December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: FUCK YOU: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: >Ray Arachelian wrote: >> Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it. But to say >> anyone has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there >> is NOT cool. What I leave on my computer is my private business, >> and NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Whether >> or not they have root. >I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your >permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. >But if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record >whatever info leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow >or don't come. "Trespass" is a misleading term. The person "trespassing" doesn't have to leave their chair. What really happens is that somebody sets up a machine that will transmit information when it receives certain combinations of bits. Then the machine is made available to the whole world. It is most reasonable to put the burden for security on the person who wants to make their machine available to the whole world. The legal approach has several problems. 1. It is ineffective and gives a false sense of security. 2. It undermines the demand for secure machinery. (Intentional: the people in governments believe secure machinery threatens their positions.) 3. It brings up problems with borders and seignority. 4. Such laws are expensive to enforce if we are to observe legal customs like "innocent until proven guilty." 5. The legal prohibitions break down under the very circumstances when we most want our systems to remain secure: times of war and times of social unrest or revolution. Panther Modern

1 0

PLEASE DON'T PASS THIS UP
by 65188000＠22151.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> NEW ON THE NET. Wouldn't you have liked to have been part of the first group to join Amway in the 60s, or purchased stock from a small company called Wal-Mart in the 70s, or invested in a small computer chip maker called Intel in the 80s. Anybody that made the choices above are sitting pretty well at the moment Here in the 90s, a new company was launched on the Internet, Sunday June 1st This young company has positioned itself to be among the major players for years to come. This is NOT a get rich quick scheme. This is simply a new company, with fresh ideas. A a new company that people are going to hear a lot about. If you would like to become a part of all the excitement, and learn more, simply send a blank e-mail to success02(a)megd.com Please put the words "MORE INFO" in the subject field. You will be sent complete info in seconds THIS IS TRULY A COMPANY AHEAD OF IT'S TIME. Thank You For Your Time. Just send a blank e-mail to success02(a)megd.com for a fast reply </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

[ADMINISTRATIVIUM] ZKP
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. Mayo is not only as queer as a three dollar bill, but he is also into having sex with children. (((> /< ( / ((({{{{{:< Timothy C. Mayo \ \<

2 1

Re: Ray Just doesn't get it.
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)brainlink.com> wrote: > Should detailed building plans be made available of all buildings so that > theives can look at them and break into banks more easily? Perhaps there > are reasons some of these things are available to the public. Perhaps > there are reasons why not all should be. Yeah. We'd better criminalize publishing computer security exploits, too. Some information is just too damn dangerous. If there is no public record of stuff like real estate, how are we supposed to know who owns what? Whoever's got the biggest gun? - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBM6HeepNcNyVVy0jxAQH8hwIAwEO/XE6hTC2MzVkKOB8eAzyM+aI1lOAX ialQMD8VGLSEXQb3wEuLsLHrHqNBJFeYXFD7zhHc7yKLFYhwGk+l5A== =lvKR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: IBM sues critics?
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can someone explain the difference between key recovery and key escrow? The IBM white paper describes it at http://www.ibm.com/security/html/pp_global5.html in terms of giving a keys or a combination to your neighbors, but the analogy was hard to follow. "John --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: FCPUNX:Flag Burning...
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 13 Jun 97 at 1:20, RS wrote: > To allow someone to publicly burn a flag is essentially displaying our > freedom being burned. Who is that most gravely desecrates the American flag? Those who burn it, spit on it, shit on it? Or those who violate the principles for which it stands? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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:Netscape Security Flaw is a Feature
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:33 PM 6/12/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: > According to Netscape spokesmen, this feature was added to the kernel of > Mosaic, then Navigator, in 1993, as part of the Clipper Key Recovery > Program. As James Clarke put it an interview tonight on MSNBC, "Dorothy > Denning asked us to insert the "remote read" capabilities to ensure that > the legitimate needs of law enforcement are met. No person cruising the Web > has any expectation of privacy, as even Declan McCullagh has pointed out." > > Marc Rotenberg commented, "Privacy at the individual user level is > unimportant, just so long as a Privacy Ombudsman can decide on the > legitimate needs of law enforcement." Please cut the spoofing, or add visible indication of when you are spoofing for the benefit of the less well informed amongst our audience. I suggest that any spoof you write should come not from Tim May, but from Class B Citizen Unit 8387 Tim May. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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:Untraceable Contract Killings
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:39 PM 6/10/97 -0700, Wei Dai wrote: > I think the novelty of Bell's scheme is that it allows assassination > payments to be pooled from a large number of anonymous payers without > explicit coordination (i.e., the payers do not have to communicate with > each other to work out a contract, etc.). For killing a neighbor it > doesn't improve upon the simple untraceable contract, but it can make a > big difference when the target has many enemies (Bell gave politicians as > an example). > > Now in light of the fact that when the target has many enemies the > assassination becomes a non-excludable public good, it is almost certain > that the scheme cannot actually work in practice. All of the potential > payers would rather free-ride and let others pay, so the public good ends > up not being "produced". This not correct: Public goods are underproduced, but they are produced. Thus Bell's scheme would lead to less than the economically optimal number of political assassinations, but this is still a great deal more than zero, and still likely to have substantial effect on political behavior. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Forgery detection
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May studied yoga back-streching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). ,,, -ooO(o o)Ooo- Timmy May (_)

2 1

This is NOT trespassing.
by cypherpunks＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did you pay for your TV? Do you buy electricity by the KWH? Pay a monthly cable bill? If so, then why isn't a television commercial considered theft of your televised resources? Doesn't it cost something to ride the bus? Then why aren't the public transport's advertisers guilty of stealing your wallspace? What about newspapers, magazines, radio stations, going to the movies, driving on any road, almost any PAID activity in life? Each has its attendent advertisments and commercials. We PAY for an enormous percentage of solicitations. Everyday. WHY SHOULD YOUR EMAIL BOX BE ANY DIFFERENT? Fact is, it isn't. Nor will it ever be. When you make any contact in public via any media or communication form, there will come invitations, solicitations, possibly vexations and the like. It's one of the prices we must pay in order to be able to communicate at all. P.S. sure is hard to tell what's "blue" these days.

2 1