December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The USA is the world's biggest terrorist state
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The United States of America sits astride the world, holding the riding >crop and ordering the other nations of the world around in various ways. It >sends troops to distant parts of the world. It even takes on the main >"peacekeeping" (meaning: choosing a faction and suppressing the other >factions) role in Yugoslavia...surely a European problem, if a problem at >all. > The US is in very real danger of reaping the same sort of maelstrom that vanquished the Romans. They were also very powerful, with tentacles reaching almost to the limits of their known world, before a combination of internal decay and dissention and reprisal from those vanquished put them asunder. The government's recent emphasis on terrorism is apt since they have created so many enemies of ethnic, political, religious and social groups. Even paranoids have enemies. The internal threat is not near as great as they portray, but with increased emphasis on suppression and prosecution rather than addressing the ills, it will likely become a self-fulfilling prophesy. However, addressing the complaints of these militias is not under consideration because it would undo the very fabric of Federal jurisdictional excesses which provide the government's power base. Economics and the freedom, or lack, it entails is key. One reason our political system doesn't work is the Fed's right to tax internal economic activity as opposed to the excise taxes it was originally granted. Too much money (power) is concentrated in too few representatives who work in relative isolation (ever try and get a meeting with your rep.) for most of their term. If internal taxes could only be levied by states, who then were free to revenue share what they wished with the Feds (who would submit their requests and budgets to the states), power might be so diffused as to make nationwide lobbying too difficult and expensive and there would be a much closer adherence to local interest. We appear to be heading straight for a Whiskey Rebellion type showdown. In fact, many of the same complaints of retreat from the founding principles, which were ignored in the 1780-90s, are echoing in the writings and speeches of today's militia. In the 1790s it was wealthy and powerful eastern businessmen, mostly former Torries, who supported Hamilton and Washington against the frontiersmen. This time its the military industrial complex. This time I hope the resistance is much bettered prepared. --Steve

1 0

Re: attila the hun (was Re: Wine Politics Again!)
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > At 11:13 PM 5/20/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: > > >On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 04:23:10PM +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > [rant deleted - bill] > > >Speaking of power corrupting, notice how the power to speak > > >anonymously has destroyed this poor souls brain. When Attila T. Hun posts to the list, I can tell you how many hours, days and minutes it has been since his last post. I know when I see his name on a post that he has something to say. Perhaps the most telling comment I have heard about him was when a fellow cypherpunk said about Attila, "When he replies to one of my posts I never know if he's going to kiss me or rip me a new asshole. He doesn't respond to my _reputation capital_ or my perceived net persona--he responds to what I express in my posting." I don't have a problem with the opinions or points of view that Kent expresses on the cypherpunks list, but I do have a problem with the fact that his posts seem to reflect a pre-programmed world-view, with little thought given to the actual content and concepts expressed by those he is replying to. I find Kent's posts to be much like the ASCII art that is posted to the list--each post is slightly different, but predictable. The aspersions that Kent casts on those such as Attila and Tim serve no purpose other than to accentuate the fact that he is envious of their propensity for dealing on a real-world level with the concepts he addresses from an intellectual ivory tower. > > Attila's not anonymous - he's a regular poster, and has been > > for long enough to build up some reputation around his penname. There are people I have known for years--their _real_ name, where they live, went to school, the annual average rainfall in their hometown, etc.--but I know very little about who they really are-- how they think, what they believe, etc. I know a lot more about Attila T. Hun. His posts reflect who he is, where he's been, what he's done, and his perceptions about himself and the world around him. His posts reflect his persona. Kent's posts reflect, in my opinion, what he has "learned to believe." When I read Kent's posts, I don't feel like I learn who he is, but rather, I learn the "position" that he is taking on this or that point. Real name/anonymity aside, I see Attila as real and Kent as a shadowy figure. My advice to Kent would be, "If you're going to be an asshole, at least be a _real_ asshole." I enjoy the exchange of differing viewpoints (and genuine conflicts) on the cypherpunks list, because it gives me food for thought about positions and viewpoints that I have dichotimous feelings about, but I have little use for lukewarm, passive-aggressive exchanges. (I prefer the pissing contests between raving maniacs.) > In short I believe you picked on the wrong guy if you considered > Attila an example of someone with lots to say when hiding behind > strong anonymity. I have used a variety of "names" as a writer, musician and as a fugitive from injustice. Whenever I looked in the mirror, however, I always saw the same face. And no matter what "persona" I am using, I find that I feel most like "myself" when I speak and act honestly, no matter whether my stance is homeostatic or dichotymous. I have done traffic/personality/pseudonym analysis on the list for years and have uncovered a plethora of anonymous personas. Some use anonymity to "step out of" their regular list persona. Some use it to address issues that could not deal with under their regular persona because of a need to protect their perceived public/social image. Some use anonymity because of personal or business conflicts that could be used against them by those who feel threatened by honesty. Others use anonymity because it is fun to play "hide and seek" with list members who know them well enough to suspect who they _really_ are. I first encountered the "TruthMonger" persona in 1989 and have followed its evolution since that time. The better I got at tracking the various entities assuming the TruthMonger persona, the more I realized that those who claim to "know" or "expose" who a particular TruthMonger _really_ is are wrong about 90% of the time. The reason for this is simple. Once we form an "opinion" of _who_ somebody is and _what_they_ believe_, and _who_they_are_, then we "interpret" what they have to say in their posts in accordance with our learned perception of them. Accordingly, we fail to see the naturally occuring dichotomys and inconsistencies that are inherent in living, learning and adapting to the evolution of thought which comes with an expanding mental and emotional paridigm. When the same person posts anonymously, then those who know them and have an "opinion" of who they are and what they think can no longer categorize their post automatically and interpret it in the "usual" manner. Anonymity forces the reader to consider the content that is contained in the post, rather than automatically consigning it to the proper "box" according to the established persona of a regular poster. Many people are not comfortable with not being able to "assign" an anonymous persona with the author's appropriate mental "box" so they attribute this or that post with this or that list member and respond accordingly. I am posting this anonymously. Who am I? I am the person who believes what I have written here and who doesn't want what I am expressing to be classified according to what I wrote yesterday. I am: TruthMonger # -96

