December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > :This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you > :have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against > :UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect. > > > Sure it does in your mind and I'm sure in the mind of the anon-asshole. Call someone an "asshole" all you like, but when you have to qualify that and call him a "black asshole", "gay asshole", "Jewish asshole", or "anon asshole", it only demonstrates your personal prejudice and bigotry. Your arguments are so weak that you must resort to ad hominem argumentation to divert attention from the facts. Repeating your unproven accusations over and over does not make them true. > All of that aside, the point is it has stopped since the remailers blocked the > address. Note btw, that the anon asshole is still claiming databasix does > this and databasix does that and yet databasix hasn't been connected to the > net since august. Are you claiming that all the DataBasix personnel no longer have access to the Internet simply because the databasix.com domain is down? Considering how lax Netcom is with their servers, any abuse you might allege could easily have come from someone with a Netcom account. You might as well reconnect databasix.com to the net because having it down is not a credible alibi -- not when most of the players involved have Netcom accounts, and a few even have shell accounts from which they could have run Perl scripts. > The issue now is as it was then. An asshole, posting anonymously, apparently > in an attempt to cause troubles for remailers at my expense is still at it. > > He OBVIOUSLY wants remailers shut down. I obviously don't. Your cute little conspiracy theory does not exactly square with the account of one of the remailer operators that you along with fellow DataBasix staffers Belinda Bryan and William J. McClatchie (aka "Wotan") harassed. Reread his message exposing your anti-remailer activities: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html > End of story as far as I am concerned. Not as long as you want to keep it alive by claiming that you are a "victim" of some grand forgery, "UCE-baiting", "cyber stalking" scheme. Sam is right in doubting your claims that most of the things you allege happened to you even occurred. He pointed out that the one flimsy piece of evidence you've been able to produce more recently than February of 1997 originated from YOUR OWN DOMAIN! --

2 1

- FREE Vitamins & Business -
by CallNow＠1-800-493-2328Ext116771 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AMAZING INCOME: UNLIMITED! New Weight Loss Capsules! ALL NATURAL! New Pyruvate, Guarana, Ginseng, Chromium--All in One! * Only $12.25/90 Count! (+S/H) * Quantity Discounts Available! * Free 90 Count Daily Multi with First Order: ASK! * Automatic MLM Distributorship Enrollment w/o obligation * NO sign up fees-NO monthly purchase required * NO ORDER TAKING yet unlimited commissions PLUS * Full Vitamin Line at "Wholesale Club" prices WHY PAY MORE? HURRY! CALL: (M-F 9-5) Nutrition World 1-800-493-2328 Ext. 116771

1 0

NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out the last paragraph of Andrew's op-ed: it's Larry Lessig's argument, though conveniently unattributed. It's also a dangerous one, and a favorite of leftists, claiming that "accountable" government regulations are somehow better than "unaccountable" private classification schemes. Of course Andrew neglects to say that the CDA was not just civil regulation like many FCC rules: it, and its successor, are criminal laws with serious jail time and up to quarter-million dollar fines if you violate them. He also neglects to say that the reason PICS was created is pressure from the Feds. Try as hard as they may, not even RSACi can throw you in jail -- unless Congress passes Murray's bill, which means it's no longer private-sector action. If the market VOLUNTARILY comes up with a rating system, I don't know how you can say that's worse than government censorship and possible jail time. (Read Solveig's op-ed on this, which I posted earlier this week.) Arguing that private selection is "worse" than government censorship is simply incoherent. If government is coercing industry to adopt a scheme, which is the direction we're heading now, then it's time to make the argument that the government pressure amounts to state action. Then eventually challenge it in court. I'm not sure if Andrew is going here or not, but some leftists (or "liberals," if you like) oppose rating systems and censorware because they think children have a general right to access information. Even if their parents buy the computers. I think this is another incoherent argument that we should be careful not to buy into. It may be a bad idea for parents to install such programs -- as it may be a bad idea to feed Junior poptarts instead of bran cereal -- but children do not have a of Constitutional right to have censorware-free computers. -Declan ============== Opinion: The Danger of Private Cybercops By ANDREW L. SHAPIRO At a conference this week on protecting children from the perils of the Internet, consensus emerged on a strategy to keep minors away from cyberporn: let the private sector handle it. Rather than relying on Government regulation, Vice President Al Gore said, parents should look to industry for tools that will let them filter Internet content. Civil libertarians are largely responsible for the success of this approach. Indeed, they convinced the Supreme Court that it would do less harm to free speech than the Communications Decency Act, the law criminalizing on-line indecency, which the Court struck down in June. Yet those advocates may now regret what they wished for, because some of their schemes seem to imperil free speech more than the act did. For example, software that users install to block out certain Internet content often excludes material that isn't indecent. One such program, Cybersitter, prevents users from visiting the site of the National Organization for Women. And the makers of these programs often won't even tell adults what sites have been blacklisted. Still worse is a protocol known as PICS that changes the Internet's architecture to make it easy to rate and filter content. PICS is theoretically neutral because it allows different groups to apply their own labels, but could hurt the Internet's diversity by requiring everything to be rated. Small, unrated sites would be lost. Moreover, these technologies enable what might be called total filtering, where objectionable speech of any type can be screened out effortlessly. Benign as this may seem, such filtering might be used not just by individuals but by employers, Internet service providers and foreign governments seeking to restrict information that others receive. The ground rules for an open society could also be undermined. When total filtering meets information overload, individuals can (and will) screen out undesired interactions, including those crucial to a vibrant political culture -- the on-line equivalents of a civil rights protest or a petition for a reform candidate. In such a filtered society, civil discourse and common understanding will suffer. This should lead us to think long and hard about the way that technology can be an even more cunning censor than law. That's not to say that Government solutions are problem-free or desirable. But at least when the state goes overboard, speech defenders have the safety valve of a First Amendment lawsuit. This legal recourse is not an option when politicians simply persuade industry and consumers to use speech-inhibiting tools. Who knows, free-speech advocates may find themselves nostalgic for public regulation after all. Andrew L. Shapiro is a fellow at Harvard Law School's Center for no the Internet and Society and at the Twentieth Century Fund.

