December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Newt's phone calls
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic homosexual friends. /\_./o__ Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_

1 0

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIUM] Extradition treaties
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his faggot, AIDS infected lovers. |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ __ | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | O~-_ Drunkard Vilest K>rap<OTM | >----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / /

1 0

Re: AltaVista Tunnel
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, between the two. -- Anil Das

3 2

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Roy M. Silvernail 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, gbroiles(a)netbox.com writes: > My mention of Usenet was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I don't know if I'd bother > with the list if it were moved to (or gated with) Usenet, as Usenet has > become for the most part 100+ Mb/day of uselessness. An obvious point. But you go on to say... > The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the > comparatively better tools for managing messages [...] FWIW, I gate all my subscribed mailing lists to local newsgroups because my newsreading tools are much better than my mailreading tools. > The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of > it's bound to spill over. The unfiltered list already had spammers and flamers. Would you expect nore sewage, different sewage or a combination? - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy(a)scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey(a)scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvgPUBvikii9febJAQElRwP+IC40bwrsV7w7NI0IMmdwGRPO8tHNo6qU pCb6i9UNSrtaFseZ6I04RIsy1mitoJbmDaoJqKcWz1smi4pr1Te/1QZDt8CLouP2 lXwZV9PojttoBbGlfrc1gY/ZEOnOtwwBemiMSiyIS0Md26f1VM9i1OMVR4RDpLY8 +VrFN9htVyc= =jMyg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: >On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because >legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually >don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list >usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of >the usenet underirables. Another way to get rid of the totally clueless and involuntary subscribers would be to require subscription requests to be PGP signed and acknowledged by the subscriber. Matts -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMviI5xVFhWUyiUQRAQFdEwf/ZI2WW/2OVKq4xdwmsPNzCP3yJj7NfsOP JSBegY21WX/Oa+gT/Zmo5lrOh9wWQlF2OpFlzggvBef1Vm5qidge5dRqSxmUPipc 5/HZFK1KxQI5uLjC7pZo5pMfjIroPYI4pldfYP2fjn3qo82sg8IWEn1FSH3b5iEE qrL71rWmG3ekx7qDMvZPGKrjwi7XNJlKUT7qIjQaR25sg3U4KsntV5FZ+Iof6FRz cFX0G2bQ5r1tE/QIqrMm94cD27KNFshSArBFgTqNqqCJtym2v+oOtiCpm8uqirlB oREDHaIs7pJyUA3VkdQnVwKbN+c/Ln9nBAZ9V0BGBg4rZMp/rDRo+Q== =YOIl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: New X-Ray Imager
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:18 AM 2/4/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Steve Schear wrote: >> New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety >> Reported by Andy C >> Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 >> "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the >> National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past >> week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and >> seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." >> But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and >> bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many >> Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties >> for greater security. >> A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- >> 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > >The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably >just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" >from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said >exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students >and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which >rights they were giving up. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a new poll, they asked the following question: "Do you believe that the people who ask you, in other polls, whether or not 'you'd be willing to give up a little freedom to thwart terrorism' have any proof it's possible to, in the long run, 'thwart terrorism' by sacrificing freedom?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Dave Hayes wrote: > Steve Boursey writes: > > Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a > > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent > > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open > > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation > > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend > > over you can be sure they'll bend over. > Actually, the EFF is meaningless, and not worth discussing. It was just a bunch of hippy faggots that got financed by the greatfull dead, and since the greatfull dead died, the EFF should just also die. I mean come ON, with queers at the organization, NOBODY is going to give it any credibility. > It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil. A But it has John Gilmore there, and he is the evil censor. > case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the > subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of > course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their > weakest member. > > > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. > > 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. Greed and avarice may be bad, but wealth and control are good. The power must always go to those who do not "need" it but who know how to use it. Not everybody is qualified to carry a gun.

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> said: >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >+ good use of resources? Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make > perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and "dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of _orders_." > anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ > assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common > good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a number of citizens. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Cypherpunks FOIA request
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com". To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) Copies of my requests and the responses are available online at <http://www.io.com/~gbroiles/cp-foia/>. I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given the media coverage in Wired and other places. On the other hand, maybe the FBI doesn't read Wired. :) While they're not supposed to be monitoring noncriminal domestic activity, I figured they'd at least have something about the Mykotronix stuff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhHPf37pMWUJFlhAQGBSAf/XIdNAMrxn3flb6O7Q1TZYL1xd/RHAAZv YsuuXs/n6Dih/SnJVqc35tF5/33N0gK0xWhyPCBWdIitVCgHpt+214WEOg3IWBqO KGcnbXg/YMs4xN50zLgpV+Xoim4rjfwCROqNNWvrBqwo6RicAyJbLRoRGE+KdDkx WSslCzxsVYzRHzzkF48rhbYAXqU2vUesG0t8Alg17R/2w4TvjAzlQ3PpclUukB8U VglMVB+dicn+5B2zITt1WG21xMmSHQea5rpwKpDxZdjBvBKXLhgH8L1Hdl6nu3zI sqDEENxeV+bI5UdSzemQDy+TDQoy7BSN7Tby8JgwXE9x3AitY2A05g== =S1Zy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

2 1

Re: More on Cellular Encryption Docs
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: ... >>Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >>stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >>There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >>but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. > >Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? These are text, perhaps with occasional illustrations, so the current interim export rules say it's ok. For optically-scannable printed data, the government's announcement says it reserves (somehow) its right (acquired in unspecified manner :-) to re-evaluate the exportability at a later time. I think they haven't settled on whether they'd be more embarassed by banning it (which bans export of printed material, risking serious Constitutional challenges) or by not banning it (having people laugh at them while exporting source code or even binaries in OCR-A on loose-leaf paper with page numbers and checksums.) Of course, by moving crypto off the Munitions List, and allowing export of printed material, they're also reducing their exposure to ridicule for not responding to Raph's T-shirt CJ request.... (huh-huh... made you say Unconstitutional ... huh-huh....) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0