December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Administration to revive vetoed projects [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Administration Will Help Revive Some Vetoed Projects > > Aides put the blame on Defense Department for line-item veto mistakes > > line item > > WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Oct. 24) -- The Clinton Administration is > looking for ways to restore funding for a number of military projects > which, aides say, the president mistakenly vetoed. > > In a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens > (R-Alaska), White House budget chief Franklin Raines blamed the > Defense Department for providing faulty data, which he said led to the > vetoes. > > Clinton, wielding his new line-item veto power that allows the > president to strike individual items from larger spending bills, > vetoed 38 military projects from this year's defense funding bill on > Oct. 14. raines > > Congressional leaders have said despite the administration's mea > culpa, they are not about to try to revive the spending projects for a > veto-override vote during an election year. > > But Raines told Stevens, "We are committed to working with Congress to > restore funding for those projects that were canceled as a result of > inaccuracies in the data provided by the Department of Defense." > > How? Three possibilities have been floated: One would shift surplus > funds from the Defense Department's existing budget; another would > include the money in a supplemental spending bill next year; a third > would insert the items in a so-called "bill of disapproval." > > Stevens told reporters the White House had expressed willingness to > revive 14 projects, though he put the number of mistakenly vetoed > projects at 28. > > "Maybe even the White House is educable," the Alaskan muttered to > reporters after a hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill.

1 0

Bernstein oral argument set for December 8
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has set the specific date and time for the oral argument. It will be on Monday December 8, 1997 on the 1:30 p.m. calendar. It will be held in Courtroom 1. The 9th Circuit is located at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco. There are 5 cases scheduled for the yet-unknown panel. The first 3 are limited to 10 min oral arg per side. The other two (us included) get 20 min per side. Cases are generally heard in order so as it stands we would be last. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

2 1

in celebration of informational "vandalism"
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forgeries motivate people to adopt digital signature technology! Spam motivates people to develop better filtering techniques! Cracks motivate people to adopt secure systems and to back-up their important data! Mailbombs and SYN floods motivate people to acquire denial-of-service-attack-resistant services! Trolling a la D.M.Vulis separates the tough and realistic from the fragile psyche and nascent censor! In the world of physical interaction, attacks or acts of vandalism are the components of evolutionarily stable (more or less) strategies of extortion and oppression. But in the world of information exchange, no such strategy is evolutionarily stable, and each attack is best regarded as an opportunity to up your tech and improve your capabilities while simultaneously defending against further attacks. :-) Z

1 0

Re: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:20:55 +0200 (MET DST) > Subject: Re: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Someone is vastly over-reacting. I read this letter as a polite request > to do what they think is the "right thing" along with some reasons > intended to gently persuade you that this is a morally correct choice. > > There is no threat. No hint of compulsion. It is IMHO utterly legal and > appropriate. > > Just as it would be utterly legal to comply with or ignore this > letter. (Appropriateness we could debate...) > > No foul. > > A. Michael Froomkin +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) > Associate Professor of Law remailed to foil spam > U. Miami School of Law froomkin =A=T= law.miami.edu > P.O. Box 248087 http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/ > Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA It's quite warm here Lawyers = bottem feeding scum suckers They're the ones who get us in these kinds of messes. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Judge orders man to obtain permission to file suits [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > JUDGE CLAMPS DOWN ON FLORIDA MAN FOR FILING TOO MANY LAWSUITS > > AP > 25-OCT-97 > > > MIAMI (AP) Enough is enough. Chief U.S. District Judge Edward Davis > said he is tired of reading "rambling, incomprehensible diatribes" > directed at everyone from Elizabeth Dole to William Rehnquist. > > So Davis has ordered Robert Parker of Deerfield Beach to get his > written permission before filing any more lawsuits. Parker has filed > at least 85 federal suits in 10 years. > > In dismissing the latest batch of 11 suits, Davis said Parker has > argued that "three presidents, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, > the CIA, the FBI, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, every judge and > magistrate in this district, as well as numerous executives of the > American Red Cross and related entities engaged in a massive civil and > criminal conspiracy to deprive Parker of employment, his marriage, > access to the federal courts and, indeed, his very life." > > Parker's displeasure apparently stems from his five-year employment > with the Red Cross until 1972, and an executive's alleged remark to > his next employer that he was fired for stealing. > > "The bottom line is that this district has expended enough of its > scarce resources administering the same complaint from Parker," Davis > wrote Thursday. > > Parker's home telephone number is not listed and he could not be > reached for comment.

