December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: THE NEW YORKER on the V-Chip
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: IN%"abostick(a)netcom.com" "Alan Bostick" 23-JAN-1997 23:09:54.72 > > >In the Jan. 20, 1997, issue of THE NEW YORKER, the "Comment", written by > >Malcolm Gladwell, makes a powerful arguement about the unintended > >consequences of the V-Chip I noticed that when my nephews buy video games, the first ones they check out are the ones plastered with the 'protective' ratings-symbols that proclaim that the game is the 'baddest of the bad' in terms of violence, etc. Thanks to the violence-rating system, they no longer have to waste time checking out 'dweeb' programs that contain absolutely no blood and gore. Toto

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Typical modern American attitude, getting it right is too much work so let's > lower the benchmark so anyone can be 'right'. Are you referring to the CypherPunks 'censored' list? Toto

1 0

Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection policy. 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. You can receive a copy of my article by an email request. The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including its quoted part. Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy. I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy the current readership. - Igor.

1 0

Re: If you were unable to download UDCM V2.0 before...
by Krenn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > {If you were unable to download UDCM V2.0 before, we're extremely sorry.} > {UDCM's web site may have been under construction during the time you > visited.} > {UDCM's web site has finished undergoing its changes and will operate > correctly.} > {UDCM V2.0 has been extensively modified from its previous variation.} > {Digital signaturing and public key cryptosystem capabilities have been > added.} > {UDCM's DS and PKCS techniques do NOT make use of conventional PN factoring.} > {UDCM's source code is currently unavailable. PLEASE DO NOT REQUEST IT.} > {UDCM's on-line help documentation has also been extensively modified.} > {This advertisement has also been modified.} Well halellujah. > Greetings! I am Jeremy K. Yu-Ramos, president of DataET Research, Data > Engineering Technologies. I am sending you this message to let you know that > DataET Research has recently initiated the distribution of UDCM, Universal > Data Cryptography Module. UDCM implements a revolutionarily new, extremely > advanced and sophisticated, digital data encryption algorithm named IMDMP, > Integrated Mathematical Data Manipulation and Positioning. > > UDCM (the IMDMP algorithm)... OH! OF COURSE! IMDMP! COOL!! > > o Is a royalty-free Windows DLL module featuring advanced cryptography. > o Contains more than 150 procedures and functions. WOW!! 150!!! > o Is a very cost-effective size of only 60 kilobytes. > o Implements the IMDMP encryption algorithm. Of course, who doesn't?! > o Allows encryption keys as large as 2048 bits. > o Includes 18 sub-algorithms. 18?! HOLY COW!! > o Processes all forms of binary and ASCII files. What a breakthrough! Astounding!! > o Allows multiple encryption layer levels. > o Has absolutely no back-doors or magical keys. Of course not, it's IMDMP!! > o Includes time and date locking features. > o Includes file specific unique encryption features. Specific unique encryption features!! NO WAY!! COOL!!! > o Includes file authentication guard features. > o Includes digital signaturing capabilities. > o Implements the public key cryptosystem method of security. Of course, everyone knows the public key cryptosystem method is the best! Excellent! > o Includes data importance and sensitivity stamping features. > > UDCM, being a Windows DLL module, can be accessed through programs developed > with popular application and database programming languages and environments > such as: C, C++, Visual Basic, PowerBuilder, Delphi, OOP Pascal, Turbo > Pascal, dBase, Paradox, Access, Sybase, Oracle, etc. > > DataET Research has released a shareware version of UDCM named UDCM V2.0. Hey, v2.0, neat name, where'd you come up with it?! > > To download UDCM V2.0 for free, please go to: > http://members.aol.com/dataetrsch/udcm.html. AOL!! Oh YES! Cool! > > I hope you will consider applying UDCM in the software you develop. Thank-you > very much for your time. Oh most certainly! I'm gonna run out and implement EVERYTHING in UDCM!! Thanks man!! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMuhyVUnqfwPpt/QVAQFM4wQAymizJEI/F5SFcWILNfGNoIsxxYza6Bfo yadEF9BnlcXujq0ZFZiRv7SddXjTS5TgVZLutZdEIx/NYPESkH7MXh18CyI/EXo6 NSyAiE0pFFRIrAgV4FWVVS9jsTWKucfI7NbWKSLEWTK8e6fdywAlXzlvbPT+1v6C b4vWK4akrBs= =74mf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Commerce Sec. Hearings and Encryption
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Campbell wrote: > > toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca wrote: > > Bill Campbell wrote: > This "freely available overseas" concept is a bit overstated. > France and other countries are beginning to come down hard > on encryption. True. Perhaps I should have said "freely available, but it might cost you more than you expect." > Cynic or realist, you make the call. <G> The average Joe > doesn't even know *why* he needs encryption...at least > not yet. The average joe is quickly becoming aware of the issue of data security (and therefore being exposed to the 'concept' of encryption as something that will impact his life). Of course, this is coming about as a result of commercial pressures to make him feel safe about handing over his Visa number, etc. To me, this indicates that this is the opportune time to inject a deeper level of understanding into the issue of crypto, at a time when the average joe has his attention directed toward the crypto arena. Toto

