December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: FCPUNX:PGP Employee on MKR
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:02 PM 10/30/97 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > Even if you were to use CMR, it is dumb, dumb, dumb, to allow the > snoop key to remain after the message has passed the enforcer -- it > should strip it off on the way out. Unless, of course, the real intention of CMR is GMR. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:DEA trying to subpoena book dealers
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 AM 10/30/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > Makes it easier for cops to see that you're not a threat, > or that you are a threat. If your underwear's not Kevlar, > it's not contributing much to the process, and cops are > probably more embarassed about beating up naked people. Watch out for toilet plungers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Hello, thought you should see this
by srvce＠micro-net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LEARN THE SECRET TO MAKING OVER $2750.00 A WEEK, PART-TIME WITH YOUR HOME COMPUTER! It's fun, it's rewarding, and it's easy. This is so simple, most children could do it! All you need is a computer and E-Mail address to begin making excellent money while relaxing in the comfort of your own home. All it takes is a couple hours a day, and you'll have more than $2750.00 arriving in your mailbox every week! Right now there are only a few people around the country who know how to do this. And these few people are having the greatest time of their lives while their computers make them a fortune. They don't want anyone else to know how they're making all this money, but we at Crown Industries have decided to let a few more people in on the secret. Even if you are happy with your current job, you can use this system in your spare time to create a huge extra income. And let us assure you this system is completely legal. We are so sure anyone can make a fortune with this unique system, that we will even let you try it out for 30 days! If you're not 100% satisfied, just send it back within 30 days for a full refund. Once you begin to see how easy it is to make money with your computer, you will wish you had received this letter a long time ago. Anyone can do this, and since very little of your time is required, you will have a lot more time to spend doing the things you have always wanted to do. So take the first step toward financial freedom and order this powerful money making system today! You'll be glad you did! This offer will only be available for a limited time! To insure you receive your copy, order today! To receive your copy of our incredible computer money making system, along with a full 30 day money back guarantee, send a check or money order for $14.95 payable to: Crown Industries 1630 North Main St. Suite# 310 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Allow 4-6 days for delivery P.S. You simply must see this to believe it. Never in the history of America has it been possible to make this much money spending just a couple hours a day. We guarantee that anyone can make more than $2750.00 a week, part- time using our system and just one home computer or you get your money back!

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After seeing the intents of PGP Inc. with the release of their new PGP that breaks the old free versions, I have all but written them off as anything but the Enemy, and am waiting for a public reply on the list by Tim May to make it official. But now what? Please someone answer my questions about PGP - it appears that the 5.x versions are not compatible with the 2.x versions which came previous. Is this so? Also, the direction they seem to be heading is in providing more and more non-free GAKked product. But aren't the 2.x and 5.x versions freeware? If so, can't others - a group of individuals - take that source code and build off of that? Piss on these assholes and their licensing fees. It was inevitable, anyway. They are a corporation after all, and the corporations are not on "our" sides. I can see a scenario where government is impotent and destroyed within 10 years. What will remain and will be harder to eradicate are the corporations. I don't think we should rely on corporate software whenever possible, because it always comes with an ulterior motive. Is there an effort to maintain a version of PGP based on the free 2.x sources that is not affiliateed with the fuckwads at PGP Inc.? If not, is it high time some of us began such an effort?

6 5

LAPD reject surplus bayonets [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > LAPD REJECTS, RETURNS SURPLUS BAYONETS > > Sheriff November 1, 1997 > Web posted at: 10:03 p.m. EST (0303 GMT) > > SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- The Los Angeles Police Department has > decided to return the bayonets it has received from a U.S. military > surplus program.

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vlad the Mad wrote: >hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's >the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely >expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money >where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" >and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public >can support such a campaign. also tactics >as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. ....................................................... I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support. But wouldn't it be grand to watch as they decimated the opposition, as they reminded everyone of the raison d'etre for this exceptional nation, and as they 'put it to' a jury, in black & white, just what the deal is in a free society? Shoot, we don't need another President - just a good lawyer. Just imagine! Dream on! .. Blanc

2 1

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 19:50:49 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: effective GACK fighting > Vlad the Mad wrote: > > >hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's > >the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely > >expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money > >where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" > >and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public > >can support such a campaign. also tactics > >as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. > ....................................................... > > I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for > a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a > courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, > clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is > not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat > citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be > clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would > require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support. I also agree. It is high time those of who believe in our rights put their money where our mouth is. But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. Also, let's start something relating to the 2nd. We should also move to have an amendment which requires all existing and future legislation pass constitutional review *prior* to being voted into existance. We should also move to have an amendment that *requires* government employees be responsible for their actions on a individual basis and eliminate the protection that Congress has put in place, that is *not* in the Constitution. We should further move to have the seizure laws revoked because they are not constitutional. The drug laws should also be attacked on that level as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

cute.
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same >channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. Esp since I can't >verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since you're anonymous. Well, there's some point in it. If I send an anonymous message, sign it with a key, and then include that key you can use that key to verify that it indeed was the key used to sign the message. For this to be of any value, however, future messages should be signed with that key but should not include it. This just proves that the person who wrote the last message is the same guy who wrote the first. That's about the only poitn I can see, though.

1 0

What I've been up to
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As some of you may know, I have been working on a skunk works project to further knowledge about smartcards and add smartcard support to crypto applications. While the latter isn't nearly ready for release, the former has resulted in a number of tools some on this list should find useful. Namely, we have a truly universal smartcard reader and software. Unlike the proprietary protocol garbage the smartcard vendors will sell you for lots of cash together with their overpriced toolkits, our reader uses only ISO standards and can handle *any* smartcard. In addition, we developed drivers and fully-automated scanning software for UNIX and Win32. If you don't get results just by typing "scan", then whatever you inserted isn't a smartcard. :-) At this time, we need sample smartcards and documentation. Anonymous donations of both is encouraged. For more information, please see https://www.cypherpunks.to/ All questions/offers should be directed to scard-admin(a)cypherpunks.to - -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFwSMvXUPTw3WtkkEQLSZQCg8EVW2bprGr4E21W8Qg6EELc9+gcAoMdZ 6LbtU7WCfpfsYPi+Gj4l5ecX =5Bi8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why >let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? Well, first of all I was being facetious, because of how people are always saying we need Leadership (tm) and need to elect another President in order to have a more Perfect Union. But I said we need a "good" lawyer - a libertarian lawyer - because I expect that it would take someone who had studied the legal system and made it their project to be well-educated and articulate on these matters, to be able to successfully represent the Consitutional values which we subscribe to. Maybe not. I myself don't think I could do it, although I would lend all kinds of backend support to whoever would, and frankly I don't think I would select you, either, Jim, because I don't think your arguments would be effective. I would be thrilled if someone like Tocqueville existed. He would get my vote. >Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or >Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment >relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to >the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. >Also, let's start something relating to the 2nd. We should also move to [. . . ] Okay, you first. heh. You're being quite free with your recommendations. Remember, right now we're just a bunch of people sitting around their computers talking. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

1 0