1 0

Compuserve going after corporate customers [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > COMPUSERVE SETS ITS SIGHTS ON CORPORATE INTERNET USERS > > InfoWorld > 25-OCT-97 > By Rebecca Sykes > > > > CompuServe last week announced an online product targeted at business > Internet users. > > The offering, called C from CompuServe, will combine CompuServe's > features, such as its forums, in new ways to appeal to Internet-savvy > business users who require different functions from the Web than > consumers, according to Bob Kington, executive producer of CSi, the > company's online service. > > The Internet "is great for surfers; it's not good for busy business > people," Kington said. Business people "want to get on, get their > information, and get off [of the Internet]." > > C for CompuServe will assist them in doing so by packaging > CompuServe's assets in new ways. Instead of following the model of > CSi, the company's current online offering that gives paying > subscribers full access to all forums and other CompuServe resources, > C will offer access on three levels. > > * The Guest level will provide free, read-only access to CompuServe's > 500 forums to all Web users. Guest-level users also will have access > to forums' reciprocal links to thousands of Web sites selected for > their relevance to the forums' topics. > > * The Member level will operate on a pay-per-transaction basis to > provide access to hundreds of research databases. Users enter their > credit-card information online once and then are charged small amounts > for functions they perform. > > * The Subscriber level will offer three options. One will feature full > interactive access to forums, including posting and receiving > messages, and will cost less than $10 per month. The other two > options, which will each be priced quite a bit lower, are a > subscription to integrated e-mail, voice mail, fax, and pager services > and a subscription to Computing Pro, a value-added service for > computing professionals. > > The service, free to current CSi users, will be available by year's > end. > > Asked whether CompuServe was acting prematurely given the impending > acquisition by America Online of its online assets, Steve Conway, > CompuServe vice president of corporate communications, said it was > just moving ahead with plans it had before AOL made its bid. > > CompuServe Inc., in Columbus, Ohio, can be reached at (614) 457-8600. > America Online Inc., in Dulles, Va., can be reached at (703) 448-8700. > > > Rebecca Sykes is a Boston correspondent for the IDG News Service, an > InfoWorld affiliate. > > Article Dated 24-OCT-97 > > COPYRIGHT 1997 InfoWorld Publishing Company

1 0

Elliptic Curves
by semprini＠theschool.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone point me to some good documentation on elliptic curves as applies to cryptography? I'm interested in finding some good documentation from which I would be able to learn how to use elliptic curves in creating a public/private key system. I have mainly been studying symmetric systems and would like to move on to asymmetric systems. Any help would be appreciated. --Dylan

