December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

blue, blue, 'lectric blue
by cypherpunks＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Blue Lister's Nuked! Blue Lister's Nuked! First round's on Ian. Second round we puked! http://nethomes.com/lectric

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:My War
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 PM 6/8/97 -0700, se7en wrote: > [about child pornography on the internet] > It is disgustingly real. It is so real it will make you > want to throw up, and I actually, physically did throw up last night. > > Second, in reference to previous conversation over the years on this list, > and in the hacking community in general, I know this type of activity is > not tolerated by us. You are no hacker: You appear to be Rich Graves. Furthermore this activity is tolerated by us. And as usual you are discovering and publicising all sorts of good reasons why the government should supervise us, while piously declaring you are opposed to any such supervision. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

privacy discussion on today's TOTN
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NPR's Talk of the Nation, today at 14:00 EDT, will discuss privacy issues. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ | |207 Grindall Street PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | |Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Doc Offerings
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer: A Federal Register notice today of an upcoming Technology Administration "Public Forum on Certificate Authorities and Digital Signatures": http://jya.com/ta060997.txt The recent Denver ruling of $350K damages against the IRS for disclosing confidential tax payer information: http://jya.com/wardvusa.htm (48K) NIST's latest package on the Key Recovery Demonstration Plan of a test run among 10 federal agencies, including a May 29 solicitation: http://jya.com/krdp.htm (37K) And, the quite instructive 1994 Department of Justice "Federal Guidelines for Searching and Seizing Computers": http://jya.com/doj-search.htm (376K)

1 0

MS Access 97 deprotection? (fwd)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Trei ----- >From owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Mon Jun 9 18:22:12 1997 Message-Id: <199706091524.LAA01532(a)www.video-collage.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is <trei@popserver> From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> Organization: Process Software To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:36:50 -6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: MS Access 97 deprotection? Reply-to: trei(a)process.com CC: trei(a)process.com X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com X-List-Admin: ichudov(a)algebra.com X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com An acquaintence of mine who runs a small consulting business here in Massachusetts called last night. He seems to be suffering from one of the classic aftereffects of a having 'disgruntled, about-to-be-ex-employee'; one of the database files on which his business relies has been encrypted within Microsoft Access 97, and he needs to recover the data. A quick look around at the obvious sites shows no generic de-protector, as there are for MS Word and many other systems. Anyone have any clue how he might get his data back? (I've already told him to consider the lawyer-based route). Send me mail - I'll pass it on to him. thanks, Peter Trei trei(a)process.com ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Trei -----

1 0

Re: Steak Knife Decryption (fwd)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Trei ----- >From trei(a)process.com Mon Jun 9 18:21:21 1997 Message-Id: <199706091411.KAA26392(a)www.video-collage.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is <trei@popserver> From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> Organization: Process Software To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home), cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net, mpd(a)netcom.com Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 10:20:41 -6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Steak Knife Decryption Reply-to: trei(a)process.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) > Subject: Re: Steak Knife Decryption > To: mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:44:15 -0500 (CDT) > Cc: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > Organization: Bool Sheet Software > Reply-to: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > Mike Duvos wrote: > > > I am not quite clear if rational people can get something out of > torturing other rational people. Maybe, I am confused and wrong > somewhere. > - Igor. Torture is a means of producing an irrational state in people's minds (at least temporarily), thus causing them to do things they would not rationally do (sign a prepared confession, reveal a secret, etc) If torture could not do this, it would not be used; verbal persuasion over tea and crumpets is *so* much more pleasant. Even people who might be able to face a more or less painless death with equanimity (in the pursuit of some greater cause) may break down as the bamboo splints are pushed under their fingernails. 'Rational torture victim' is an oxymoron. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Trei -----

1 0

Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here are some of my responses on another list... --Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:46:47 -0400 To: "Vangelis" <vangelis(a)qnis.net> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> Subject: How "child porn" laws ban pix of girls in leotards At 11:54 -0700 6/9/97, Vangelis wrote: >None of this out-of-control angry mob shit, alright? THINK. If it's too >hard a task to go after ONLY those genuinely responsible and you'd rather >go after their friends, family, co-workers, customers, or anyone else >you've rationalized as somehow indirectly encouraging the activity w/o >actually participating, then you've got no business playing vigilante - >you've become just another wreckless crusader *blinded* by his own >self-righteous outrage. Christianity, the Nazi Party, and Prohibition, and >McCarthyism (just to name a few) have already given us enough of those. This is well said. Read that paragraph again. The true enemy here is *NOT* the pervs trading child porn. It's the censorhappy wackos who want to censor others. The main reason folks seem to be in a lather about the "threat" of child porn is that it might ruin the Net for everyone. That is, it gives Congress an excuse to censor it and bring it under ever-tightening controls. But isn't it clear that the true enemy is the censor? Stamp out child porn and then Congress will use Nazi sites, or regular porn sites, or sites that collect personal information as an excuse and justification for censorship. That's why you should attack the censors (and the real child molestors), not those trading dirty JPEGs. Also, I see a lot of uninformed rants on this list about "we must uphold child porn laws." Few people seem to realize that the long-standing Federal child porn law outlawed *pictures of dancing girls wearing leotards*. I'm not making this up. No nudity. No breasts. Certainly no genitals. But the Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the Knox case. Now the law is even worse, since it criminalizes morphed images that *look* like kids in leotards, even if the models were 25-year old adults. Be cautious when praising such laws. -Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:10:42 -0400 To: Tepes <tepes(a)reincarnate.com> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> Subject: Re: My War At 06:59 -0400 6/9/97, Tepes wrote: >Yeah, a friend of mine accidentally came across kiddie-porn a few months >ago. She e-mailed all the headers, etc. to Customs' Child Porn dept. and >they e-mailed her back saying that they really can't do anything about it. >What the hell do they have a Child Porn task force if they can't do >anything about it! Perhaps because Customs has nothing to do with enforcement of domestic laws? I hope you're not proposing expanding the police powers of the Feds. I mean, your friend is doing the equivalent of asking the National Park Service why she isn't getting her welfare checks on time. >What is also equally sick is rape porn. Excuse me, but what is "rape porn?" What, a picture of two people having sex that's titled "rape?" Not quite. Just like those pictures of a 40 year old guy and a 20 year old girl having "incest sex," it's a fantasy. Free speech. Don't sweat it. Let others enjoy their fantasies. -Declan

