December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

May Timothy C. Mayo's forgeries get stuck up his ass so he'll have to shit through his filthy mouth for the rest of its miserable life. o o /< >\ Timothy C. Mayo \\\_______/// // \\

2 1

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 21:38:40 -0500 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > >Correct and using my model would in no way interfere with a users use of > >the network. It would not add excessive delay or other impedemants. It > >would be a one time event that occured when the site was initialy > >accessed. Much like having to go past the picketers on the side of the > >road at least once. > > I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If I am stoped even once that > is one time too many. In the real world if a group of picketers try to > impead my entrance to a store parking lot the growl of a 427 does alot to > convince them of the errors of their ways. :) Whew, talk about fixated. NOBODY is talking about stopping anything but you, THAT would be unconstitutional. I am NOT saying that such a situation would prevent you from reaching your destination (ie the store) but it would require you to pass through the picket line (ie get a single page as your first responce to your request) and be exposed however briefly to their speech. > Yes and it is the participants who are sending the packets. If I am > sending packets between point A & B you have no right to interfere with > those transmisions. You are right, I WOULD have a right to interfere with their reception which is after all what I am talking about. I am in no way discussing slowing or otherwise altering the request from the user, I am specificaly talking about adding a single page to the servers output. Straw man. > You donot have the right to re-route them or substute > them for others. If you have somthing to say put up a web page and if I am > interested I'll stop by and take a look. You don't have the right to force > me to look. To do so would be a serious perversion of the 1st Amendment. Absolutely, and none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. Another straw man. If you are using a publicly funded thoroughfare I CAN consitutionaly FORCE you to see my message if YOU insist on going to that particular store. It isn't the user who is being picketed, it is the server. You as a user of the system have nothing to say about it, unless as alluded by another cpunk you want to picket the picketers (which is completely legal and happens quite often). _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Spam costs and questions
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A friend who's going to be speaking on one of the FTC panels next week sent me a few questions about spam. Does anyone want to try their hand at answering them? I'll forward along all responses I get. What are the costs to consumers of unsolicited e-mail? I guess the time it takes to delete it might be one, hard drive space might be another. I would like to know how to quantify it, and compare it with the cost of sending e-mail. If you banned commercial e-mail, wouldn't it just affect legitimate commercial transactions? That is to say, wouldn't fly-by-night pyramid-scheme builders still be able to spam? I would think that if they are so untraceable that it's hard to block their spam that it wouldn't really matter if it were simply made illegal. -Declan

4 3

RE: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Chris DiBona wrote: > Do these children > who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to > scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast > radius or > shooting range of : [list of public places elided] Perhaps taking your kids to day care in a downtown area is not a very good idea in the first place. But putting them into daycare inside a federal building is criminally stupid. Some on this list will even say that the kids' deaths fortunately reduced the negative impact their parents can have on the gene pool. --Lucky

2 1

McVeigh
by bennett_t1＠popmail.firn.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy McVeigh was found guilty on all counts today. I am not surprised. People will believe anything the govt. says, and besides, the governments lawyers were obviously more expensive than McVeigh's. This is a sad day for all anti-government haters.

24 65

Re: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, Jun 04, 1997 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Chris DiBona wrote: > > Do these children > > who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to > > scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast > > radius or > > shooting range of : > > [list of public places elided] > > Perhaps taking your kids to day care in a downtown area is not a very good > idea in the first place. But putting them into daycare inside a federal > building is criminally stupid. > > Some on this list will even > say that the kids' deaths fortunately > reduced the negative impact their parents can have on the gene pool. Yes, some pathetic strange little boys swaggering around in never-never land. Lonely individuals with shriveled hearts, stunted morals, and feverish imaginations, who brag contemptuously of their superiority over "sheeple", and boast of their heroic roles in the coming revolution. And thank you, Lucky, for enlightening me -- it isn't the OKC bomber who is the criminal, it's the people who put their children in the daycare center! There's only one punishment suitable for such "criminally stupid" behavior! Lock and Load! -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent(a)songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

