December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing > list. Ecouter et repeter: "going" Now, if you didn`t have shit for brains you would have followed the instructions I sent you last time on how to unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list. However, as you evidently have no wit or intelligence whatsoever, nor do you seem able to comprehend anything phrased in standard English here are the instructions in moron. To unsubscribe from the piss-ant motherfuckers mailing list you are giong to have to dooo teh folwoing: Send a piss-ant message to majordomo(a)toad.com with the *MESSAGE BODY* reading exactly as follows: unsubscribe cypherpunks 2ndsun(a)bigfoot.com Either this or contact postmaster(a)bigfoot.com and ask him to mailkill all mailing list traffic for you. 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

sci.crypt archive?
by phr＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone on cypherpunks archiving sci.crypt? I'd be interested in getting hold of some articles from some years back... thanks

2 1

Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore

1 0

hello
by James Sears 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unscribe

1 0

RE: Encrypted filing of patents sans GAK?
by Larry Layten 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In all that I have read or heard, I have only seen Key Recovery techniques in reference to encryption. I don't believe that anyone thinks that Key Recovery is applicable to digital signatures. Any well designed system provides for separate keys for encryption and signature anyway. The application of digital signatures is often considered to be a part of encryption, but encryption should never be considered part of a digital signature process. The two are really completely different processes with different purposes and ramifications. Larry

1 0

Re: What else do I need for an Internet Server
by Dale Thorn 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.

1 0

Proposal: alt.cypherpunks (unmoderated)
by gbroiles＠netbox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] Some people, including myself, believe that the Cypherpunks mailing list (cypherpunks(a)toad.com) running since sometime in 1992, has outgrown the mailing list format and should move to Usenet. The advantages once gained by running as a mailing list (faster propagation, more personal/intimate atmosphere, freedom from Usenet-style flames & spams) are no longer present. Questions about the appropriateness of moderation, moderator liability for various "bad" kinds of messages, and the potential for content control where there is a single point for distribution have become very prominent concerns among list members. It's time to move to Usenet. Hence, this prelude to a newgroup. Two cypherpunk-related newsgroups now exist; mail.cypherpunks and jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks. mail.cypherpunks is unsatisfactory to become a destination for Usenet-originated cypherpunk traffic because its name implies that it's a gateway from a mailing list. This is presently true, but this proposal is intended to create a newsgroup which supplements or replaces the current mailing list. I've got no clue where "jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks" originates, who's in charge of it, or what "jyu.ohjelmointi" is or stands for. Judging from the limited selection of messages which seem to reach DejaNews and AltaVista from it, it suffers from relatively poor propagation. The cypherpunks mailing list currently has approximately 1300 subscribers, sees traffic between 30 and 70 messages per day (est.), and on its better days discusses technological defenses for privacy in an information age. Popular topics include encryption, legal issues around encryption and export control, and the relationship between technology and social control. A sample line for the newsgroups file: alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

2 1

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."

