December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Sphere packings
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1 0

No Subject
by huilam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How to get off this mail-listing ?? Regards, Hui Lam Email:huilam@pl.jaring.my Homepage:<http://www.geocities.com/heartland/8642/>

2 1

IEEE Communications
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A friend called this evening to let me know the February issue is dedicated to electronic cash and its implications. I'm no longer an IEEE member. If any of the various list members care to excerpt and comment on some of the more interesting portions, I'm sure it would be appreciated. --Steve

1 0

[PICS] forgery detection
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. /\ \ / /\ //\\ .. //\\ Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM //\(( ))/\\ / < `' > \

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to > the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of > the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. It doesn't look familiar. I don't have any idea what happened. Can anyone tell me if they saw it on the unedited list? That's where I would have read it. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: anonymous remailers
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com," thus I surmise it > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same as the Flames list. I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a definite improvement over the prior condition. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: remailer-operators DEA agents?
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Again, I am only on the Flames list. So why was this message sent to the Flames list? Because someone responded to a Vulis post? Is a response to a Banned Message now grounds for rejection? Here's the message sent to the Flames pile. Although the anonymous author did not add much, neither the original message nor his/her one line response was a "flame" or "insult." Hence it should not have been rejected. At 5:47 AM +0000 2/7/97, Secret Squirrel wrote: >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? 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: anonymous remailers
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:06 PM -0800 2/6/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message >in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same >as the Flames list. Well, I only subscribe to the Flames list--there is no doubt about this. In any case, what is the meaning of a message going only to the "Unedited" list? A message that goes to the Unedited list but _not_ to the Flames list must surely go to the Main list, right? That is, MAIN list + FLAMES list = UNEDITED list Isn't this the way it works, that the Unedited list is the union of the MAIN and FLAMES lists, which are disjoint? So, since the Vulis message on anonymous remailers did not appear on the MAIN list, it must have appeared on the FLAMES list. >I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I >read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, >my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think >a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high >90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a >definite improvement over the prior condition. You keep saying this ("the list is better, the list is better, the list is better"). Repeating it enough may make it true, for you. In any case, my point is that there were no "flame" triggers in either of the messages you sent to the Flames list. Unless you are rejecting based on your opinion of the views expressed, these messages belong on the main list. Sandy, you are a sloppy moderator. An incompetent, in fact. Get better fast or knock off the pretense that you know better than we do what Cypherpunks are ready to read. --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: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997")
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>--- begin forwarded text >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST >Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> >Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> >From: "Jonathan I. Ezor" <jezor(a)NEWMEDIALAW.COM> >Subject: Congressional Bill worse for 'Net than CDA? (crosspost) > >Sorry for the crossposting, but I felt this one might be important enough >to do it. The following is a shortened version of an article I've written >for my firm's client newsletter about H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet >Privacy Protection Act of 1997", introduced by Rep. Bruce Vento (D. MN) on >January 7, 1997. [snip] > >Jonathan I. Ezor >New Media Attorney, Davis & Gilbert, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 >Tel: 212-468-4989 Fax: 212-468-4888 E-mail: jezor(a)newmedialaw.com >-----------------------------Cut here------------------------------- > >Congress Tackles Internet Privacy > Recently, there has been significant press coverage over real and >rumored revelations of personal information such as Social Security numbers by >online services, including the alleged availability (later shown to be untrue) >of mothers' maiden names and Social Security numbers on LEXIS' P-Trak database, >and various governmental bodies have held hearings on issues of online privacy. >On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce F. Vento (D. MN) introduced the >"Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997," (H.R. 98) This bill >provides that "an interactive computer service shall not disclose to a third >party any personally identifiable information provided by a subscriber to such >service without the subscriber's prior informed written consent." Gee, this sounds great! Sounds like it would become illegal for ISPs to "cooperate" (aka: getting strongarmed) by the local thugs (cops) to reveal information about subscribers. Except, as is so often the case, they seem to always figure out ways to explain that cooperation with cops was somehow not covered in the law above. One of the non-obvious dangers of having laws such as this apply to ISPs is that they increase the likelihood that legal force could be applied to them in order to get them to sell-out their customers. And, obviously, the average citizen isn't going to have a lot of luck getting these laws ENFORCED unless he has friends in the prosecutor's office. One of the numerous advantages of an AP-type system is that a person will be able to make a violation of his privacy a crime regardless of whether the powers-that-be agree. Also, he can enforce that "law" on anyone, including government agents, without the cooperation of the prosecutor. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

No Subject
by huilam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How to get off this mail-listing ?? Regards, Hui Lam Email:huilam@pl.jaring.my Homepage:<http://www.geocities.com/heartland/8642/>

1 0