5 4

Re: Password pirates plunder XXX sites, from The Netly News
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A huge number of passwords to pay-only porn sites are loose on the Net. Just surf newsgroups like alt.sex.passwords or do a simple search through a typical web engine and long lists of logins are easy to find. There is an easy solution to this problem. Just use one-time passwords. Put it in a cookie. Every time the customer accesses the service you give him a new one. He doesn't have to do anything. If he gives his password away it won't work for him any more. John

2 1

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim writes: [Jim wants to be able to 'cyber-picket' - force people to read his opinions before they can browse sites he does not like. He is attempting to claim that the net backbones corrospond to public spaces, where his local government permits him to picket.] > Declan writes: >> And I think that we should be very careful about calling the Net a public >> forum. Sure, places like Usenet resemble a public forum in some ways, but >> it's not the same. > > But I am not calling the net a public forum. I am specificaly talking about > a special case that might arise if we are not aware of the consequences. In > short it is a statement that it MIGHT be possible to use publicly funded > network backbones to seriously impede communication using the system against > itself. >> I think Greg has it right: you want to forcibly intervene in a >> communication between two consenting parties. What you want is >> similar to the right to come into my home and prevent me from >> speaking freely to my friend or lover. 'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? NSFnet and ARPAnet are long dead. Back when they were active, there was considerable debate about the legality of commercial speech on the net, and earlier, doubts about the legality of any traffic (including private email) which was not in support of government funded research. (the first big mailing list, the SF-Lovers Digest, had a quasi-underground existence for many years due to this worry). Jim also writes: >Lack of public space may be the saving grace, unfortunately there is >quite a bit of involvment planned by Uncle Sam if I am not >mistaken...Internet II... V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR... That >supercomputer science network thingy... None of which have the slightest relevance - Internet II is a proposed (and still vaporware) project for an academic-research-only network - it's future existence has no impact on those of us using the private backbone system of today. Ditto that 'supercomputer science network thingy' you mention, which I suspect is the same thing. As for "V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR": The fact that some people in government propose unconstitutional regulations, unworkable technologies, and policies which work against the public interest is not a basis to propose further undesirable policies. Question: if you get the ability to put up your 'cyber-picket' frame, how about cyber-counter-pickets? Cant the picketee put a page in front of yours? Who gets priority? Where does it stop? Jim, your idea is roadkill on that horribly imprecise analogy, the 'information superhighway' (spit). It can't be resuscitated by asking for 'information super-sidewalks' or claiming the existance of 'information super-public-spaces'. The underlying metaphor is fatally flawed. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com Disclaimer: These are my own opinions only.

3 2

There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************** http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html The Netly News June 12, 1997 Privacy? What Privacy? by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) 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. So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that want the government to bar firms from collecting information about your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry of self-regulatory proposals. [...] Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates describe it. Rotenberg likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a right but a preference: Some people want more of it than others. Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the government. (Beware government databases: Nazis used census data in Germany and Holland to track down and eliminate undesirables.) You also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms. But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all, journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First Amendment. Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom theft of livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen which animal and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

13 45

CORBA Security beta from IONA
by Martin Janzen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just received the latest "IonaSphere" newsletter from IONA, makers of the Orbix Object Request Broker (ORB), and noticed this item which may be of interest to some of the people on this list: I28-B> IONA announces beta of CORBA Security Implementation =========================================================== OrbixSecurity enables organizations to deploy their mission-critical distributed systems on multiple platforms securely. It is tightly integrated with IONA's leading object request broker Orbix and facilitates the creation of CORBA level 1 secure distributed component-based applications. In parallel with the development of OrbixSecurity, IONA is also working on a secure socket layer (SSL v3.0) solution. SSL will be bundled in the company's Orbix/OTM enterprise suite of object development and management tools, also scheduled for the third quarter. SSL security offers authentication (based on X.509 certificates) and encryption (based on public and session key technologies). Subsequent to the initial general availability of OrbixSecurity in the third quarter of 1997, IONA will be working towards level 2 security support (which deals mostly with the definition and administration of security policies and domains) via product extensions and third party integrations. Availability The OrbixSecurity beta is available immediately on the Sun Solaris and Windows NT platforms. To participate in the beta program send an e-mail to beta(a)iona.com For more information see http://www.iona.com/Press/PR/security.html (Standard disclaimers: I don't work for these guys, get paid by them, etc...) -- Martin Janzen janzen(a)idacom.hp.com

1 0