6 7

Re: words have value, for good or ill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zooko Journeyman <zooko(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: >Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of >thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that >the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. >Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the >cash token. :-) ) It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic. In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the discussion. Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works. Strictly speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is meant over here. (1) The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has been writing. To keep things simple, let's consider the statement "McVeigh did the right thing." It is not a contract. It is not a threat. It is not copyrighted. It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list. I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this thought. So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it immoral to express it? It's hard for me to see how. If the belief is correct, then other people certainly will benefit from hearing it. If the belief is not correct, then other people may be able to enlighten you. In either case, it is preferable that the belief be expressed. >> What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should >> refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world >> because they are immoral. > >I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the >meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it >should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks >discourse. I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. My dictionary defines "eradicate" in two ways: 1. to destroy utterly 2. to erase or remove I don't believe the meme should be "destroyed" and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the means that would be required to do this. Nor do I see it as desirable to erase or remove posts which have already been made, if it were even possible. If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't read their messages. If you don't want to see a particular idea, perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail queue that contain it. If you don't like other people hearing certain ideas, I recommend you get used to it. (1) It is interesting to consider a world in which these exceptions are not made. If there were no coercive enforcement mechanisms for contracts, then this exception would not have to exist. The idea of doing business solely on the basis of reputation is not only fascinating, but not very unlike much of the world today. There are two ways in which threats can be no ops. One is if the person being threatened is just a public key whose identity is simply unknown. A threat in that case is irrelevant. The second is if the person being threatened can adequately protect him or herself in which case the threat is dangerous to the threatener. And "intellectual property" is somewhat peculiar and implies a centralized enforcement mechanism. If we are to have "intellectual property" in a worldwide networked environment, it implies a de facto world government. The alternative may be preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

2 1

- POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER -
by CallNow＠1-940-383-1233 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

**************************** THE MOST POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER IN THE WORLD! *$10,000 Plus Per Month Possible With Little Or No Effort! *The Only True Money Back Guarantee! *Complete Turnkey System Does All Of The Work For You! *Phenomenal Product! *Anyone Can Succeed Immediately! *Powerful Monthly Residual! *No Selling - No Recruiting *No talking To Anyone *No Presentation To Learn *No Meetings To Attend *No People To Manage *No Product Inventory *No Response HeadAches Never Worry About Money Again!!! Takes 2 Minutes To Find Out How!!! Call Now!!! TOLL FREE 1-888-248-1794 or (888) 693-5490 FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 Please have a pen handy when making this call FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 NEW: Customer Service Department (To Answer All of Your Questions!) (940) 383-1233 Hours - 9am to 9pm "CST" Monday thru Friday - Sat - 9am to 5pm -- Sun-- 12pm to 6pm "CST" P.S.hold on to this email. You'll need this control number. GI0927EM control number Dear Friend for the past 2 years, I've put countless hours into numerous business ventures and MLM. Yet I have never achieved true success. Then I found a program, where anyone can succeed immed- iately and put profit in their pocket almost overnight! This gets better and better every day! During my short tenure with this company, I received a profit check of $4579.83 after my second month. I didn't have to worry about the headaches of sponsoring of people. I signed the application and immediatedly, the company went to work for me. Prosperous regards, Leon S. Gillis CONTROL NUMBER: GI0927EM

1 0

Man-in-the-Middle Chicken Attacks
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sampler-request(a)lmboyd.com wrote: > ====================================================== > At night, if you want to see the chicken without the > chicken seeing you, use a red light. > ============================================== > LMBoyd Web Site / U. S. Newspapers / Start Email / Stop Email > http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm

1 0

Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friday Noon. MONEY LAUNDERING - The Cato Institute holds a policy forum, "Should Money Laundering Be a Crime," with Lawrence Lindsey, AEI and former governor, Federal Reserve; Stephen Kroll, Treasury Department, and Richard Rahn, president, Novecon Corp. Location: Cato Institute, F.A. Hayek Auditorium, 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW. Contact: RSVP, James Markels, 202-789-5256.