2 1

hidden.net temporarily down
by Patrick May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The magic smoke escaped from the machine running remailer(a)hidden.net. It is being moved to a new machine forthwith. Expect a couple days downtime while the IP address change propogates. remailer-admin(a)hidden.net

1 0

Call 4 Participation
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: blacklodge.c2.net: majordom set sender to owner-spki(a)c2.org using -f Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Yahya Al-Salqan <Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com> Reply-To: Yahya Al-Salqan <Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com> Subject: Call 4 Participation To: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com, spki(a)c2.net Cc: SECURITY-TF(a)ILLILOUETTE.Sun.COM, Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-spki(a)c2.net Precedence: bulk The second IEEE International Workshop on Enterprise Security will take place next week (June 18-21) at the MIT. The workshop will host a Panel discussion on the "Future of the Internet Security at the IETF." The Panelist are: 1) Carl Ellison, CyberCash, SPKI author at the IETF 2) Don Eastlake, CyberCash, Secure DNS author at the IETF 3) Perry Mitzger, Co-chair of SPKI and SecSH at the IETF 4) Tatu Ylonen, author SSH at IETF 5) Steve Lloyd, Entrust 6) Tom Polk, NIST, editor of PKIX at teh IETF You are invited to take advantage of this opportunity to learn about the future of Internet security. Visit http://www.cerc.wvu.edy/SECWK/ for more information on the presentations and discussion groups. I look forward to meeting some of you at the Workshop, Best Regards, --Yahya Al-Salqan, PhD Sun Microsystems Enterprise Security General Chair --- 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

Response to "My War"
by se7en 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been away for most of the day, and came home to see I hit a sensitive spot in one way or another with many people. I tried to respond to many people who sent me private messages, but for some strange ass reason all of my mail is bouncing as "host unknown." I am quite sure aol.com exists. So I am going to try and respond to much of it here. In my long rant, I realized the message was getting too long, and paraphrased some of my larger thoughts. I figured everyone would know what I was trying to get at, but I was wrong. To clarify a few points, before I get to the debate: I was not advocating the destruction of servers that are used by large numbers of people. I was thinking of the terminology used by the people trading...fserv/ftp servers, many of which are virtual to their desktops which can be shut on and off at will by them as desired. My reference to destruction of servers fit this definition. I don't want to affect large numbers of innocent users to get the few scumbags out there. That is not acceptable. Precision strikes yes, not mass strikes for the "greater good." That is asinine. Nor was I attempting, as some did point out, to be some sort of "ring leader" in this crusade. I do not plan to organize some large anti-kiddie porn team. I plan on spending a few hours a week, on my own, identifying active participants in this activity. I plan on gathering logs of various types of activity to justify my actions. I plan on taking action which will affect only these individuals. I will make public postings on my own accord to various places on the Internet (dc-stuff WILL NOT be one of these places). These are things I am doing on my own. If others would like to join the effort, I would ask they do the same thing. Spend a few hours a week in their world to identify the traders and do what you do best to either wreck them or make things a serious hassle for them to continue. I do not want a personal strike team to organize and manage. As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and upload it to the Internet. No one has the right to force a six year old girl to suck his dick until cum is running down her face, take pictures of the whole thing, and, once again, upload it to the Internet. This is not covered. Go back to school if you think it is. Anyone who thinks this doesn't affect the young children, you are wrong. I doubt these children consented to the sexual activity. I doubt they consented to being photographed. I doubt they consented to the pictures being distributed to others. I am sure this affects the emotional/psychological state of the child victim in many ways beyond what most of us can understand. I think we can all agree that is creates a less-than-optimal psychological state in the children. I know my actions are themselves illegal. I am not going to try to morally justify it with comments such as "It's for the greater good," or "What they are doing is more illegal than hacking." I know my actions against these people are illegal, and many for good reason. It is destruction of property. I am honest enough to admit I will be breaking laws. At least I don't try to rationalize it behind some strange, twisted sense of logic. I am not here to force my morals on anyone. If you agree with me, fine. If you have the ability to do something about it, fine. If you disagree, fine. I have had some disagreements against my email/plan/whatever. I have read evry single one of them. I do not hate those who disagree with me. I see the logic in their arguments. I actually encourage it, as it helps me to define what I plan to do better. Everyone has the right to say what they want, whether they agree or not. That includes me, that includes you. This, of course, as long as it doesn't violate the more fundamental rights of others. Agree with me? Yes. Disagree with me? Yes. Distribute child porn. No! On an interesting note, in instances where I have talked one-on-one with law enforcement agencies in the past, I have thrown several hypothetical cases their way to judge their reaction: (A small glimpse of my Defcon speech) ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and poked around a left, would you arrest me?" THEM: "No. We don't have the time or resources for that. We aren't interested in the people who look around without causing damage despite what everyone thinks." ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and destroyed it, would you arrest me." THEM: "Most definitely." ME: "If I was at Defcon and entered a system without authorization that was dedicated to the distribution of child pornography and destroyed it, and you were looking over my shoulder the whole time and saw what I did, would you arrest me?" THEM" "I would turn around and walk away." se7en

3 2