December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: alt.cypherpunks
by Cynthia H. Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeremiah A Blatz <jer+(a)andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > probably because the one upstream removed it. Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb(a)iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

1 0

Re: Dale disses gays.
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. > How, Dale, by the smell? I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. > Sign him up to pass out the pink triangles. > What a fraud! Still love you, big guy. Can you tell? I'll bet you do! Er, I wouldn't bend over in front of you, that is. No offense, ya' know. BTW, my browser has a problem with your lines that have no c/r after every 70 or so characters. Other people will undoubtedly confirm that.

1 0

Re: N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > A federal judge has temporarily stopped an abortion foe from > identifying his web site as belonging to Planned Parenthood and > selling an anti-abortion book from that home page. The temporary > restraining order, issued Wednesday, stops Richard Bucci from > identifying his home page as "Planned Parenthood's Home Page" and > using "plannedparenthood.com" as a domain name. Planned Parenthood, > which has its own web site, sued Bucci for trademark infringement. The > next hearing is slated for Feb. 20. For the full text story, see > http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1426121-b7e "Planned Parenthood". Has a nice ring to it, eh? Let's look at some history: Founded by Margaret Sanger (1879-1966). Publisher of Birth Control Review. Associate Henry Laughlin: Honorary MD from Heidelburg U (1936). Author of Hitler's Model Eugenical Sterilization Law. Author of "Mandatory Sterilization In The USA", published in Birth Control Review. Associate Dr. Ernst Rudin: Director of Nazi Medical Experimentation program; commissioned to write for Birth Control Review. Associate Dr. Lothrop Stoddard: Director, American Birth Control League. Vocal supporter of Nazis and their sterilization programs. Author of "The Rising Tide Of Color Against White Supremacy". Quote: "More children from the fit - less from the unfit. That is the chief aim of birth control." -from Birth Control Review circa 1921. Margaret described her plan to depopulate the Blacks in the U.S. in a private letter to Clarence Gamble, dated Oct. 19, 1939. Her plan was to hire Black ministers with engaging personalities to travel thru the South to propagandize for birth control. It was believed that the best access to the Blacks was thru religion, and Sanger's steering committee wanted to create the illusion that these projects were under the control of the local Black leaders. For those of you who don't know, there were a lot of successful sterilizations in the U.S. when these programs were in effect during Sanger's earlier years. Persons wishing to research this should also check Shockley, the transistor guy who won a Nobel prize for something or other, and his friendship with George Bush et al. I believe it was A&E channel that ran the Sanger TV-movie disinfor- mation/propaganda a year or so ago. You know, the channel that has been described by critics as "All Hitler, all the time".

1 0

Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friends, I have been on the list since May 1993, after reading about it in Wired 1.2. The list impacted my life more than any other medium. I knew little about cryptography when I joined the list. Now I work in the field. Some of the subscribers on this list have become my personal friends. Many have become co-workers or clients. The list has been good to me. But it is time to move on. Cypherpunks(a)toad.com has come to an end, and perhaps it was time. See you all on USENET mailto:cypherpunks@toad.com is dead. Long live news:alt.cypherpunks Umsuscrive message follows ;-) -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

More on digital postage
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim may says: >By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's the misuse of my property. Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. -jcr

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:51 AM 2/13/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. >Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, >or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and >Hugh.) Deja-News now carries both alt.cypherpunks and alt.cypherpunks.announce. There was never a problem with cypherpunks-announce. Whoever volunteered to run the monthly meeting just emailed to Hugh, who posted the announcement. I would suggest to avoid fixing what isn't broken and make alt.cypherpunks.announce a moderated list with Hugh and Eric as the moderators. The cypherpunks* lists on toad.com could be set up as mail-to-news gateways (I volunteer to do so if needed) and all current subscribers unsubscribed after a suitable warning outlining ways of accessing USENET. If the list owner should so desire, I volunteer to write the tutorial. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Re: (2) More on Digital Postage
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May allegedly said: > [...] > By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut > violations of the First Amendment. You are entitled to any tortuous idiosyncratic opinion you care to hold, of course. > I understand why the herd _wants_ these > laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to > the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it > is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. "Prior restraint" is not a magic key. Not all speech is protected. Of course, once again, you are free to disagree with the massive body of legal precedent on this issue. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Mailing List
by Kevin Hoogheem 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

GET ME off this list!