1 0

Re: No Dimitri??
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes: > "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> writes: > > > I have noticed that there has not been any post from Dimitri in a couple of > > days. > > > > I am assuming that this means that the list moderation has now started? > > Yes - anything I say is junked irrespective of content. I see that Moderator Sandfort has allowed this article through (to prove me wrong) but has tossed all my other articles into cypherpunks-flames. Most of them were crypto-relevant, on-topic, and contained no flames. I bet he's going to toss this one too. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection > policy. I predict that Sandy won't allow any posts on the censored list that question his moderation poilicy - only the unanymous praises. > 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. A dishonorable act. > You can receive a copy of my article by an email request. Perhaps you want to start putting up rejected articles on a Web page? > The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected > my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances > of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including > its quoted part. That's correct. > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the > criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy. Sandy's personal likes and dislikes of certain posters are the criterion. > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy > the current readership. You won't be allowed to on this censored mailing list. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: seeds of our own destruction
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <32E72BCB.3CBA(a)deltanet.com>, on 01/23/97 at 01:13 AM, Kevin Stephenson <cts(a)deltanet.com> said: +You wrote some very interesting articles. It is the UN. if you want a real scare, read the UN "world constitution" on human rights and privacy --their idea of a Bill of Rights. It just happens that it is virtually word for word equivalent to the mainland Chinese "rights" -in other words: rights as long as they are consistent with the aims of the state (UN) and the security needs of the state at the given moment. ...and the UN is to be granted overall sovereignity by virtue of the right to unilateraly tax its 'member' states, and not necessarily in an equitable fashion. to put it in context, it is clearly the havenots reducing everyone to the status of havenot; there will be no others. this, of course, will eventually give way to tribal governments and the cycle will start over after the population is reduced by its own pollution and starvation to a new balance with nature. disease, more than starvation, will be the biggest killer. men will be too hungry, and too sick, to fight until it stabilizes. there will be exceptions, of course, but they will lack sufficient power to extend their sphere of influence before they are overrun by the mass, or destroyed by chemical and germ warfare in the last gasp. the meaning of the 144,000 becomes more clear... +Read Revelations (if you haven't). have more than several textbooks on it, and have taught classes on Revelation. however, I strongly believe the interpretations are still 'every man for himself' --presuming, of course, the propounder has at least the prerequisite grounding and understanding in the fundamental concepts, starting with John the Revelator, who never died, and why portions of the book are sealed. the best general reference on symbology, at least of what I have seen so far: Opening the Seven Seals (The Visions of John the Revelator) Richard D. Draper Desert Books, Salt Lake City ISBN 087579-547-1, SKU 2142298 +Maybe put some scriptures on cypherpunks. casting pearls before swine? +Happy Armageddon. Frances Ford Coppola wasted the good title: 'Apocolypse Now' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMuc64b04kQrCC2kFAQFXBwP/RhEeldizuSelbrHtfCSDsrwRaT0hn1qd e/j6Q0IPHMkzrFS+bnTGia5hLogTgU61tdvq38AGlRt2LpQZVekStZqCog4Jfmx0 olK1xzpNEr71UsDxxYe5ooIhHwWVWfZsxtj6k8/eSYtLbontN+BCHbk6V+Py3BOi HOpugpbs8V4= =2XXx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > 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 have noticed that the 'sorting' of messages seems to be based as much on personality as upon content. > The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected > my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances > of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including > its quoted part. The standard of what constitutes a 'flame' seems to rest very much upon whom a comment is directed at, or merely 'vaguely toward'. There have been more than a few postings stronly lambasting various generic grouping of individuals which have passed without censoring. Your post, however, included Dr. Dimitri's vague reference to a homosexual 'elite'. While it was directed toward no one in particular, I suppose one could 'infer', from his past postings, that it referred to certain individuals, or a group of individuals. So it would seem that, in quoting the posts of others, one must take into consideration what various readers may infer from their previous posts. > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the > criterion by which he moderates this list. This was more than obvious to anyone who cared to cast an objective eye on the process, but their input was pooh-paah'd by the 'washed masses'. > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy > the current readership. Like all of the 'opinions' that were expressed prior to the censorship of the list? I haven't seen any indication that these opinions were given the slightest consideration. This is not the readership's list. It is a private individual's list. My view of Sandy's moderation is that it is rather willy-nilly, and not done particularly objectively. There have been personal insults directed toward various individuals, including myself, which seem not to have been considered 'flames', while there are more than a few posts which, even on the closest of inspection, I can see no reason for dumping the the 'flame-crapper', other than the fact that they are somewhat associated to the 'unclean' list members. The moderation, at best, seems to encourage 'snide' commentary meant to be ill-disguised cheap-shots. I would much rather have list members taking strong, clean shots at their 'targets', than to be subjected to two-faced people talking out of the side of their mouths. In short, I don't see the moderation as being 'fair', and I don't think it was ever meant to be. I don't have a problem with this, since it's a private list, and, as far as I am concerned, the list-owner can censor it, or have it censored, any way he or she sees fit. I would like to point out, however, that anyone who has had their posts 'sorted' into the 'flames list' is now a 'known flamer', as evidenced by the fact that their post has been designated a 'flame' on a list run by a champion of free speech on the electronic frontier. It is obvious that some of the more intuitively intelligent list members are aware of this, as is indicated by the nervous fear with which they 'explain why' their post is crypto-relevant. Toto

3 2

Re: If you were unable to download UDCM V2.0 before...
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Krenn wrote: > Oh most certainly! I'm gonna run out and implement EVERYTHING in UDCM!! > Thanks man!! Yours is the post these guys have been waiting for. All of those other CypherPunks just 'flamed' them by asking technical questions about their products. Who knows, they may make you their marketing manager. Toto

1 0