December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Anonymity should be banned for speakers and vendors
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Ray, a recent DC law school grad and anti-spam activist, is a good guy but is IMHO sadly mistaken here. Thought this might be interesting. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-FC-URL: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request(a)vorlon.mit.edu Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 17:25:36 -0400 From: Ray Everett-Church <ray(a)everett.org> Sender: owner-fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu To: sameer <sameer(a)c2.net>, tbetz(a)pobox.com Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Spam costs and questions On 6/4/97 4:52 PM, sameer (sameer(a)c2.net) wrote: >> If Wallace were up against criminal and civil penalties if he continued to >> hide his customers' real identities, he'd give them up in a hot second. Of >> course, as soon as there was a chance of that happening, he'd get out of the >> business entirely. > > So how do criminal and civial penalties for not revealing a >customer's name protect anonymity on the internet? > Anonymity on the internet must be preserved. If you could come >up with a way to make spam illegal and preserve anonymity, I would be >very glad. Until then, I will have to oppose making spam illegal. As stated before, I have heard no convincing argument that it is in the consumers best interest to have an anonymous *vendor*. Sure it's vital that *consumers* be allowed to remain anonymous, but if you're selling a product or service, there's no legitimate reason why a business needs to remain anonymous given issues of warranties, product liability, sales taxes, etc. And in the case above, since the remailer in question is simply acting as an agent for the business, there's no question of legitimate anonymity implicated. Indeed, perpetuating anonymity for the business often times facilitates activites that constitute a breach of contract and sometimes even fraud. The whole reason to use a pro-spam anon remailer is so that you can violate your ISP usage agreement without being traceable or accountable. And if you've entered into that contractual relationship with the ISP with the *intent* to breach that contract, it's fraud. Anonymity for consumers, Yes! Anonymity for vendors, NO! -Ray <everett(a)cauce.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Everett-Church, Esq. <ray(a)everett.org> www.everett.org/~everett This mail isn't legal advice. Opinion(RE-C) != Opinion(clients(RE-C)) (C)1997 Ray Everett-Church ** Help outlaw "spam"=> http://www.cauce.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:57:47 -0400 (EDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing > Pickets arise from a peculiar set of circumstances that arise in > meatspace, including public streets. Sure, you can picket The Gap at the > store up the block from my office on Connecticut Avenue. But try to wave > those signs outside The Gap in the Pentagon City mall not far away, and > you'll be chased off by the security guards. It's a private space; > different rules apply. Pickets arise from people getting pissed off about some aspect of their economic life and using their right to free speech to express it. Absolutely, but I can most definitely picket the mall and the store at that point with complete impunity from the sidewalk. And please correct me if my geometry/geography is wrong, but in order to get into the private parking spot at the private mall you do have to drive off the public street ACROSS the public sidewalk where all those picketers are standing. After all, if the mall won't let me express my opinions then I have an economic right as a consumer to express my displeasure and try to warn other consumers of the danger. It is irrelevant to my goal as a economic consumer whether I picket the store inside the mall or outside. What IS important is that I have legal access to ALL the customers using that business(es). > 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. Not at all, unless you are implying the same expectation of privacy on a public street (or backbone) that you would get in your home (or intranet). I am stating the status quo, the level of expectant privacy on a public street (internet) is in no way nearly as comprehensive as in your home (intranet). Should you doubt this, walk around your living room with the blinds drawn butt-naked and then try that again in the middle of downtown at 5pm. If you want to go to store A and it is covered in picketers, you WILL hear and see them even if you don't want to. Their right to speech is such that if you want to use that business you must submit to an exposure of their views however brief. My thesis is that it may be possible to extend this legaly supportable model to a backbone which derives some or all of its income from public funds. This could be a BAD thing, is it and why?. If it is acceptable use of publicly funded resources in meatspace why should publicy funded resources in bitspace be exempted? No more, no less. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

