December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

hello
by James Sears 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unscribe

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

??? wrote: [some text deleted] > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the Indians.

1 0

META: Censorship is Going Way too Far
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any particular version of the list(s)), I am about to drive over the Santa Cruz mountains for today's physical meeting at Stanford, and made my last check of the Singapore archive site to see if my last several messages to the CP list have appeared. (The Singapore site archives the main list every four hours; the latest update is 08:15 PST, local time.) They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, as I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. (I scanned the archive site carefully and did not see any of my articles. If I somehow missed them (all four?!), I apologize to the Moderator and will make an appointment with my eye doctor.) Further, messages dated _much_ later in time are now on the Singapore site, meaning they were "approved." (The latest such message I see is from J. Blatz, and is dated 2/8/97, 02:58 a.m., EST, which is fully 10 hours after the first of my messages which never appeared on either the main list or the flames list.) My articles are dated: * 2/7/97, 1:46 p.m. PST * 2/7/97, 1:59 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 3:03 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 9:46 p.m., PST I would normally give the message names here, but I suspect that even mention of the message titles would cause _this_ message to be filtered into the black hole list. So, by avoiding even mention of the message titles, I should be safe. Nothing in this message can be considered flamish (beyond normal criticism) or libelous. (Many articles with dates later than these have already appeared on the main list, and some have already appeared on the Flames list. Why have none of my articles gone through as of this morning?) The subjects of my articles deal with the claims made by "Against Moderation" and Vulis that certain articles were filtered from the stream of articles without appearing on either the main list or the flames list, and with no mention by the Moderator of this significant change to the moderation policies. I surmise that my articles are similarly vanishing into a black hole, presumably because I have questioned the policies here. (Possibly my articles have been side-tracked for further review, or for review by a certain company's legal staff, or whatever. If so, this should be explained to the main list. And the implications of this, if it is happening, should be discussed on the main list.) By the way, I will deliberately make no mention of the details of my articles, or of those by Against Moderation, as I also surmise that any articles dealing with a certain product by a certain company will be filtered out completely. (I carefully did not repeat the claims made against one of these products in my articles, so there is no way under the sun I can be charged in any court with "libel.") To paraphrase the Detweiler of a couple of years ago, "I am quite shocked by this situation." It is one thing to filter out posts which contain infantile, barnyard taunts and insults, it is quite another to filter out _content_. And it is even worse to not pass on these filtered comments to the "flames" list, which was putatively set up to contain such comments. Worse still that the list as a whole is not being told of this policy, and that posts which mention it are not going out. (There has been some discussion of articles not going out, such as in Igor Chudov's recent articles, but I surmise from his article that Igor is unaware of the filtering I'm talking about here. I am copying Igor on this message, to ensure he knows at least part of what is going on here.) There is no justification in any of the stated moderation goals for blocking articles such as mine, or this one. As my posts yesterday did not contain flames or insults (beyond normal minor turns of phrase some might not like, just as _this_ post contains mildly flamish comments if one is so inclined to see _any_ criticism as flamish), they should have appeared on the main list. They have not, so far, even though articles generated many hours later have already appeared on the main list. And, as of minutes ago, they have not appeared on the Flames list, even if the Moderator decided they were flamish. (Even if _one_ was, arguably, not all of them were.) So, we are increasingly in a situation where: a. the moderation policies appear to be changing on a daily basis b. articles which are not even flamish are being dumped c. some of these dumped articles are not even appearing on the "Flames" list d. the appearance of a conflict of interest is increasing e. discussion is being squelched I am cc:ing this message to a handful of Cypherpunks to ensure that it gets some propagation before today's meeting. I find it very sad that things have come to this. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

List censorship
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I notice several posts to the list discussing the incident when a message was sent to the list and was only at toad.com for 3 seconds before being forwarded. This incident, as the other posts observed, seems to suggest some kind of keyword filtering based on content or poster identity is in place. Sandy, can you explain this incident along with the fact that the post Dimitri sent about stronghold was sent to neither of the "filtered" lists. 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

Re: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up??
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E-Mail Communications wrote: > See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" > at the end of this publication. > "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will > always be prepared, so we may always be free." > -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France What Ronald Reagan didn't say (but what he really meant): "I come here to Bitburg to honor the fallen Nazis, because I am in fact an honorary Nazi myself. Just ask my personal secretary Helen, who used to work for Fritz Kraemer."