3 2

Report: The Risks of Key Recovery
by Alan Davidson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An experts' study of the risks presented by key escrow and key recovery was released this morning and is now available on the Web at http://www.crypto.com/key_study/ Thought some of you folks might find this interesting. Regards, Alan ----------------- THE RISKS OF KEY RECOVERY, KEY ESCROW, AND TRUSTED THIRD PARTY ENCRYPTION Report By Leading Cryptographers and Computer Scientists Says Government Encryption Plan Is Risky and Impractical On Wednesday May 21, a group of leading cryptographers and computer scientists released a report examining the risks and implications of government-driven key-recovery systems. The report cautions that, "The deployment of a general key-recovery-based encryption infrastructure to meet law enforcement's stated requirements will result in substantial sacrifices in security and cost to the end user. Building a secure infrastructure of the breathtaking scale and complexity demanded by these requirements is far beyond the experience and current competency of the field." The report's authors, recognized leaders in the fields of cryptography and computer science, include Hal Abelson, Ross Anderson, Steven M. Bellovin, Josh Benaloh, Matt Blaze, Whitfield Diffie, John Gilmore, Peter G. Neumann, Ronald L. Rivest, Jeffery I. Schiller, and Bruce Schneier. HOW TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE REPORT The report is available online at http://www.crypto.com/key_study/ and printed copies will also be available through the Center for Democracy and Technology. FOR MORE INFORMATION If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Alan Davidson at CDT, 202.637.9800 <abd(a)cdt.org>.

1 0

Re: Anonymous remailers: A call to arms wanted
by Cyberdog 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Anonymous remailers protect speakers from retaliation. The Founders used >anonymity, as the pseudonymous writings in the Federalist Papers show. > >Granted, some anonymous posts are drivel, some are even illegal. > >So? > The Antifederalist writers used pen-names too, and recent events make thier arguments interesting. http://colossus.net/wepinsto/rot/afp/index.html Index to the Antifederalist Papers Antifederalist No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION" Antifederalist No. 2 "WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF PHANTOMS" Antifederalist No. 3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; WILL NOT ABATE FOREIGN INFLUENCE; DANGERS OF CIVIL WAR AND DESPOTISM Antifederalist No. 4 FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS - THREE BUGBEARS Antifederalist No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT Antifederalist No. 6 THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES Antifederalist No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR Antifederalist No. 8 "THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM" ....

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Timothy C[reep] May sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. ^. .^ ( @ ) c

2 1

Re: Poison Pill Defense (fwd)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Trei ----- >From cpunks(a)manifold.algebra.com Wed May 21 09:12:25 1997 Message-Id: <199705211410.KAA03539(a)www.video-collage.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is <trei@popserver> From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> Organization: Process Software To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:21:43 -6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Poison Pill Defense Reply-to: trei(a)process.com CC: trei(a)www.video-collage.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) nobody(a)huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) writes: > > I hear from anonymous correspondents that the following > technique has been successfully deployed among some militia > members and cypherpunks who fear raids on their private > property. Apparently the technique was originally invented > by a biotech lab that the FDA was planning to shut down in an > uncivil manner when Kessler first came to power. The > lab was never raided. > Preliminary: choose a suitable viral agent. [...] > Step one: immunize household members against this agent. Several things come to mind in reading this. 1. This has *no* crypto-related content. 2. This guy has been watching too many re-runs of 'Mission Impossible'. The scheme is Rube-Goldberg and full of potential failure modes, ranging up to and including the accidental death of the implementor and his/her household. The techniques involved are complex, difficult, dangerous, and expensive. 3. This is not a 'defense'. * It won't stop a raid; if it's deployment is kept secret, it's deterrence value is zero. If it's deployment is publicized, then it is ineffective, since the raiders will take appropriate countermeasures (and announcement of it's deployment is *very* good grounds for a raid). * It won't work to conceal whatever you had that was worth concealing, in the event of a raid. All it is a scheme for getting petty vengence, and even if works perfectly, will get you murder or attempted murder charges tacked onto whatever you were raided for. Only an idiot (such as our anonymous poster) would even think of deploying such a scheme. 4. If I were an agent provocateur, attempting to make the members of this list look dangerous, I'd encourage them to discuss topics like this. Jim Bell's advocacy of AP may have been legal, but it sure didn't endear him to LEAs. I seriously suspect that this thread may have been planted by someone with the intent of discrediting the list. Peter Trei Disclaimer: I speak only for myself. ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Trei -----

