December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Unlocking crypto-secrets Wired article
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Dwight Arthur <dwightarthur(a)mindspring.com> >To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley(a)ariadne.com> >CC: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu >Subject: Re: Unlocking crypto-secrets Wired article > I have no inside knowledge but picture yourself > as a senator, really concerned about getting re-elected. Picture > yourself looking at video of the victims of some terrorist act somewhere > in the world, staggering out of some ruined building and expiring on > camera. Then picture yourself hearing that if you vote the wrong way and > this happens in the U.S. (or to U.S. citizens anywhere) your name will > be in the papers as the reason that law enforcement was unable to > prevent this. It's hard to argue. And alsom maybe Jim Bell's stuff... Does anybody have any knowledge or heard any rumors of Bell's essay circulating among political circles? Ciao jfa -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants physicists and engineers, LabView programing. PGP encryption keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Re: cute.
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Amad3us wrote: >Matthew Nuckolls says >> What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same >> channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. > >The purpose is to create a persistent nym. The signature, and public >key ensures that you know that this message is from the same person >as you were attempting to nit pick :-] It has been my experience that it is more fun to operate a persistent identity than to post unsigned and unverifiable messages. Providing the key is at least a convenience for people who don't have it already - it saved me a trip to the key server. >> I can't verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since >> you're anonymous. > >True. So it's only as good as the keys you might fetch from a >keyserver that you have no connection to in the web of trust. > >You aren't supposed to link it to my True Name. > >All that can be done is to get a signature from a timestamp server, >and a signature from Bill Stewart's nym key signing service. What would be really nice is if the mailing list machines time stamped messages. There was a discussion a little while ago suggesting that toad.com had been compromised by people who were sowing dissension by partially distributing certain messages. Had toad signed all of its messages, it would be possible to obtain evidence supporting this hypothesis without relying entirely on the word of people we may not know. Had somebody compromised toad, they would still have to correctly sign messages. Later it would have been possible to prove this had occurred by comparing messages and signatures. This would also prevent an attack where somebody forges mail from a cypherpunks list machine to flush out identities. If the attacker sends a unique message to every person, he or she will be able to break an identity if the message is replied to on the list. >This is important because it prevents someone else from generating more >keys with the same userID, such as happened with Tim May's blacknet key. >The only protection I have against that is the public record of my key >being posted to cypherpunks. The http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/ >archive helps as a public record of first publishing of a key with this >userID. I'm not sure a timestamp matters that much for "authenticating" your key. After all, you don't own "Amad3us", you own key 0x4D162BBE1. If another "Amad3us" shows up, what matters if their string of posts are worth reading, not whether they borrowed your handle. It would cause confusion, but since the cypherpunks are so good at slinging bits, we should be able to handle this. It might even have an advantage: reporters and secret police types will have a harder time dealing with the cypherpunks without adopting some of our technology and ideas and sharing them with others. 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 iQEVAwUBNFu/fZaWtjSmRH/5AQGSdAf8DdZj05c4/WS/V9YF/o1lZ9W7/5vGlTDf mvU8nFPNT4TB9eha7UW/Ub2xaUI4TneBrWrIwXTeEqo1slUbzmShneeUoUlKMEho +PlrA8NjQhh/QRwMXsVUp4vtoV3oDUbCTRLE8PWIikC7Rpo92UocujfFhsey3Ewu /SCA/TrkjVO8efeR4H6GOBnVWd/+4YigLPtZhP6QzlKjf3Soq5OJNfVlHA3ci+3a UgbM+IQ/OTTkXMVbya60veWrN6/Njo/66D0EyUuHB5/bUHkFIjnWaz1DSG8g0vJq XfFNOusz9Dkrhz0gearv/fbRb93GxXRejTK/Jo9sMJta8pWAm4d1Yg== =5Loi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The fundamental flaw with the justification of a Free Market Anarchy and also the fundamental condemnation of Democracy is that of taxation. However, the theory of democracy does not in any way address the issues of taxation, only how laws are made and what the boundaries on those laws are. In fact, until about the first third of this century there was NO personal taxation in this country at the federal level. Clear prima facia , and to use Beck's verbage 'real', evidence that the assertion that personal taxation and democracy are irrevocably wedded. Ask yourself, why is it that no free market anarchist *ever* mentions commenality in humanity? Why do their have inherent and implicit in their systems a class structure? They would have you believe this is natural, it is not. Class structures are reflections of the beliefs of the people, not some fundamental law of nature. Furhermore, Free Market Anarchy does not address the issues of protection from abuse. It does not recognize in any manner any mechanism for redress of grievances unless you happen to be one of the few who controls the wealth. It further assumes that those who don't have wealth will willingly take this station in life as a given and simply work for those who do have wealth and accept without resentment that they will forever be denied any sort of opportunity to change their station in life except at the whim of the power brokers. It further does not in any way address issues of life, liberty, or pursuits of happines - only monetary wealth. It is clear that having wealth does not in any manner guarantee any sort of empathy for others in the holder. If anthing, history demonstrates that such 'lords of wealth' are pragmatic about collecting wealth to the point of predation. This argument from the specific to the general is fundamentaly flawed and the conclusion suffers because of it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. How that power is obtained, by vote or specie, is irrelevant as clearly shown by history. Some hold that the majority of the populace suffer taxation at the point of a gun. This assertion is also false. There have historicaly been several political parties which have promised to eliminate personal taxation. In every case those parties could not control more than a truly minimal percentage of the vote. Yes, people say taxation is too high, they do not hold the assertion that taxes should be completely eliminated. Free Market Anarchies are doomed to the same sort of death, and if ever implimented the same sorts of abuse, as all other non-democratic systems. Also, recognize that those who support such systems have a set of commen character flaws. First, they can't differentiate the implimentation from the theory of political systems. They would have you believe that if a given implimentation of a system is flawed or broken than all systems of that ilk are then broken or flawed. Clearly history does not support such assertions. In short, they would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Secondly, these in general are the sorts of people who find glee when they see a polic officer run over in the street. Do you seriously believe that anyone this cold and uncarring would not hesitate for an instant in putting pepper spray in your eyes? Thirdly, they express a view which I call Theory X equality. In short, as long as they are the ones making the profit, the fact that you suffer for it, justly or not, is irrelevant and justified. In more prosaic words, the ends *always* justifies the means. An assertion that history also does not support. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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

Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw (fwd) [correction]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Subject: Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:20:20 -0600 (CST) > The fundamental flaw with the justification of a Free Market Anarchy and > also the fundamental condemnation of Democracy is that of taxation. > > However, the theory of democracy does not in any way address the issues of > taxation, only how laws are made and what the boundaries on those laws are. > In fact, until about the first third of this century there was NO personal > taxation in this country at the federal level. Clear prima facia , and to use > Beck's verbage 'real', evidence that the assertion that personal taxation and > democracy are irrevocably wedded. ^ is false. > Ask yourself, why is it that no free > market anarchist *ever* mentions commenality in humanity? Why do their have > inherent and implicit in their systems a class structure? They would have > you believe this is natural, it is not. Class structures are reflections of > the beliefs of the people, not some fundamental law of nature. > > Furhermore, Free Market Anarchy does not address the issues of protection > from abuse. It does not recognize in any manner any mechanism for redress of > grievances unless you happen to be one of the few who controls the wealth. > It further assumes that those who don't have wealth will willingly take this > station in life as a given and simply work for those who do have wealth and > accept without resentment that they will forever be denied any sort of > opportunity to change their station in life except at the whim of the power > brokers. It further does not in any way address issues of life, liberty, or > pursuits of happines - only monetary wealth. It is clear that having wealth > does not in any manner guarantee any sort of empathy for others in the holder. > If anthing, history demonstrates that such 'lords of wealth' are pragmatic > about collecting wealth to the point of predation. > > This argument from the specific to the general is fundamentaly flawed and > the conclusion suffers because of it. > > Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. How that power is > obtained, by vote or specie, is irrelevant as clearly shown by history. > > Some hold that the majority of the populace suffer taxation at the point of > a gun. This assertion is also false. There have historicaly been several > political parties which have promised to eliminate personal taxation. In > every case those parties could not control more than a truly minimal > percentage of the vote. Yes, people say taxation is too high, they do not > hold the assertion that taxes should be completely eliminated. > > Free Market Anarchies are doomed to the same sort of death, and if ever > implimented the same sorts of abuse, as all other non-democratic systems. > > Also, recognize that those who support such systems have a set of commen > character flaws. First, they can't differentiate the implimentation from the > theory of political systems. They would have you believe that if a given > implimentation of a system is flawed or broken than all systems of that ilk > are then broken or flawed. Clearly history does not support such assertions. > In short, they would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Secondly, these > in general are the sorts of people who find glee when they see a polic > officer run over in the street. Do you seriously believe that anyone this > cold and uncarring would not hesitate for an instant in putting pepper spray > in your eyes? Thirdly, they express a view which I call Theory X equality. > In short, as long as they are the ones making the profit, the fact that you > suffer for it, justly or not, is irrelevant and justified. In more prosaic > words, the ends *always* justifies the means. An assertion that history also > does not support. > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > | | > | 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