1 0

Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen.
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: > However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US citizens go and buy > cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US government to read our mail? You shouldn't. Maybe someone should print up a batch of "Voyeur Enabled" stickers for all the GAKed products (or should that be KRAP products, since it is the Key Recovery Alliance, but that is redundant) we will be seeing at our local software stores. Sometimes I think the reason for all this snake oil we have been seeing is the Feds need it for extra lubricant so they don't chafe themselves while getting off on reading our mail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvyv1+QCP3v30CeZAQEGigf+PA45Q2ySEZ6iLwc8+fRURvXJRinStWwy oNGWKDnyYHFJ91L8Z+11oKvMov45CC4MOISy36/Oz2CY9qyq8l5L1wTU7J8CezsS 3QezDreJtUXr/OCmxRngOQbeHuGDkXuIocfTV7sZU/j7ARWj9hKCd39xf6J/MmZ6 zjKS7olJmzMMyJrAWaNo5zaW4g/ER8wJiI0zbakvrd/8Y+VJkiTN05znbIfLiOTV 0Olt/OaX4seWWNwZb5FaPv2y8ST3j+xm4Uv6fdc4Qo8QGWnGpuBAKo0D+q39KNkY Ps47vKyf2VwQM6Ci49/uuU8um/l9TmDsuHkYYmsoDfsGpcZImEWzZw== =Prg6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

Re: anonymous remailers
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to > use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender > quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before > your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, > c, and d like this: > > you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > and only you use c, then your effective chain is: > > someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen This is assuming that it is a reasonable assumption that all traffic going through remailer c originated from the owner. If there is one non-corrupt remailer in the chain before c, then this would not be a valid assumption because traffic from the owner would be indistinguishable from traffic sent by anyone else. If the remailer has low traffic, the solution is, of course, to make it higher traffic. Chain a bunch of messages that get sent to /dev/null through the remailers, being sure to include c somewhere in the middle of the chain. If Mixmaster is used, then it would be virtually impossible to differentiate between "real" messages and messages destined for /dev/null. It would be a little easier with Type I since the size of the ciphertext decreases after each hop. This all assumes that encryption is being used, of course. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvyzcCzIPc7jvyFpAQHRpQf+LusfAS8dhDczpYTHGjgIRo38gPHeDdVn +qmmikRNravoEiPD9GIrZ4OeYKOs6zykvhWuMoTtsVi/a7p1HZyWzl5A5KkxofUv nLOUoPriQ9Ps8fzc3B31G5nwj5d6Es7nnfZbGk1dV5KS5bN7fyu9umBeFiW7jNcj eTf8GmFH7Rxi5aoUc0uMMR/YffMNl0fHo+wooPNnTBMppLouTIr9iQdCxDOJ7eJc QAFyEXYWtRP8AqrnB0/pVAXUtrnui+Ev1waOkMYKbWuiQ8tkHbLAvcmpAVnD67jX 4f3ZQkhXG6C4VbYF3fTlL0ujZgRal0csG0X4u6x/5ID4Blle9hwtIQ== =BqMW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

??? wrote: [some text deleted] > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the Indians.

1 0

Re: What else do I need for an Internet Server
by Otto Matic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Otto Matic wrote: >> What else do I need for an internet server? >> HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high >> speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple >> drives, these are server towers. >> I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. >> That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I >> will be using some kind of UNIX software. > >HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to >get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that >can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. > >They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can >expect, I don't know. > Dale, Thanks for your reply. Really I'm not sure about UNIX, I was just guessing. What I really need is a B.O.M (bill of materials). What other 'hardware' will I need to round up in order to get this server up and running. Thanks: otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients]
by Joe Chou 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Meanwhile, a beta version of "Pretty Safe Mail" ><http://www.highware.com/highware/PSM/safemail.htm> is available from >Highware in Belgium. It's PGP compatible, and its user interface is a >great leap forward from any Mac PGP front end I've seen. But, it still has >some deficiencies, it's very slow (25 seconds to sign this message on a 25 >MHz 68040 vs. 4 seconds for ViaCrypt PGP 2.7.1), and (as was recently >discussed on a couple of these lists) its source code hasn't been published >or externally audited. I've been testing Pretty Safe Mail on 68k and PPC platforms, and I completely agree with you for the 68040 slowness. But on a Powermac 7600 (604/120Mhz), it took less than 3 seconds to sign the same document. Highware claims that a faster 68k is in the works. They've offereed to have PSM externally audited, but I haven't heard of any volunteers. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2, by Pretty Safe Mail 1.0 iQCVAwUBMvzAT7WqygGLsQD9AQF+RwP+IbLejl0wMKQzPJmHbIOann+KUB0zsXps 36bjfsyjIYZwkcbhjqCh2lFpljlmeMMVtPX90bPLRb0J+Bgbmcv7h24BN2Q5sInr AFFk4ST07uLZ8ICJzwtkHYgNwgMmdba2QeDQ0SZCH8FYMQiLpkf45TTIIger8MXt Rkkv3V23nts= =MgGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | Joe Chou <jchou(a)cgl.ucsf.edu> | http://devbio-mac1.ucsf.edu/joe.html | Bargmann Lab, UCSF Department of Biochemistry | PGP KeyID 0x8BB100FD: at web page or public key servers | PGP Fingerprint [4194 EBC6 EEB0 7B1A F18F 2185 D406 EDFF]

1 0