December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The FAGGOT list
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I never thought the day would come when I would actually think that, however > much I disagree with them, the pro-censorship people may have some small > arguments on their side - but that was before I saw the sort of trash you > continually spew. Such trash should be an indicator to you of your -real- position on censorship. It is said that a supporter is someone who will say anything. Perhaps this is your position on free speech...a mere supporter? I invite your response to this question. > If you have something to say that is of interest, maybe you may gain some > credibility. As it is, I won't be holding my breath, waiting for such a > reversal of form. The interest you seek is most probably only words of support for your position. Aiming at truth is always discouraged from those who do not know how to seek it. If you truly had any real interest in the anti-censorship position, you would watch your reactions to words which you yourself dislike, and attempt to understand what it feels like to want words removed from your reading selection by some other party. In this way, you would understand the pro-censorship position and therefore be in possession of enough real data to make a real decision as to which side you are on, if any. > Flames welcomed, from such fools as you obviously are. No flames from me are appropriate at this time...but...when *I* flame you, you will know you have been flamed. I haven't bestowed that honor upon anyone in years, so don't get your hopes up. > ~ Have you noticed that people who are most unwilling to accept ~ > ~ responsibility for their own actions, are the most keen to regulate ~ > ~ everyone else's? ~ Examples seem to abound on this from Dr. Vulis's selections from cypherpunks that I have seen. Granted, this is his bias I am also seeing... ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Reporter (n.) - 1. A cat waiting at a mousehole.

1 0

Re: At the risk of getting flamed :)
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Vulis writes: > Cypherpunks have been forging Usenet posts from "freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org" > to alt.business.* et al, asking for business opps in e-mail. I'm thinking of > forwarding the resulting spam on f-k back to cypherpunks. Two things about this, to BOTH lists. As a Freedom Knight, it is my opinion that the appropriate demonstration for Freedom Knights is to ignore this junk email. This appears to be proceeding quite well, if a minor annoyance to some. However, I cannot in good conscience personally accept a "J'accuse" cypherpunks of forging Usenet posts to freedom knights. Since we have no proof of this action, it is my opinion that we must adhere to "innocent until proven guilty". I would like everyone to understand that this accusation is not shared (nor even considered until seeing the above quote) by myself, nor should it be shared by anyone who is or who calls themself a "Freedom Knight". Honor before blind support, Observation before belief, Truth before justice. Those who understand these principles will not be harmed by the net. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet What we see depends on mainly what we look for.

1 0

Re: Homosexual Lynch Mob, Cabal
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn writes: >Stephen Boursey writes: > > That was due to zionism was it not? I hate zionists with a passion. > > Zionists continue to this day to make all sorts of unsavory tradeofffs > > to keep their stolen land > This is really a tough one. I'd guess that the agenda of Zionists, > as well as some of their allies, changes or incorporates additional > goals at different levels in the cabal. We all know what the lower > levels look like, but the nature of the very top level intrigues me > to no end. Is it just money and power, control of property etc.? > Or is it something "really evil"? Whether Zionist, Sexist, Sexualist, Racist, or Net.Elitist, all cabals share similar patterns of operation. They all: -Assert themselves as "better than" others by some arbitrary standard of comparison, -Place great importance on "belonging to", as it relates to groups of humans with common attributes, and -Direct power and energy to maintaining the illusion of "better than" among as many humans as they can. To look at the -real- top level invites much danger if not properly prepared. The existance and proliferation of "cabals" (or groups, cliques, etc.) is a primary factor in keeping people asleep, irresponsible, and unaware. Ask yourself who would want to keep people that way. Remember, people in such states are much easier to control. To use a popular example, all I have to do is frame someone as a "Fag Basher" in front of a lot of "homosexuals" to remove that someone from their graces. > The average citizen will never support freedom fighters, and I think > this is even more true of the Internet than in the outside world. This is because the average citizen is usually emotionally and/or intellectually attached to some group, as are the freedom fighters. When the goals of both groups are in conflict (which is common), people in one group automatically denounce the other. > Of course, I hope I'm wrong, or that there's some technology or > formula that will enable average people to have the courage to > defend that freedom. There is, but it's too simple. Few see it, fewer take it. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

1 0

spamming
by MOESCH＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I saw your posting. What is your feelings about spamming?

1 0

One-time pads
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. <o o> Timmy C. May /-+-- --+X /> <\

1 0

Fukkin Elite!
by ice＠win.bright.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out our Homepage, We're THe ElITE! We'll Top your asses by Far, If you want to be Elite come to us. We're Here to help you become the Elite! If you think you can Top I.C.E. Then Prove It AssHoleZ! Homepage:www.geocities.com/~pentiumru/icehtml.htm We Are THE BEST!! So Check us OUT!

2 1

Fukkin Elite!
by ice＠win.bright.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out our Homepage, We're THe ElITE! We'll Top your asses by Far, If you want to be Elite come to us. We're Here to help you become the Elite! If you think you can Top I.C.E. Then Prove It AssHoleZ! Homepage:www.geocities.com/~pentiumru/icehtml.htm We Are THE BEST!! So Check us OUT!