2 1

Re: Saving money
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Harka wrote: >Do you really expect single mothers with 3 kids to have the time to >do it to the degree of being able to _freely choose_ their >employers?? Or even Joe Average, who just came out of College and has >$100 000 school-loan-debt? Certainly there are people who will give up their privacy rights for money. Some of them will not perceive it as a problem. Some will have put themselves into a bad situation where the money is worth more than their privacy. In almost all cases their problems do not exist outside their minds. The mother with 3 children did not get into that situation by accident. Certain choices and actions were taken that put her into that "bad" situation. ("Bad" in quotes because if one really really wants to have children, the situation may be preferable to the alternative.) The kid who borrows $100,000 and can't find a good job did not receive good advice. It is terribly important to recognize when people are in situations of their own creation if we wish to advise people in ways to avoid such situations or avoid them ourselves. >While I am glad for your achievements, you have not addressed my >point: all this doesn't apply to the larger mass of people. I completely disagree with this. Read "Your Money or Your Life" by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. This book describes a method which anybody can use to make good decisions in managing their life. The purpose of the book is to teach ordinary people how to become independently wealthy. There are few people who would not benefit from this method and who are incapable of applying it. >You were fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right >time...one of the founding-members of a company in an industry, that >pays way more than average and thus brought you into the position, >that you're in now. Great...more power to you and I encourage >everybody to try the same. You should also look at "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko. This is a study of millionaires in the United States. To quote from "Money" magazine: "To learn what today's millionaires have in common and how they accumulated their wealth, Stanley and Danko sent questionnaires to affluent Americans and conducted focus-group interviews. They learned that about two-thirds of those millionaires who still work are self-employed - versus one in ten for all Americans. The types of businesses they own tend to be mundane, such as welding and dry cleaning. The overwhelming majority aren't trust-fund babies; eight out of ten accumulated their riches themselves. Most are extremely frugal. Although their average net worth is $3.7 million, they generally live so modestly that even their neighbors don't have a clue about their wealth." The article has these five bullet points to recommend: "1. Live below your means. 2. Launch a savings and investing plan. 3. Take on debt sparingly. 4. Pay as little as possible to Uncle Sam. 5. Start your own business." Standard Ben Franklin stuff, but it works. >But if the available work-force exceeds the demand for it, such jobs >wouldn't pay nearly as much as they do right now. Hence, achieving >financial independence to the point of freely choosing employers >would become much harder again. Actually, it doesn't cost much to change employers. All you have to do is find an employer who will hire you. Mostly this is a question of time and effort. >But this is the reality for MOST people (outside of the >elite-industries) already! Especially if they start out with >student-loan-debts amounting to several ten thousands of dollars. >Add a family/kids to that and you tell me how easy a task it will be >to quickly become independently wealthy. (Some people will be able >to pull it off somehow, most people won't - - despite their wishes to >the contrary. Should they make their best effort? Absolutely! Will >everybody succeed? Absolutely not.) I agree most people will probably not pull it off, but that's too bad. The reason they won't pull it off is that they won't make their best effort. Sure, you can dig up people who appear to have really tried and then failed anyway, but they are rare. You can easily see that most poor people are not making their best effort by studying how much money they spend on alcohol, tobacco, or other recreational substances. You can also study TV watching habits. Poor people watch a lot of TV instead of making themselves useful. >The truth is, that there are many people outside of Cypherpunks, who >get barely through life _despite_ making efforts. They may get enough >salary in their 9-5 job to maintain themselves to a degree, but not >nearly enough to have the complete freedom, that is the issue >here. And to say, "they get what they deserve" (if they don't have >the abundance of dollars/freedom) is rather narrowminded and >out-of-touch with most people's reality. Gee, I don't know about that. When I was in school there was tremendous peer pressure to not study, to not get good grades, to not program, to not study electronics, to not master calculus, etc. etc. etc. If those people end up poor, I have no hesitation in saying they deserve it - at the very least! >That may indeed work for some people, but the argument of >"self-discipline and sacrifice" usually goes overboard once people >_other than yourself_ are severely affected by that. "Sorry hun, you >can't have a new winter-coat. Mommy has to save enough money so that >she can choose the people she works for. And no...no christmas this >year either". I think I hear violins! ;-) In practice, these are very seldom the choices that are being made. Winter coats are available second hand for almost nothing. When I was a kid my parents made many of our presents by hand to save money. Christmas need not be expensive, and it's not clear that it is improved in any meaningful way by spending lots of money. People are perfectly capable of living economically and making good decisions, even when their children are involved. (In> is Tim May, quoted by Harka.) > In> If they won't make these spending tradeoffs and have not even a > In> buffer sufficient to carry them through a month or two or three, > In> I say screw them. >How about you adopting a person/family of your choice instead and >providing them with enough startup-money, so that they can at least >make an realistic effort to work towards a position of becoming >financially independent themselves? :) Uh, excuse me, but I didn't see Tim volunteering for Santa Claus duty. Why should he help out people who will, in all probability, fail to take his advice, squander any money he gives them, and resent him for his efforts? For that matter, why should he help out people who will be eternally grateful if he doesn't value that gratitude? And the claim that all that is needed is a little startup money is a standard lame excuse that has probably been used for millenia. Making excuses is not how the job gets done. >I suggest in return you reconsidering the myth, that a free market >means equal opportunities and thus quick self-reliance for everybody. The term "equal opportunities" is a curious one. A free market does mean that everybody has the equal opportunity to make agreements with each other. But, clearly some people will have more success making these agreements for reasons which are not under their control. Somebody might have parents who introduce them to the right people and show them the ropes, for instance. This is one reason why the free market does not eliminate the formation of elites. But, so what? Are we really going to claim that people shouldn't help their children to succeed? In the sense that I think you mean the term, "equal opportunities" are exceedingly undesirable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFIxl5aWtjSmRH/5AQFjQAf9GlFXsJQ1Iyii7Ch26a38Xi80Q1QMcbq4 rJPVzncFntQjfau99j6jUiNdsjk2Zr8XhLZtyP95yQX3VcaAmsyY7imXImWyH1uU r2OezEg5S9+e/mi7knTsOfzlYOBhKklMTprKo2K539g05B9xJCOqb8S9CyX9/Ie6 5ZH2gss2jANWM6cWsCmZ0nRtG3Rc1fKXJDl5DgsdceCzkVRGms6r7WMzvwUxTTFC wlaWUwjyUcnEK+cqnvsq4rBW/Bh4dvCwzUnEHbyckukO5wOsYxDFb9kuWaIufMJh ukvif/SP9SGzLsqpJ/Iv2pqdRL7B/C4DP+gFP1iODkaER0a7/wUR9A== =9Kt3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim choate wrote: >Lawyers = bottem feeding scum suckers > >They're the ones who get us in these kinds of messes. You may be right for all others, and you may be kidding, but in the case (!) of world-beloved Michael Froomkin, he's the sweetest, kindest, most caring, funniest lawyer professor qua human on the orb, in the dying galaxy, ever. Visit his web page for irrefutable confirmation that he is the real thing in earthbound angels of legal humor. http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/ Best of all, he has no e-mail address. [This is a pitifully low-bartered bar-prohibited ad]