Re: FCPUNX:PGP Employee on MKR
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:02 PM 10/30/97 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > Even if you were to use CMR, it is dumb, dumb, dumb, to allow the > snoop key to remain after the message has passed the enforcer -- it > should strip it off on the way out. Unless, of course, the real intention of CMR is GMR. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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:DEA trying to subpoena book dealers
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 AM 10/30/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > Makes it easier for cops to see that you're not a threat, > or that you are a threat. If your underwear's not Kevlar, > it's not contributing much to the process, and cops are > probably more embarassed about beating up naked people. Watch out for toilet plungers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Hello, thought you should see this
by srvce＠micro-net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LEARN THE SECRET TO MAKING OVER $2750.00 A WEEK, PART-TIME WITH YOUR HOME COMPUTER! It's fun, it's rewarding, and it's easy. This is so simple, most children could do it! All you need is a computer and E-Mail address to begin making excellent money while relaxing in the comfort of your own home. All it takes is a couple hours a day, and you'll have more than $2750.00 arriving in your mailbox every week! Right now there are only a few people around the country who know how to do this. And these few people are having the greatest time of their lives while their computers make them a fortune. They don't want anyone else to know how they're making all this money, but we at Crown Industries have decided to let a few more people in on the secret. Even if you are happy with your current job, you can use this system in your spare time to create a huge extra income. And let us assure you this system is completely legal. We are so sure anyone can make a fortune with this unique system, that we will even let you try it out for 30 days! If you're not 100% satisfied, just send it back within 30 days for a full refund. Once you begin to see how easy it is to make money with your computer, you will wish you had received this letter a long time ago. Anyone can do this, and since very little of your time is required, you will have a lot more time to spend doing the things you have always wanted to do. So take the first step toward financial freedom and order this powerful money making system today! You'll be glad you did! This offer will only be available for a limited time! To insure you receive your copy, order today! To receive your copy of our incredible computer money making system, along with a full 30 day money back guarantee, send a check or money order for $14.95 payable to: Crown Industries 1630 North Main St. Suite# 310 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Allow 4-6 days for delivery P.S. You simply must see this to believe it. Never in the history of America has it been possible to make this much money spending just a couple hours a day. We guarantee that anyone can make more than $2750.00 a week, part- time using our system and just one home computer or you get your money back!

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

After seeing the intents of PGP Inc. with the release of their new PGP that breaks the old free versions, I have all but written them off as anything but the Enemy, and am waiting for a public reply on the list by Tim May to make it official. But now what? Please someone answer my questions about PGP - it appears that the 5.x versions are not compatible with the 2.x versions which came previous. Is this so? Also, the direction they seem to be heading is in providing more and more non-free GAKked product. But aren't the 2.x and 5.x versions freeware? If so, can't others - a group of individuals - take that source code and build off of that? Piss on these assholes and their licensing fees. It was inevitable, anyway. They are a corporation after all, and the corporations are not on "our" sides. I can see a scenario where government is impotent and destroyed within 10 years. What will remain and will be harder to eradicate are the corporations. I don't think we should rely on corporate software whenever possible, because it always comes with an ulterior motive. Is there an effort to maintain a version of PGP based on the free 2.x sources that is not affiliateed with the fuckwads at PGP Inc.? If not, is it high time some of us began such an effort?

6 5

LAPD reject surplus bayonets [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > LAPD REJECTS, RETURNS SURPLUS BAYONETS > > Sheriff November 1, 1997 > Web posted at: 10:03 p.m. EST (0303 GMT) > > SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- The Los Angeles Police Department has > decided to return the bayonets it has received from a U.S. military > surplus program.

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vlad the Mad wrote: >hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's >the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely >expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money >where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" >and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public >can support such a campaign. also tactics >as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. ....................................................... I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support. But wouldn't it be grand to watch as they decimated the opposition, as they reminded everyone of the raison d'etre for this exceptional nation, and as they 'put it to' a jury, in black & white, just what the deal is in a free society? Shoot, we don't need another President - just a good lawyer. Just imagine! Dream on! .. Blanc

2 1