1 0

Re: Hacked, Trashed and Out of Beer (fwd)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Trei ----- >From cpunks(a)manifold.algebra.com Wed May 21 09:20:15 1997 Message-Id: <199705211417.KAA03928(a)www.video-collage.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is <trei@popserver> From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> Organization: Process Software To: cypherpunks(a)manifold.algebra.com Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:28:32 -6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Hacked, Trashed and Out of Beer Reply-to: trei(a)process.com CC: trei(a)www.video-collage.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Bill Frantz wrote: > At 6:21 PM -0700 5/20/97, se7en <se7en(a)dis.org> wrote: > >Well, I finally managed to catch up on all the email from this list, and > >managed to also get all of the hacked web sites thus far up on my web > >page at http://www.dis.org/se7en > > > >w-h-i-c-h includes: > > > >Amnesty International > >Central Intelligence Agency > >East Timor, Indonesia > >Kriegsman Fur > >NASA > >U.K. Labour Party > >U.S. Air Force > >U.S. Department of Justice > > Gee, your server sure wants to send a lot of cookies. I consider receiving > a cookie before getting a statement, or being able to guess (e.g. WEB > shopping), about their use to be an unfriendly act. > Bill Frantz Netscape 4.x (I'm using beta3, beta4 is now out) includes an option to silently refuse all cookies. That alone is enough to make me put up with it's instabilities. Peter Trei ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Trei -----

1 0

Re: encryption laws (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 15:03:32 -0400 > From: tzeruch(a)ceddec.com > > If they had reasonable cause to believe you had knowledge of the key and > > were refusing to divulge it under direct order of the court you would be > > held in contempt until you were very old and gray. > > IANAL, but > > You could claim 5th ammendment priviledge - they would have to give > immunity from any prosecution relating to the contents. > The 5th ONLY applies if you are being accussed AND immunity is not granted. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: encryption laws (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: frissell(a)panix.com > Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 07:45:35 -0400 > >If they had reasonable cause to believe you had knowledge of the key and > >were refusing to divulge it under direct order of the court you would be > >held in contempt until you were very old and gray. > Two years max. A lot less time if you followed my strategy of spamming the > court with daily (hourly?) screeds in which you assert in your finest Usenet > flame language the fact that you will never follow the judge's order. Your contention is that the longest a judge can hold you on contempt charges is two years? I would love to see a reference on this one. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Free Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition on PointCast
by WSJ Interactive Edition Editors 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the past, you tried The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition through a special offer. We now invite you to get selected content from The Interactive Journal in a whole new way with PointCast! With free PointCast Network software and The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition channel, you get top business news summaries from around the globe as well as several feature articles and columns in Editor's Picks. And PointCast broadcasts it all straight to your computer, along with personalized world news, stock updates, weather, sports, local news and much more. And when you subscribe to the Interactive Journal, you get the full story behind the summaries and comprehensive global coverage of the day's business news. For more information on how to subscribe to the Interactive Journal go to <http://wsj.com> Get The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition channel now! Download the free PointCast software at <http://wsj.com/offers/pointcast.htm> Best regards, Jim White Marketing Manager maillist(a)wsj.dowjones.com _______________________________________________________________ Check out Small Business Suite, a new Interactive Edition feature covering issues that matter most to small business owners, entrepreneurs, and anyone who markets products or services to small businesses. http://wsj.com/edition/current/summaries/small.htm ________________________________________________________________ This is the New Features Alert e-mail list. If you do not wish to continue to subscribe to this list, sign on to The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition and go to the following URL: http://wsj.com/user-cgi-bin/userMenu.html to change your account preferences. Or you can just send email to: stopmkt(a)lists.wsj.com Cancelling your subscription to The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition will automatically un-subscribe you from any e-mail lists you might be subscribed to through our service. For further questions, please call our customer service department at 1-800-369-2834. __________________________________________________________________

1 0