December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Very important ! global minutes?
by newsglob＠tnlb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MAKE SURE YOU ARE GETTING ALL THE MINUTES BEING GENERATED TO YOUR NUMBERS NOT JUST U.S. TRAFFIC!! CHAT LINES FOR YOUR SITE OR ADVERTISE IN NEWSPRINT Best customer service for your audiotext advertising needs. Fill out the form here: http://www.stsim.com/mdc/info/home.html Don't just stick with one service bureau ! you might not be getting paid for all your global minutes ,most service bureaus are paying you just for your U.S. traffic and keeping the rest this is how service providers make the most of their profit. PAYOUTS ARE ON THE 1st AND ON THE 15th OF EVERY MONTH..... NUMBERS MUST BE DISPLAYED ON YOUR FRONT PAGE FOR BEST RESULTS!!!! Top rates for 011- 592 / 1- 664 / 1- 809 / the international pay-per-call industry is bringing in millions upon millions each year. Get in on the the 1+ dialing prefixes and watch your revenue increase. Advertise by mass emailing, tv, web site, newsprint, magazine in any country!!!! You the advertiser will get a flat rate paid to you for every minute generated on your line(s). Your ad could look something like this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The internet's all new interactive date line talk to people live or just listen in call now! 1-664-410-3348 Regular Long Distance Only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Talk to Hot Ladies Now! 1-644-410-3349. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- People looking to meet people call now 1-664-410-3350. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Is PGP still private?
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, Oct 18, 1997 at 08:48:56AM +0100, Adam Back wrote: > > Jon Callas <jon(a)pgp.com> writes: [...] > > My reasoning is this: as PGP Inc can not justify expense on such > developments, my CDR proposal would be much safer for them to > implement because it requires no steganography support, or other > privacy patches to provide protection against abuse of the software > for uses other than PGP Inc's designers intentions. You keep talking as if your CDR proposal is other than vaporware. So far as I have seen you don't have a proposal, you have a wish. [...] > > You are in error. The only time that you are forced to use CMR is when (1) > > you share the CMRK with the other party AND (2) the strict flag is set. In > > all other cases, you can opt-out, on a message-by-message basis. [...] > However I simply posit that if you live in a scenario where everyone > you would like to communicate is forced to operate under your > combination: for example the local laws state all businesses and ISPs > insisting that they use pgp5.5 policy enforcer and turn on strict > flag. > > This possibility seems to be being discounted as unrealistic, or at > least as being optional, because you can by pass it. It does seem rather unrealistic. It would essentially involve replacing the entire email infrastructure, at a significant cost, and a rather sweeping suite of further laws that restrict the use of encryption to only PGP, forbid me running sendmail on my linux box, etc, etc > I can not see that being able to by pass it helps you in my scenario > if a) you will be detected when you do bypass it because the law > enforcers will discover they can't recover plaintext; This implies a law against using any other form of crypto, period. If such a law is passable the exemption for PGP's protocol will really be immaterial. That is, Yes, under an extremely draconian regieme, extremely draconian things are possible. "Tinpotdictatorsville" is not a useful counterexample, because the TPD can mandate anything, including no use of crypto at all. > and b) you have > a "choice" of not being able to communicate with anyone, because in > practical terms you have a need to communicate. Implies that *all* other forms of communication have been outlawed. Completely unrealistic. Adam, it is a complete and utter waste of time to debate this. What would *not* be a waste of time would be more concrete proposals. Whether PGP implements something is a separate question -- I would like to get back to the question of designing a better email encryption system. Your reencryption scheme fails because of the management of the short term encryption keys, among other things. Here's another approach I will toss out, without thinking through: How about formalizing superencryption, or tunneling? That is, treat CMR traffic as a transport medium for messages that are themselves already encrypted. The "key" idea here is to allow layering of non CMR traffic over CMR traffic. All the code for both is obviously already in PGP, with a little glue and perhaps some minor protocol mods... -- 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

3 3

Junger Motion and Brief
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Peter Junger et al we offer his latest Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief outlined in the Thursday press release: http://jya.com/pdj4.htm (88K)

