December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Major Netscape Bug [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From Correspondent Steve Young > June 12, 1997: 6:58 p.m. ET > > Netscape unveils Netcaster - April 15, 1997 > > Princeton team finds third Netscape bug - May 20, 1996 > > Netscape NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A serious new flaw that affects all > versions of Netscape Communications Corp.'s popular Navigator Internet > browser software -- including the final test version of its > Communicator Suite released Wednesday -- has been uncovered by a > Danish software firm, CNNfn has learned. > > The bug was reported by Cabocomm, a software company located about 100 > miles west of Copenhagen, Denmark. The bug makes it possible for > Web-site operators to read anything stored on the hard drive of a PC > logged on to the Web site.

1 0

Re: FUCK YOU: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it,
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ray Arachelian wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html Pretty good article. >> I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my >> civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no >> general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the >> right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't >> be able to stop someone else from passing along that >> information if you let it leave your computer. That's >> your responsibility. > >Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your >morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post >them all over the net, you'd feel differently! No need to go through them all. Just one record is guaranteed to set him and his friends off. >Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly >scum if you believe this. Ray, he was talking about *rights*, not *morals*. I don't believe anyone has an absolute *right* to privacy, but that doesn't mean I think it would be anything short of morally abhorrent to knowingly post, say, Declan's social security number. He has no legal or moral *right* to privacy, but it would be morally *wrong*, and I would truly be scum, if I knowingly posted it. Rights are negative; morals are positive. The burden of proof is entirely different. Journalists have a First Amendment right to be free from government-imposed restrictions on speech, including non-criminal invasions of privacy (some invasions of privacy can be criminal if the target is not a public figure -- but such prosecutions are extremely rare), but some journalists are truly scum. Others, like Declan in this case, get bashed over misinterpretations and ideological flamers. - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBM6Hjh5NcNyVVy0jxAQG+sAH/f0ZbXItOdKI/jOfcY9mDxU/0hBoHQVdM XUW9xIHgKIgVzYzUrXFdmRL81Ku9IR77aJ6MEYrN5HjMNCZXusGdLg== =u4We -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Flag burning vote TOMORROW and government-imposed ratings
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Flag burning vote TOMORROW and government-imposed ratings I don't often forward along non-Net issues, but these are too important to ignore. First, from my colleagues at AllPolitics: http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/gen/analysis/counterpoint/ Counterpoint: Ban Flag Burning? It's baaaack.....! The House is set to vote June 12 on a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would ban flag desecration. Democratic Rep. William Lipinksi, a lead sponsor, says the flag is too important a symbol not to be protected, while ACLU executive director Ira Glasser warns against weakening the First Amendment. Read on for a note from Chris Finan. Also check out Cato's web site for a related paper on mandatory "voluntary" ratings by f-c subscriber Bob Corn-Revere: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/v_chipes.html -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:43:54 -0400 From: Chris Finan <mediacoalition(a)sprintmail.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: Government ratings of TV Declan, The opponents of government-mandated TV ratings need help. The FCC is under heavy pressure to appoint a panel to devise a system of ratings to replace the ratings that the networks have voluntarily adopted. More than 300 of the 355 e-mail comments received by the FCC have been from individuals and groups urging greater censorship of TV. Would you post this message on the Fight Censorship list to let people know that they can e-mail their views to the FCC? Their messages, which needn't be long or formal, should be sent to vchip(a)fcc.gov as soon as possible. The Free Expression Network has jumped in with both feet to the fight against a government-mandated TV rating system. Its website, the Free Expression Clearing House, www.freeexpression.org, has a lot of current information on the TV ratings fight. Thanks.

3 3

Andrew Shapiro on privacy rights in The Nation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:08:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Andrew Shapiro on privacy rights in The Nation [Andrew is too modest perhaps to mention that his article is the cover story in the most recent issue of The Nation. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 02:52:22 -0500 From: Andrew Shapiro <ashapiro(a)interport.net> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: Mr. Gates goes to Washington, from The Netly News Declan: Interesting piece. I made a somewhat similar point about how the "siliconaires" (nice coinage) are manipuating the crypto debate at the expense of those making pure privacy arguments. This was in an article focusing mostly on a slightly different topic: this idea of the "market for privacy." Knowing your faith in markets, I doubt we'll agree on this one, but you may find my critique interesting -- and worth mentioning to the list. Given the news on P3 and OPS, the "market solution" will no doubt be discussed at the FTC hearing this week. See http://www.thenation.com/issue/970623/0623shap.htm Best, Andrew Andrew L. Shapiro Fellow, The Twentieth Century Fund Contributing Editor, The Nation 41 East 70th Street New York, NY 10021 ashapiro(a)interport.net work: +1 212 452 7725