1 0

Re: remailer-operators DEA agents?
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy the C2Net Censor tossed the following question to flames: Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)squirrel.owl.de> writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > c.musselman(a)internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > > C'punks -- > > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > > remailer? > > > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > > Examples, please? Plenty. There was a whole thread about the operator of the defunct lead remailer disclosing his users' identities. Here's a recent one: ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 6 Feb 1997 23:37:35 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09050; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:37:34 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206160603.0086acb0(a)get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic(a)get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:04 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell <toxic(a)hotwired.com> ]Subject: Commercial SPAM from ClaritaInc(a)aol.com ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ] ] ]Tofu trapped a bunch of shit coming from ClaritaInc(a)aol.com. They're ]posting to usenet, advertising things for sale (Including a $10 pamphlet ]explaining how to send anonymous internet email, and the standard ]make.money.fast chainletter scheme) ] ]I've source blocked them, I suggest you do the same. ] ]-Jeff Jeff also said the following, which seems to contradict the above: ]Delivered-To: remailer-operators(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 7 Feb 1997 01:17:48 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA26127; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:17:47 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206174616.0086c8e0(a)get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic(a)get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:46:16 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell <toxic(a)hotwired.com> ]Subject: Useage Policy. ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ] ] ]I'm in the process of setting up an autoresponder on the ]abuse(a)mailmasher.com address. I'd appreciate people's feedback to this ]autoresponder message, and the policies that it describes... ] ] ]Hi. This is in regards to a letter you sent to abuse(a)mailmasher.com. I ]hate autoresponders too, but I=92ve found that this is a special case and is ]probably warranted. ]I=92ve been running anonymous services for a couple of years now, and have ]answered thousands of pieces of email regarding MailMasher users. Please ]take my word on this one, you really need to at least skim the rest of this ]message. ] ]I will read your email, I promise. However, if your email can be answered ]by something that is contained in THIS message, I won=92t respond to it. ]Sorry. I run MailMasher as sort of a hobby, while holding down a dayjob ]and I really don=92t have time to answer all mail personally. ] ]And now on to the important stuff=85 ] ]First, the answer to the most frequently asked MailMasher question=85 If a ]user of the MailMasher is Harassing or otherwise bothering you, it can be ]stopped. Send a blank message to blockme(a)mailmasher.com. Your email ]address will be added to a list of addresses that MailMasher will refuse to ]mail to, and you=92ll never get anything from here again. ] ]MailMasher is an anonymous service. This means that even I don=92t know who ]is using it. Any internet user can use a web interface to create an ]anonymous MailMasher email account. I don=92t ask them who they are, and my ]machine doesn=92t keeps logs that could be used to identify users. So ]please, don=92t ask me to identify a user. I can=92t do it.=20 ] ]I also don=92t filter anything for content. Several years ago, in what has ]now come to be known as the Prodigy case (Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. ]Prodigy. Details at ]http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Prodigy ) A ]legal standard was set. Basically, if a service provider deletes posts, ]intercepts emails or otherwise tries to exercise editorial control over any ]of its users, then the service provider can be held responsible for ALL of ]the content that goes through the service. MailMasher transfers around ]10,000 messages a day. It is impossible for me to monitor traffic like ]that. Therefore, I do not even know what most MailMasher users are using ]their accounts for. It really isn=92t any of my business, and because I ]don=92t make it my business, legally, I can=92t be held responsible for the ]actions of MailMasher users. ] ]I also don=92t delete accounts. Because, when I delete an account, the user ]can always come right back and create another one with a different address. ] If someone is going to be behaving badly on the Internet, I for one would ]prefer that they always do it from the same email address, so I can just ]add them to my killfile or email filters. ] ]So, to summarize: ] ]1. I intentionally have made it impossible for anyone, including myself to ]determine the identities of MailMasher users. ]2. I will not under any circumstances monitor a user or delete an account. ]3. I will make a good faith effort to keep you from being bothered by ]MailMasher users, through the use of a destination block filter. ]4. I neither condone nor condemn any action taken by any MailMasher user, ]either in conjunction with their MailMasher use or not. ] ]So=85 you ask, Why would I want to run a service that lets the spammers, an= ]d ]the porn freaks, and the warez kiddies do their thing? The answer is ]simple: because it also allows for much much more. A MailMasher user can ]communicate without repercussions to people all over the world. I have ]received many thank-yous from users sometimes explaining what they used my ]service for. There are people in certain countries who have a very ]legitimate fear of speaking out, who use this and other anonymous services ]to communicate with the U.S. Countless people have used anonymous services ]to very openly discuss items that are considered secret to certain members ]of the Church of Scientology. Victims of all sorts of abuse can speak ]truly anonymously (sometimes for the first time). Even abusers can speak ]freely, which helps with recovery. ]It is for these examples that I run this service. I think a little noise ]and junk is a small price to pay for all of this. You take the good with ]the bad. ] ]This is free speech in one of its most raw forms, staring you in the face. ]You may not like it; It may offend you; It might even encourage illegal ]behavior, but it is speech, and in the United States, it is protected by ]the Constitution. =20 ] ]Thank you for your time. If you=92d like to contact me again, without ]tripping this autoresponder, send mail to remailer-admin(a)mailmasher.com. ] ]-Jeff Burchell, MailMasher Admin ] --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos <mpd(a)netcom.com> writes: > SANDY SANDFORT sez: > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > > > > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > > > which they are received... > > > All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I > > receive them. > > That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet > seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. Also not "all" messages are posted. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0