1 0

WebX?13@@.ee7b0a7
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[LINK] Navigation [LINK] Community News Chat Message Boards CNN Insider Consumer Food Health Parenting Software News Plus Plus Mail Week In Review Resources Media Search CNN In-Depth Newsmakers Video Almanac Web Kit Transcripts Games! Daily Crossword Head Games Get the Picture? Now Ear This! FEEDBACK HELP! Infoseek BigYellow [INLINE] [LINK] [INLINE] [LINK] Message Boards Home Sci-Tech Message Board Topic: Internet taxation The nation's governors and local officials, already having difficulty collecting taxes on catalog sales, said Friday, October 17, a bill aimed at restricting new taxes on the Internet would worsen their problems. Full Story Should states collect taxes on the net? _______________________________________________________________ Dan Grawe - 10:49am Oct 19, 1997 ET (#1 of 7) Nothing says "GREED" like a politician with too much idle time. When will there be an end to oppressive taxation. I'm not apposed to paying taxes, but good Lord, do they have to tax everything. I think we need to get the air conditioning taken out of the government buildings, so they don't sit around thinking up new and better ways to put the screws to the people who already pay their way. _________________________________________________________________ joseph herr - 01:15pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#2 of 7) ...the internet is uniting the whole planet together in a smarter, more organic , more honest way, its improving everything and giving all of us easier, more logical alternative solutions in energy , education, food , work and communications ...how can politicians destroy something this good and free ? one way is with taxes....lets stand united against the politicians corrupt tricks to start manipulating this wonderful new tool for growth and democracy...lets leave taxes, obsolete religion manipulators, crime and absurd greedy politics out from this wonderful new peaceful way....global peace.... _________________________________________________________________ Matthew Snyders - 01:28pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#3 of 7) I am not at all surprised that some brain-dead politicians who would sell their daughters into slavery for a little cold cash would attempt to tax the Internet. Joseph Herr: If we were to stand united against this, how could we? What would we do? _________________________________________________________________ Michael Mendenhall - 01:34pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#4 of 7) No article I've yet to review has provided a coherent argument for the public-policy which would be satisfied by Internet taxation. Nothing concerns me more than politic automatons who cannot resist the urge of government interference in commerce for the sake of government control. Few realize that the technology industry of the past decade is primarily responsible for our comparative advantage over foreign markets. Taxing Internet activity will be the foothold which turns this tide. _________________________________________________________________ David Lefavour - 01:45pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#5 of 7) The Internet is already taxed through the existing telephone tax collections. Special taxes for the Internet is simply another example of double taxation. Most of us are fully aware of the objectives behind such efforts and we have had it up to our noses with this nonsense. The time to put a halt to this is already past due. _________________________________________________________________ William V. Beshlian - 02:03pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#6 of 7) Doesn't local government already collect taxes from our local phone and cable companies that most of us use to get to our Internet Service Providers? That being the case, we are already being taxed once. This appears to be an attempt at taxing us twice for the same service. Think about it...... _________________________________________________________________ Michael Benezra - 02:37pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#7 of 7) Any government that would dare tax the Internet will find Internet businesses fleeing that country and operating from a different local. After all, on the Internet it does not matter where you are, but what you provide to your customers. If you operate from the US or Hong Kong does not make a difference to anyone. Prefs Subscribe Suggest Check Boards Search Unsubscribe _______________________________________________________________ To post a message, compose your text in the box below, then click on Post My Message (below) to send the message. A blank line starts a new paragraph. A line starting with 'b ', 'i ', 'c ', '* ', '] ', or '> ' provides simple formatting. You may use HTML and links to previous messages. See the quick-edit help for more information. _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _________________ _______________________________________________________________ You cannot rewrite history, but you will have 30 minutes to make any changes or fixes after you post a message. Just click on the Edit button which follows your message after you post it. © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. A Time Warner Company All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive

1 0

index.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Main banner Barnes & Noble. Win a Trip! Click here to enter. rule FBI HIRES NUCLEAR PHYSICIST TO HEAD CRIME LAB FBI crime lab October 18, 1997 Web posted at: 2:27 p.m. EDT (1827 GMT) From Correspondent Terry Frieden WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI hired the former head of a government nuclear weapons laboratory to direct its troubled crime lab, even though he has no background in forensic science. The FBI had promised to seek an experienced crime lab scientist from outside the government following a stinging Justice Department report on the lab last spring. But the man chosen for the post is Donald M. Kerr Jr., 58, a physicist-engineer who from 1979 to 1985 headed the government's Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are designed. The FBI acknowledged that Kerr's selection after the National Whistleblowers Center disclosed his name at a news conference Friday. "It just seems dumbfounding and implausible that they would not hire a world-class forensic scientist to take over the crime lab," center Director Stephen Kohn said. The selection also was criticized by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "Once again, the FBI has dealt with Congress and the public with incredible arrogance," said the group's vice president, William Moffitt. Federal Bureau of Investigation officials defended the hiring of Kerr, saying he is the renowned scientist the agency was looking for to beef up its crime lab. "He has vast experience in managing large lab operations and a long track-record of successfully revitalizing labs," an FBI source told CNN. A formal announcement of Kerr's hiring is expected Tuesday. 'This is not somebody from the outside' FBI building Kris Kolesnik, senior counselor to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the harshest critics of the FBI, said Kerr's work at Los Alamos and more recently for a major defense contractor make him a "real government insider." "This is not somebody from the outside who's going to bring a fresh breath of air," Kolesnik said. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich blasted the world-renowned crime lab in April for flawed scientific work and inaccurate testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing. Bromwich called for a new lab director with a scientific background "preferably in forensic science." Meanwhile, another flap over the crime lab erupted Friday when chief lab whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst said that in examining FBI lab reports recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, he found that five more FBI examiners had altered lab reports. "In the last week, I have found five more people that have been altering cases -- five more that the inspector general didn't find," Whitehurst said. rule Related stories: * Official: FBI lab criticism will prompt case challenges - April 16, 1997 * Judge may force agency to uncloak FBI lab report - March 7, 1997 * Top official admits 'serious' problems at FBI lab - January 30, 1997 Related sites: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * Federal Bureau of Investigation + FBI Lab * Los Alamos National Laboratory * US Dept. of Justice - Office of Inspector General Report on FBI Labs - April 1997 External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. _________________________________________________________________ Infoseek search ____________________ ____ ____ _________________________________________________________________ rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards You said it... [INLINE] Barnes & Noble. Win a Trip! Click here to enter. rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

index.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Tech banner IBM Active Channel for Microsoft Internet Explorer. Find out about your chance to win a computer click here for official rules and information. rule GOVERNORS WARN COLLECTING INTERNET TAXES WOULDN'T BE EASY Internet taxes October 17, 1997 Web posted at: 11:12 p.m. EDT (0312 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's governors and local officials, already having difficulty collecting taxes on catalog sales, said Friday a bill aimed at restricting new taxes on the Internet would worsen their problems. "It's very similar," Republican Gov. George V. Voinovich of Ohio said at a press briefing. "We've had an ongoing problem in terms of how to handle that. We've been continuing to try and work that out with those businesses in the states that have the large mail-order catalogs." The National Governors' Association estimates states lose $4 billion in sales taxes annually from catalog sales. That's because states, cities and counties generally lack the authority to capture sales taxes on such sales if the catalog business is headquartered out of state. That problem could only intensify based on the projected growth of electronic commerce. Voinovich cited one estimate of $1.5 trillion in sales on the Internet by 2002. "I don't think this is the time for the federal Congress to rush into something that will have such a huge impact on state and local government," he said. Joining Voinovich to oppose the Internet tax bill were leaders from the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors. Rep. Chris Cox, a Republican from California, and Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, have sponsored similar bills that would bar any new taxes on computer transactions -- such as taxes on Internet access or online services -- for an unspecified time while Congress studies the whole issue. The bill would make an exception to the moratorium for income earned through an Internet service; local business license taxes, if the Internet provider is located within the appropriate jurisdiction; and sales or use taxes, so long as they are the same as charged for mail or telephone orders. "We would love to have the bill say what the sponsors say it says," said Brian J. O'Neill, a Philadelphia city councilman, representing the National League of Cities. But O'Neill and others say the technical language of the bill contains a broad pre-emption of state and local taxes. Wyden spokesman David Seldin strongly disagrees. "We have bent over backwards to clarify language of the bill so there can be no questions" that local governments retain authority to levy the same taxes on the Internet that are assessed on catalog sales, Seldin said. The bill seeks to halt new local taxes aimed specifically at Internet businesses. One National Governors' Association official said the bill's wording would worsen the states' problem of collecting sales taxes on catalog sales. "We know that we have to sit down with the industry and make the sales tax work on Main Street, on catalogs and on Internet, in some simplified, clear and technologically neutral way," said Tim Masanz of the association's economic development group. "If Congress goes on record and says that Internet sales are the equivalent of catalog mail-order sales, those talks are doomed," he added. "I can understand their desire to fight that battle but it would certainly not do much good to create a situation where you are favoring one at-home purchase over another," said Seldin. Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. rule Related story: * House panels back Internet taxation bill - October 9, 1997 Related sites: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * THOMAS - Legislative Information on the Internet + HR 1054 - Internet Tax Freedom Act * U.S. House of Representatives + Commerce Committee + Judiciary Committee * National Governors' Association * National League of Cities External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. _________________________________________________________________ Infoseek search ____________________ ____ ____ _________________________________________________________________ rule Watch these shows on CNN for more sci-tech stories: CNN Computer Connection | Future Watch | Science & Technology Week rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards You said it... [INLINE] IBM Active Channel for Microsoft Internet Explorer. Find out about your chance to win a computer click here for official rules and information. rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