3 2

Re: Guilty!
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMonger sobered up and wrote: > The bottom line is that no matter what our position in life, no matter >what our beliefs, opinions and actions, there are a few billion other >entities sharing our world who are organized into camps which support or >oppose us today and may do the opposite tomorrow. .................................................................... In the end you have to be prepared to defend yourself from anyone; as anyone can become an enemy. The only true support is an active intelligence. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Remove this link immediately
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > > > Your hackers resource page contains a link to my GURU'S LAIR WEB site > > > > > at http://www.tinaja.com > > > > > Please remove this link. > > > > > Please do so immediately. > > > > > > > > Short answer, no. If you don't want links to it don't put it on the net. "All you private property is target for your enemies." - Jefferson Airplane

2 1

Webpage picketing
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I want to thank everyone for their copius sharing of knowledge on this issue. Where I was originaly going with this was comparing a supermarket and the picketers on a public sidewalk and how the police must protect the picketers from interference and interfering with customer access. The thought that has been going around in my head for a few days was consider a site whose traffic does over a publicly funded backbone (ie sidewalk & customers). Now on this site is a webpage to which another group objects to. Under what conditions akin to sidewalk use might a provider or network provider be forced to provide any user requesting a link to the objectionable page with the page of the objecting group. What I see is a simple single screen page that immediatly takes you to the desired page. Something conceptualy akin to a picket sign. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

4 3

SPAMs across the border - regulatory arbitrage strikes again
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I got my first Canadian spam today - as US Congresscritters are planning to pave a few more blocks of the Information Superhighway with "good intentions", spammers are moving offshore (well, if Bedford NS is offshore, anyway...) outside their grasp. Of course, the SPAMMER's ISP is Spamford, but he could move to the Great White North as well. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Web page picketing is easy - there are a bunch of ways to do it, >with varying degrees of coverage. Here are some examples: >0) Hijack DNS or routers - sorry, no points for this. Foo. I forgot to add an obvious variant 0a) Creating a similar or parody domain name like micros0ft.com or microsquish.com sometimes gets you points, if done well. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

RE: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rant> Okay folks...what the hell is wrong with you? First off, this whole McVeigh Crap is a bit off topic..but we all know this. The amazing thing about the string of posts has been that people have forgotten that He has been found guilty of murdering quite a few people. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Jury of his peers, dare I say, people like us all. Randomly selected. This is how our system works. Yes there are flaws in the system. Yes the US govt. has it's problems in the past, present and future. Yes people have died because schnooks in DC have had thier heads up thier ass. Or not. So whether or not you belive he did it.....how can anyone be _for_ what _happened_. People died senselessly, I can't believe that anyone (in this case Duncan Frissell frissell(a)panix.com, lets give credit where it is due) can be so callous and , frankly, sick , to say : <> As to the Children of OKC, people who turn the care of their children over to government employees or contractors do not place too high a value on those children. <> Are you serious? You should be ashamed that you think this way. Do you really think those children who died weren't cared for? You are a sick person who should seriously consider therapy. Anyone who read this and said "Yeah!" is on the same plane. To all the people who defend blowing shit and people up to get thier point across.... Okay..so the IRA does it, and HAMMAS does it, and the CIA does it. So does the PLFP the FARC and a zillion other terrorist groups. And it appears McVeigh did it. But that doesn't make blowing up children in freakin' day care all right. Do you understand this? There is no reason to blow up kids. It's wrong. For any reason. Bad. Duncan...looking over your past posts.. .I've got to wonder if you were on acid when you wrote this, many of your posts were fairly cozigent. But this? Do you have children? Any cousins who are children? A nephew or neice? 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 : A government office. A large corporations headquarters. A law firm. A post office. A town square. A restaurant. A bank. Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and go loopy. Anywhere some asshole might have a car be drunk and go loopy. Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and a car and be drunk and go loopy. If they even could, I'm someone somewhere will find a way to fuck up that safe place. You get the point, I could go on....but I won't. Perhaps you should think and read over your posts before you post again. The only good thing (and I mean ONLY) to come out of the whole Mcveigh thing being discussed here on cypherpunks, is that it has allowed me to add to my killfiles people who have for some reason, had a prefrontal. To all the dipshits who could possibly think otherwise. I should also mention it is an EQUALLY fucked up thing to blow up adults. Like my fellow Santa Clara County Resident Bill Frantz said : For cypherpunks this comes down to: Make code, not bombs. Chris DiBona </rant>