3 2

Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:49 PM 1/10/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >Yes. Igor's STUMP software seems like the way to go. The vast majority of >posters to this list are not a problem. Discussions amongst them may get >heated, but they have basic human decency and never even come close to the >level of abuse and bigotry we have seen from Vulis, aga, et al. I think that the move to human moderation is a good thing, and am pleased that Sandy will shortly begin to act as moderator. However, I think that forming lists of "approved people" and "unapproved people" and treating them differently is likely to do more harm than good, even if we have nice software which does it very efficiently. I don't like it for several reasons: 1. Political. It's symbolically disturbing, and it tends to shift the focus of the group (and of the moderation process) away from messages, and towards the people who post them. I think it'd be tempting to turn it into some sort of bureaucratic system, with punishments (being on the bad list) and rewards and status changes and written warnings and all of the other features which frequently bring out the worst in people. I suspect that agreeing on "the 10 people who are clearly a problem" will turn out to be as difficult as finding any 10 things that cypherpunks can agree on, and then we've got to decide who decides who's a problem, and then we've got to decide how we decide things, and argue about whether or not John Gilmore is a good person, and [...] 2. Technical. It requires that the people on the "good list" authenticate their messages (otherwise people will post with the names of "good people" to avoid moderation), which imports a lot of hassle with different platforms and signing and certification and key distribution and [...] which we don't have good solutions for yet. 3. Conceptual. It's a complex problem technically and politically, which means that it's difficult to understand or debug, and it's got a lot of points of failure. In general, complex solutions (which require many people to install and learn new software) are difficult to implement, take longer than anticipated, and are frequently avoided by the people they're supposedly helping. (See, e.g., RISKS Digest; both for how a human-moderated list can work nicely, and for examples of how complex technical solutions to problems often create more or worse problems than they solve.) I think that the human moderator solution suffers less from these problems; in general, it's a well-tested solution to the "what about off-topic assholes?" problem. It's not perfect, but it does work, more or less; it's easy to understand, easy to implement, and requires no software changes on the users' end. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

8 9

RSA over Rubics cube?
by cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just for fun, not that I am sugesting it as a serious encryption method, but has anyone tried exponetion cyphers on the group defined by the Rubics cube? :)

3 2

Key Revokation Scheme
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, I started thinking about the issue, how to set up a system to have somebody else revoke your key for you, if you don't have the means to do so yourself. The possible case I had in mind was, what if you're maybe a dissident, you get arrested and your apartment (incl. disks/keys) gets raided. You don't have any means to revoke the key yourself, don't even have e-mail in general, and with the "one phone call", that your hopefully entitled to, you can't really do much... It might have been discussed before, but here is what I came up with: Peter (the dissident) creates a signed key revokation certificate and a list of the intended recipients for it. He archives the files and then encrypts the archive conventionally. He then sends the encrypted archive file to his trusted friends (or relatives) Alice and Bob, without the passphrase though. (Note: For additional security, the files within the archive may be encrypted with A. and B.'s public keys). Then Peter gives a sealed envelope to his lawyer (or anybody he trusts and who would know, if something happened to him), containing the passphrase and the names of Alice and Bob, incl. their respective phone/fax numbers, e-mail adresses and snail mail adresses with the instruction to notify them if necessary. The lawyer however, does not have the archive itself. Now, in case of an arrest, Peter calls his lawyer (he'd very likely be the first one to know) and thus he knows, that Peter's keys have been compromised. The lawyer now opens the envelope and gets in touch with Alice and Bob, telling them of Peter's misfortune, and he gives them the passphrase for the archive. He also sends them the same information in an encrypted/signed e-mail. (Note: Of course, Alice and Bob have to have the lawyers public key and his key must be signed by Peter and vice versa. Preferably, Alice and Bob have met the lawyer at some point and have verified his key first hand.) Thus they know, it was really Peter's lawyer, who gave them the information, not somebody else, who might have gotten possession of the envelope... Alice and Bob, however, do not immediately send out the revokation certificate, but try to verify the information from the lawyer with independent sources, such as Peter's relatives, friends etc.. Only if one or better both of them (they should be in contact with each other too) has/have enough reason to believe, that Peter is really in trouble and that his keys have been compromised, they decrypt the archive and send his key revokation certificate to the intended recipients (friends, key-servers etc.). Note1: The entire system relies on the trustworthiness of Alice and Bob and their effort, to verify the information, before they send out the revokation certificate. Note2: The described chain of information/verification could go different directions. Even if Peter's mom is the first one to know, she could call Alice and/or Bob and/or his lawyer {...}, who in turn verify the information with others... Note3: As additional backup for the case, that the lawyer can't get in touch with neither Alice nor Bob, he could have the same archive file, encrypted with a different passphrase (which he doesn't know). If he can't talk to Alice or Bob within a reasonable time period (let's say 3 days), Peter could give him the passphrase and so his lawyer himself sends out the revokation certificate. Note4: In case, Peter doesn't even get the one phone call, but happens to be in a country, where one just "disappeares", having his secret keys compromised should be the least of his problems... But even then, chances are, that the word gets out and Alice and Bob could act upon it. Please let me know, if you think, that such a scheme could work (or not work). Also I'd be grateful, if you'd copy replies to my private e-mail adress as well, for I am currently not subscribed to the CP list... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE * */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! * * */ /* * * */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com * * */ /* * */ /* Finger or E-Mail for PGP public key. * * */ /* Key Size: 2047 / KeyID: 04174301 * * */ /* Fingerprint: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 http://www.eff.org */ /* 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMtsI6zltEBIEF0MBAQHo7wf9GQTU5u72gFVZ0LMr7hhTWSikYVDFvzGF bGopD01j6bq3g9jYQC3YC0pRGfA+y8Q3qDLRbeJ5qMm3iXZgv7Axu2PVeri7ZE7r +GWZjfMk9EFGY1t9Jf2Fnm9mSAV0Cgq02vyhns8fLqTH1jcNuinZZ61Hq1+oSDFs f7/qttsqLZmxeHU+VI/47U0xkuh4NXQk/aZlNUOr9Au9+PhqJwpa7EGYzmCBKTzl pu4QRyjNnvgIuec2wkwVn8uNevvlc/aQB65uU55+NOQnMINl2V4S3lRim9F7gGH+ DV6NiZxmjxCXbX0y4K+33BX1YIwBgYz5EArM1O1j32lOpThIb03jmA== =stfG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0