3 2

Household toxins
by info＠planet-solutions.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TOP "10" KILLER HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS AIR FRESHENERS: Most air fresheners interfere with your ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil film, or by releasing a nerve deadening agent. Known toxic chemicals found in an air freshener: Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Phenol: When phenol touches your skin it can cause it to swell, burn, peel, and break out in hives. Can cause cold sweats, convulsions, circulatory collapse, coma and even death!! AMMONIA: It is a very volatile chemical, it is very damaging to your eyes, respiratory tract and skin. BLEACH: It is a strong corrosive. It will irritate or burn the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema or vomiting and coma if ingested. WARNING: never mix bleach with ammonia it may cause fumes which can be DEADLY. CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY SHAMPOO: Most formulas are designed to over power the stain itself, they accomplish the task but not without using highly toxic substances. Some include: Perchlorethylene: Known carcinogen damages liver, kidney and nervous system damage. Ammonium Hydroxide: Corrosive, extremely irritable to eyes, skin and respiratory passages. DISHWASHER DETERGENTS: Most products contain chlorine in a dry form that is highly concentrated. # 1 cause of child poisonings, according to poison control centers. DRAIN CLEANER: Most drain cleaners contain lye, hydrochloric acid or trichloroethane. Lye: Caustic, burns skin and eyes, if ingested will damage esophagus and stomach. Hydrochloric acid: Corrosive, eye and skin irritant, damages kidneys, liver and digestive tract. Trichloroethane: Eye and skin irritant, nervous system depressant; damages liver and kidneys. FURNITURE POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Highly flammable, can cause skin and lung cancer. Phenol: (see Air fresheners, Phenol.) Nitrobenzene: Easily absorbed through the skin, extremely toxic. MOLD AND MILDEW CLEANERS: Chemicals contained are: Sodium hypochlorite: Corrosive, irritates or burns skin and eyes, causes fluid in the lungs which can lead to coma or death. Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Irritant to eyes, nose, throat, and skin. May cause nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, memory loss and shortness of breath. OVEN CLEANER: Sodium Hydroxide (Lye): Caustic, strong irritant, burns to both skin and eyes. Inhibits reflexes, will cause severe tissue damage if swallowed. ANTIBACTERIAL CLEANERS: may contain: Triclosan: Absorption through the skin can be tied to liver damage. LAUNDRY ROOM PRODUCTS: Sodium or calcium hypocrite: Highly corrosive, irritates or burns skin, eyes or respiratory tract. Linear alkylate sulfonate: Absorbed through the skin. Known liver damaging agent. Sodium Tripolyphosphate: Irritates skin and mucous membranes, causes vomiting. Easily absorbed through the skin from clothes. TOILET BOWL CLEANERS: Hydrochloric acid: Highly corrosive, irritant to both skin and eyes. Damages kidneys and liver. Hypochlorite Bleach: Corrosive, irritates or burns eyes, skin and respiratory tract. May cause pulmonary edema, vomiting or coma if ingested. Contact with other chemicals may cause chlorine fumes which may be fatal. OTHER NASTY THINGS THAT ARE AROUND YOUR HOME PESTICIDES: Most pesticides have ingredients that affect the nervous system of insects. Imagine what these extremely poisonous chemicals do to your body. or your baby's. Dimpylate: Better known as Diazinon, extremely toxic. Impairs the central nervous system. Chlorinate Hydrocarbons: Suspected carcinogen and mutantagen. Accumulates in food and in fatty tissue. Will attack the nervous system. Organophosphates: Toxic and poisonous. If you can smell it, your lungs are absorbing it. FLEA POWDERS: Why put toxins on "man's (or woman's) best friend." Carbaryl: Very toxic, causes skin, respiratory and cardiovascular system damage. Chlordane: Accumulates in the food chain, may damage eyes, lungs, liver, kidney and skin. Dichlorophene: Skin irritation: May damage liver, kidney, spleen and central nervous system. LICE SHAMPOO: Especially vulnerable are children. Lindane: Inhalation, ingestion, or ABSORPTION through the SKIN causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions and circulatory collapse. May cause liver damage, stillbirths, birth defects and cancer. CAR WASH AND POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Associated with skin and lung cancer, irritant to skin, eyes, nose and lungs. Entry into the lungs may cause fatal pulmonary edema, most marked Danger, Harmful or Fatal. TAR AND BUG REMOVER: Contains XYLENE and PETROLEUM DISTILLATES. As you become more aware, you will realize that YOU have to make the first step. YOU have a responsibility to tell your friends, neighbors, and relatives to stop using these dangerous chemicals that are both hazardous to your health and the environment. So come join the revolution to rid toxic chemicals from the planet. That's our MISSION at PLANET SOLUTIONS! Clear Choice(non-toxic cleaner) Buy3 get 1 free. If you want to learn more about out "solution to the toxic dilemma please reply with the subject "More Info" in the subject box.If you would like a free sample of Clear Choice (non toxic cleaner) please send your name ,address and phone number. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of any banks that provide full internet banking services outside of the USA's banking regulations?

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of any banks that provide full internet banking services outside of the USA's banking regulations?

1 0