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:06:19 -0400 (EDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > Jim's fundamental misunderstanding below seems to be, as far as I can > tell, confusing public funding with public forums. What is amazing is your denying there is any sort of connection at all. I am not claiming that they are 1-to-1 as you would have readers believe but rather one brings along certain rights for the user from the other area. One of those rights is going to be protection of their civil liberties. Your tacit assertion that simply because some resource receives public money does not affect the civil or criminal aspect at all is also misleading. > Just because an entity > receives most, or all, of its funding from the state does not mean that > that entity or the service that entity provides becomes a public forum for > the purposes of First Amendment analysis. BUT, and you seem unable to grasp this important concept, its users DO receive such extra protection over and above a solely private resource. This means that communictions BETWEEN said users will ALSO gain that protection. Now it seems plain to me that if the reader sends a packet over that network link, the server sends a packet over that same network in responce a third party on that link with a CIVIL interest in the content of that exchange may be able to force a minimal level of communications because they ALSO use that link and have a vested interest in what the server is sending over that link publicly. > After all, many research > universities receive half their revenues from Federal grants but they do > not become public fora. I suppose part of the analysis in this case might > turn on whether the state is setting up such networks itself and "owning" > them or whether it's providing grants to a private entity. If the government owns the link, say between Salt Lake and Chicago, wholely then there is most definitely a comparison to be made. Even if the funding is only partial that still brings along additional contractual obligations for the operators in regards to civil rights and legal protections. I could see them taking the end-point servers over on national security grounds (like civilian airport radio equipment or the telephone) in regards to breeches or damages against the servers. Shoot, they could integrate them into the EBS (or whatever they are calling it this week). That could mean that ANY hacking that was carried would automaticaly involve the government on national security grounds ("Damn, I wish I hadn't changed my password without writing it down!..."). THAT is just way too Red Scare for me. > Again, the Internet is not a public street. Yes, and your point? It can't be that a specific backbone cable between two cities owned by the government is equivalent to the Internet in toto, even conceptualy. Because it is clear that such a construct is equivalent to the publicly funded highway running between the same cities, and you most definitely CAN picket on a highway easment legaly. I have seen farm workers in Texas do it my entire life. The Info-Highway comparison goes a LOT farther than most people seem to have taken it. I personaly, don't think we should go there in the case of communications technology. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

ANNOUNCE: Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta available (fwd)
by Fred B. Ringel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all- No warranties or representations regarding this announcement, however I thought some on the list might find this of interest. I'm putting mine together right now. Fred ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:25:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: Name Withheld by Request <nobody(a)replay.com> Subject: ANNOUNCE: Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta available This is to announce the release of Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta. Mixmaster is a new class of anonymous remailers. Inspired by the existing "cypherpunk" remailers and discussions on the Cypherpunk mailing list, Mixmaster is the next generation in the evolution of remailer technology. Mixmaster is available from: ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/replay/pub/remailer/Mix-204b1.tar.gz What's new? - several bug fixes. - "middle only" remailer. - messages compression. - support for /dev/random. - rudimentary support for the list of reliable Mixmaster remailers. - new installation script. - can be compiled under DOS/Windows. Mixmaster is (C) by Lance Cottrell <loki(a)infonex.com>. This release was made by Ulf Möller <um(a)idril.shnet.org>.

1 0