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:42:48 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) > I disagree strongly that a controversial or legally troublesome list (or > other data stream) should be closely associated with a business. No. IS the business. > (Also, what is the "right" thing to do where a particular exercise of free > speech looks like it has serious potential to harm the business, thereby > harming or eliminating the list which makes the speech possible? Isn't > every choice a person could make in such a situation reducible to > "censorship"?) Get somebody else to do the marketing, your current promoter is incompitent. I don't think I can accept "personal choice" == "censorship". To my mind personal choice is a decision I make based on my wants and needs. Cencorship is a decision about my want and needs made by somebody else. Distinction is pretty clear to me. > Every "forum" for free speech occurs exists in the context of economic and > political relationships - and there will always be some message which > threatens (to some degree) the stability of those relationships, and by > implication, the forum itself. Unless we can eliminate economics and > politics (ha, ha) I think that will always be the case - and there will > always be some messages which raise "conflict of interest" problems. But > some forums rest on less stable relationships (like, for example, most > small businesses) and are more easily threatened by difficult messages. Everthing exists in a context of economic and political relationship, and religous ones, and intellectual ones, and historic ones, and cultural ones, and sexual ones, etc. Life is inherently unstable, what makes anyone believe that ANY forum is not under constant threat of extinction? If from nothing else sheer boredom. Life ain't that simple. If there were no "conflict of interest" problems we wouldn't have our interests in the first place. Also, why do you believe that conflict doesn't have a market as well? > It's much easier to disrupt the income stream of a small business than to > disrupt the income stream from a portfolio of investments or savings. Depends on where that income stream comes from. > But > even a system whose upkeep was funded by something as unremarkable as > interest on a savings account or a CD would still theoretically be > "conflicted" were someone to use the system to propose or carry out a > scheme to, say, overthrow the U.S. Government, or eliminate the FDIC and > loot various savings & loans. Would one of the persons be a owner? > The threat(s) to systems providing transport/storage for controversial > messages are not limited to liability after a judgement; it is becoming > more common for civil plaintiffs to seek (and get) discovery of the actual > hardware owned and used by defendants, in order to look through the storage > media for discoverable information, including "deleted" files. The tactics > the Co$ used against its critics were shocking but also legal (modulo some > irregularities). It's certainly not unimaginable that similar tactics would > be used against a remailer or majordomo operator were the list to pass > traffic that someone didn't like. And if a computer system is the target of > a search warrant in the criminal arena, you'll be lucky if you get to keep > your electronic alarm clocks after the search. Count on everything with a > chip in it going away in the police van. Irrelevant. Whether the system were private or business would make no difference to the warrant. The question is, "Since I run a system on the Internet and may become involved through no fault of my own with legal difficulties because of my activities how do I pay for the legal bills and various other consequences?" Another question affecting financing is, "Whether I am doing this for fun or business the cost will be the same. From a effort and resources perspective, including the realities of the tax code and cash flow, which is in my best interest?" I would also offer that it isn't in the best interest of any party to shut a Internet site of some report down. Consider the cypherpunks mailing list. Assume for a moment that the remailer was to mysteriously disappear tonite at midnite. If Sandy or somebody didn't put something up within a day or two entirely too many people would start asking "whaz up?" The most successful strategy would be to impose some sort of continous drain on the business until it seemed to fold of natural causes. I contend that a business will hold out much longer than most individuals will. > Most businesses don't want to expose themselves to the threat of civil or > criminal seizure or discovery, especially not at random times and for > non-business reasons. Exactly! It isn't a weakness, it's a strength. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Mailing List
by Kevin Hoogheem 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

GET ME off this list!

1 0