nearly dead. Hawaii Footnote [*] A member of the international press who is traveling with President Clinton during his vacation here asked me earlier today, "How's the Internet doing, got a story for me?" I think I may suggest the issues being discussed here. Perhaps non- governmental-censorship matters have not received enough attention in the mass-media yet. Jai Maharaj Aloha! %:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:%

1 0

Could Declan or some libertarian explain this?
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the so-called fight-censorship list. I would ask there, but the list owner won't let me, and I won't stoop to Vulis's level. | PLEASE MARK MY WORDS: IF MY BOOK IS NOT RE-PUBLISHED AND AVAILABLE |IN BOOKSTORES, THE CAUSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE WEST WILL BE IN A SORRY |STATE. FEW ACADEMICS WOULD BE PREPARED TO SUFFER THE MANY BLOWS AND |THREATS THAT I HAVE NOW ENDURED FOR SIX MONTHS. IF 'The 'g' Factor' |DISAPPEARS, SO WILL OTHER SERIOUS PRODUCTS OF RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP -- |ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE DEEMED "CONTROVERSIAL" BY THE LIBERAL-LEFT. His complaint is that his publisher stopped distribution of his book arguing that blacks are mentally inferior to whites. Could someone please explain to me how Chris Brand is different from Vulis? I mean in form; in practice, Declan is bashing Vulis for not recognizing rights of private editorial control, but uncritically passing on Mr. Brand's message alleging that private editorial control is censorship. Far be it from me to criticize Declan's right to exercise editorial control over substantive dissent and factual correction, but I was just wondering. -rich

3 2

Re: NT insecurity
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 17:00:56 -0500 (EST), Michael H. Warfield wrote: > Hooo Hummm... Another one... >> Given the recent comments about insecure machines, I thought it was >> interesting to note that you can clear *every* password on an NT box by using >> a diskeditor to corrupt the password file (Boot off of a floppy and use >> NTFSDOS if you have to). It'll reboot several times and then you'll be >> allowed to login. > Much as I absolutely detest NT, lets reitterate what everyone else >on this list has already heard too TOO many times... If you have physical >access to the machine, it ain't secure. It doesn't matter what operating True. However, as has been reiterated many times, NT is being marketed as a secure platform. Unix people tend to know that you need to work to secure it. MS hype might lead some of the non-cypherpunk admin types to believe it's secure. Trust me. I hear from these people all the time! # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

2 1

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:52 ìì 16/11/1996 -1000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote: >A member of the international press who is traveling with >President Clinton during his vacation here asked me earlier >today, "How's the Internet doing, got a story for me?" I think >I may suggest the issues being discussed here. Perhaps non- >governmental-censorship matters have not received enough >attention in the mass-media yet. Quite true, and the same thing I was told by the Chief-Editor of "Info" (the weekly Internet-supplement of a prominent Greek journal -Eleftherotypia). One last comment is important here: ****************************************************************** If the 'neo-liberal' ideology of EVERYTHING becoming 'privatised' succeeds, then non-governmental censorship is MUCH more important the governmental censorship. ****************************************************************** The Internet is a threat to the 'traditional' role of the media, and 'list-owners' try tp behave like patronising conventional newspaper-editors. All the filth that was hidden in the closet of the journalistic profession comes out, as a result, in the Net. These people want to _model_ mailing lists after journals -ironically at a time when many journalists are free to write what they like sometimes against the opinions of the journal-owners. Perhaps our only hope is that... Freedom sells. George

1 0