Re: [LONG, off-topic]] Interactive Programming
by Brandon Crosby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > LISP programmers are much more into writing programs which > > build and execute routines on the fly. > > As are some perl programmers. As both a perl programmer and a lisp > programer I have never had the need to use self modifing code. In fact I > would consider haveing to use s-m code as a sine that I have made a > mistate in my desinge. > PERL is a pretty high-level language... how do you add sub's after running the code? -Brandon Crosby

1 0

Re: Is PGP still private?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 1997 at 08:48:56AM +0100, Adam Back wrote: > > My reasoning is this: as PGP Inc can not justify expense on such > > developments, my CDR proposal would be much safer for them to > > implement because it requires no steganography support, or other > > privacy patches to provide protection against abuse of the software > > for uses other than PGP Inc's designers intentions. > You keep talking as if your CDR proposal is other than vaporware. So > far as I have seen you don't have a proposal, you have a wish. Given Adam's many accomplishments in the arena of CypherPunks issues, I find it hard to make a case for his discussion in this area to be mere mental masturbation. 'Democracy in America' is also vaporware--always has been, always will be--but I see no reason we should not go on discussing it and hoping that we will not having to keep pushing the release date of the finished product back, time and time again. > [...] > > > > You are in error. The only time that you are forced to use CMR is when (1) > > > you share the CMRK with the other party AND (2) the strict flag is set. In > > > all other cases, you can opt-out, on a message-by-message basis. > Adam, it is a complete and utter waste of time to debate this. I agree. I think that we should just wait until someone comes out with an actual product, and then castigate them for their ideas being "ill-thought out." > What would *not* be a waste of time would be more concrete proposals. > Whether PGP implements something is a separate question -- I would > like to get back to the question of designing a better email > encryption system. > > Your reencryption scheme fails because of the management of the short > term encryption keys, among other things. Here's another approach I > will toss out, without thinking through: > > How about formalizing superencryption, or tunneling? That is, treat > CMR traffic as a transport medium for messages that are themselves > already encrypted. The "key" idea here is to allow layering of non > CMR traffic over CMR traffic. All the code for both is obviously > already in PGP, with a little glue and perhaps some minor protocol > mods... In return for your positive suggestions, the CDR Board of Dirctors has voted to allow you two posts containg cheap shots at the list member of your choice, without including any points of redeeming, on-topic, list value. Toto ~~~~ "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "InfoWar" http://bureau42.base.org/public/infowar3 "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn

4 5

[news] U.S. urged to do more to fight computer threats
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** U.S. urged to do more to fight computer threats A presidential panel is urging the government to increase its efforts to combat computer terrorism, including doubling current spending of $250 million by fiscal year 1999, the Washington Post said Tuesday. The panel said annual federal spending to prevent hackers from using computer networks to sabotage U.S. infrastructure and ensure computer safety should reach $1 billion by 2004. The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, established a year ago after a Justice Department review of vulnerability to terrorism, delivered a classified 269-page report to the White House Monday, the Post said. For story http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=5535558-766 -- Powell lingered. "How's Earth?" It was a conventional enough question and Muller gave the conventional answer, "Still spinning." -- "Reason", Asimov. ================================================================== Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)best.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Virtual Spaces

1 0

You Have The Right To Know...
by pam＠message4U.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now Available... ___________________________________ The New Clinton Chronicles Video - $ 20.00 An Investigation Into The Alledged Crimminal Activities Of Bill Clinton & His Circle Of Friends/Associates... ____________________________________ The Death Of Vince Foster Video - $ 20.00 A Video On What Really Happened To Vince Foster... ____________________________________ Cover-Up In Oklahoma Video - $ 15.00 Live TV Coverage On This Video Proves Government & Mainstream Media Did Collaborate To Hide Info Murrah Building Was Bombed From Within...By People With Free Access Inside It... ____________________________________ Shipping & Handling - $ 3.00 Per Tape SPECIAL - ALL 3 TAPES - $ 50.00 International Orders - Add $ 3.00 Per Tape ____________________________________ To Order By MasterCard/Visa: Call (812) 949-2205 Mon-Fri Noon - 8pm Eastern To Order By Mail: Send Check Or Money Order To: " Tapes " c/o Eli Stoltzfus P. O. Box 2851 Clarksville, IN 47131 ALL ORDERS SHIPPED OUT WITHIN 48 HOURS ! To Be Removed From Future Mailings Reply To This Message - And Type The Word Remove in Subject Area.

1 0