2 1

Re: PGP Employee on MKR
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Harka wrote: >Implying, that the freedom of an (average) person does not get >infringed by (privacy-intrusive) policies "because they can always >choose a different company" is IMHO plainly incorrect and out of >day-to-day reality for most people. (Also note, that I am not saying >companies don't have the right to have such policies) It sounds like everybody is in agreement, then. Companies have the right to ask their employees to give up some privacy, time, and effort. You are arguing that many employees will opt to give up their privacy rights because that choice is preferable to the others they perceive. Because there is a large number of such people, it is likely that large numbers of people will become accustomed to giving up their privacy and will be sympathetic when other people are forced to give up their privacy. Where there may be some disagreement is whether the solution is to pass even more laws that restrict what choices people may make or to pursue other solutions. Given that the governments of the world are the source of nearly all privacy problems, it seems unlikely that an appeal to government is likely to be productive. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFIjYJaWtjSmRH/5AQHm7gf+NswjBZyddLueZ66LbSw3YA2xcf5U8PLz v8dZaB2RjFqI7GCS8xXKY+fOg7OQ31sy6OR7yOOpHRoeAB5OU1vqR9lAKQwUX26C pp+ROMKT+TRCj1uLaCdSqgCq8I4Hg8TFWHxuVM81si8sgZGDMTD72EmXY32Av9na 8CtQu+vFx7OZiKZeoDl30TkoR3O/bnb9X4KIBNm5TTn2Fld6HL3c/iy1tSGuETnS zLWSUvxqAm761wv/W73A9GAlQpOd+4DiT/rav0HIUcDrhGpGWeEhDgs5l9w6HQ9w U2GbdiWFb74lrGS0pvPAvzfp7cZeWvODUKD/2Zk57YThhlQjIWuvFQ== =Ghfd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0