1 0

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C. Maya likes to lick the semen-shit mixture that accumulates in the crack of his mother's ass. /_/\/\ \_\ / /_/ \ \_\/\ \ Tim C. Maya \_\/

2 1

Re: Untraceable Contract Killings
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >[yadda, yadda, yadda] (yawn) then Truth Monger wrote: >Of course, Bell did ADD a significant wrinkle, and deserves credit >for his contributions. May and Bell. Names that will be >remembered. ......................................................................... L.D.: Still whining after all these years. .. Blanc

1 0

Anonymous proxies & ITAR question
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Background] I wanted to grab a copy of the 128 bit version of MSIE, but my ISP hasn't enabled reverse DNS lookup, so I decided to try running through an anonymous proxy server to scoop it and lo-and-behold, aside from being brutally slow, it worked like a charm. I may have the opportunity in the near future to set up a proxy server, but this concerns me... Under ITAR regs, if a "foreign national" was to use the server to get access to "munitions" (sure, software kills, didn't cha know?), could I be held in violation? Even if all they had was circumstantial evidence, I'd really like to avoid being indicted - puts a real kink in one's social schedule. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

2 1

Re: Untraceable Contract Killings
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >[yadda, yadda, yadda] (yawn) then Truth Monger wrote: >Of course, Bell did ADD a significant wrinkle, and deserves credit >for his contributions. May and Bell. Names that will be >remembered. ......................................................................... L.D.: Still whining after all these years. .. Blanc

1 0

crypto page
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:15:56 -0700 From: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> To: Multiple recipients of <mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: crypto page I am starting to create a crypto resource page (soon to be part of mac crypto) it is at http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/crypto.html Its a first crack... if you have any (even obvious) additions I would appreciate them. Vinnie Moscaritolo That Crypto Guy at Apple... http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: [Noise, California only] Good deal on ISDN access
by dshipman＠ewol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:55 AM 6/11/97 +0200, you wrote: >Lucky Green sez: > >> Given that a good number of people on this list live in CA, this might be >> of interest to you. It certainly was to me. PacBell is selling flat rate 2B >> ISDN Internet access at $50/month. Plus the regular home ISDN fees, but >> this is still much cheaper than what I paid before. You might want to think >> hard before you buy at new 56k modem that in all likelihood won't be able >> to give you 56k anyway. And no analog modem will ever give you 128kbps. > >But don't they still charge you a penny a minute? That adds up fast, and >would probably cost you more than your $50 internet access fees. Plus the >cost of ISDN service... All told, you're looking at $150 or so per month. > >When for $150 you can get a brand spanking new 56K modem, and pay $20-30 a >month. Not as fast, but a much better price/performance ratio. > > GTE in SRQ charges a flat (no installation charge or per minute on a 36 month contract) rate of $54.00 plus any long distance calls I make on the SPID. My ISP charges $34.00 for a total of $88.00 and I am connected 125/175 hours a month. Early on, I found a definite need for a separate line ($19.00) to support my habit and when I installed ISDN that line was removed. Net cost for a *true* observed 3X speed increase, FAX, and voice com is $69.00 a month. A BitSURFER Pro TA cost $360.00 and replaced a 28.8 modem. As soon as my ISP gets around to it (and figures out what to charge), the wires get twisted and the 3X increase should double. Those who buy a "56k" modem are in for a disappointment. No POPS in the US supports more than 53k and many run at *much* less due to cross talk problems. Also, your ISP will have to choose one of the two available "standards" (X2 or 56Kflex) with no assurance that when the 56k dust settles you will still have compatible equipment. Those who live in ATL or are PAC Bell customers should examine the possibilities of ADSL which is supposed to roll out in both areas, sometime in the last quarter. Bell South plans to offer ADSL the first quarter of next year and DMT appears to be winning the "standards" battle with CAP for ASDL protocol. I've not seen any cost information but presume that the increased bandwidth will result in higher charges than ISDN. Unfortunately, here in the swamps of southwest FL, ADSL will not be an option for several years. DLS ------------------------------------------------ That field hath eyen, and the wood hath ears. Geoffrey Chaucer. 1328-1400. (From the text of Tyrwhitt.) Line 1524.

1 0