December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am a bit confused. A post to the list claimed that the fifteen year old who raped and murdered the eleven year old (both boys) had not met his victim on the internet, as initial media sources indicated, but on an 800 number phone-chat line. I vaguely recall doing a web search to find out the facts for myself and confirming the claim. Now I am watching Sixty Minutes on tv and they keep repeating the mantra, "met on the internet, met on the internet..." Does anyone have the so called real scoop on this? Thank You

3 2

Re: Protocols for Insuran
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com wrote: > Actually, the real "sucker rates" are the amounts small > > businesses pay for insurance. > The big businesses (who can buy in bulk) get a pretty reasonable > deal for what they get. The smaller companies who cannot > bargain the price down get screwed. (The rate my wife's > employer was paying was close to double what my insurance costs > and it covered ALOT less.) > I seriously doubt that most people could afford to self-insure > at the going rate. (Not unless they have some serious income > they want to get rid of.) Think of this as "evolution in action" <G>

1 0

Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:28:52 +0100 (MET) > To: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > > It doesn't make it right whether it is the Khmer Rhouge, SOG, Shinning Path, > > The SLA, CIA in Laos or Columbia, Ruby Ridge, KAL 007, TWA 800, IRA, SDS, > > Black Panthers, or some old lady in Ill. who wants to committ suicide. > > Suicide is hardly a terrorist action. [Names withheld to protect the terminaly stupid] It isn't the act your moron, sorry; more-off, it's the reason. Pay attention and quit napping, this isn't television. There are no commercials. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 04:13:59 -0800 (PST) > From: mark(a)unicorn.com > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT > Jim Choate wrote: > >If we as individuals can't make our own decisions about what is best for us, > >what makes you think some stranger will do any better? > > Indeed. Yet in a democracy, any two other members are assumed to know > better than me, and any 51% to know better than the other 49%. No, it doesn't - your definition of democracy is a simplistic if not childish view intended to cast democracy in the worst possible light imaginable. What you describe is a democracy which has no bill of rights or explicit limitations on the issues that the democratic body can vote on. Obviously there is nothing in the definition of a democracy that prevents those founding the democracy from stating: "Congress shall make no law respecting ..." or "The rights of the people to .... shall not be infringed." Grow up. > Indeed, thereby proving that democracy *doesn't* work. You've proved nothing except your a priori dislike for democracy because you want to convince others you are an angel. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 02:57:51 -0600 > From: TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)) (fwd) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Juries are supposed to be composed of your peers, not who the prosecution or > > defence believe will best support their case. It should be that the first 12 > > poeple called who don't have a valid excuse to be excused are the jury, the > > next 12 are the back-ups. > > You're way off base here, Jim. As a matter of fact, the government > goes to extraordinary lengths to make certain that we get a jury of > our peers. No, I just hit a home run. The fact is that if the defendant is facing a charge that can result in the death penalty *NO* juror will sit on that jury who will a priori eliminate the death penalty as a potential verdict. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:06:00 +0000 > From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths(a)exeter.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > But the bit I'm trying to get at. Doesn't the idea of what those rights > are change from social group to social group? Do they? My thesis is that people are people and the basic things that make them satisfied and productive are the same: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Prove that people over time change their base behaviour or that that base behaviour is fundamentaly linked to the societial more's that they are exposed to. Note, that there is a distinct difference between these base behaviours and how they express them. > Furthermore, doesn't having > a irrefutable set of laws place a fundamental (ist) limit on a > democracy that exists under them? Who, other than you, has said that there was a such thing as irrefutable laws? Laws or not rights, if your assertion is this please be so kind as to demonstrate that as well. Demonstrate that such a concept as irrefutable laws has an existance as anything other than idle mental mechanations. > Is it possible to have a true > democracy without the assumption of a 'higher authority'? Where in a democracy is there the assumption there is a higher authority than the governed? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:40:35 +0000 > From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths(a)exeter.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > > > We hear on TV etc people saying "If this draconian measure saves the > > > life of one innocent child its worth the loss of my right to walk in > > > the park, or whatever". This is clearly shit, but can people suggest a > > > sensible measure of when new legistlation is justified? > > > > Is this a trick question, or sumpin'? > > > > If not, then the answer is "the Constitution." > > I was trying to start from somewhere more fundamental than the > Constitution, but if I understand you, you're saying that an arbitary, > allbeit 'self-evident', set of limitations are set down (i.e. the US > Constitution) at some point in time and no new laws should be made that > contradict this set of rules. > By doing this, aren't we putting a dictatorial limit on whatever > democracy we come up with? In effect saying "we're all equal under God, > and God wrote the Constitution"? No, that is not the way it works at all. [Geesh] Let's start from the beginning, shall we. Our government does *NOT* start with the Constitution [one spin-doctor approved lie down]. It starts with the Declaration of Independance. It defines those self-evident issues of a democracy we are speaking of. Further, the founding fathers [NOT just the framers of the Constitution; second spin-doctor approved lie down] felt those rights were God given because they were inherent in being a human being, not something like a drivers license you had to prove you were responsible enough for and could be taken away [third spin-doctor lie down]. You got those rights (barring social institutions to the contrary, which are a challenge to overcome for democracies - and we fail miserably) because you breath and shit - period. [fourth spin-doctor lie down] Even my being a pantheist, and hence rejecting the concept of divinity, allow that we have rights which are inherent in our existance (Nature's God, which for me are synonymous). Rights that can only be taken at the pain of death or continued violence [fifth spin-doctor lie down]. That violence abrogates the social contract between myself and others (ie society) because it does not allow me the latitude that is mine by simple existance [sixth spin-doctor lie down]. Allow me to quote the first and part of the second initial paragraphs of that founding document: When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of Abuses and Ursurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. *THAT* is the definition of democracy, *NOT* some bullshit definition that a government spin-doctor spews forth in a government spin-doctor institution better known as a school telling you that some ephemeral 'rule-of-law' is the ultimate authority in this country [seventh spin-doctor lie down]. Political oppressors are like the Terminator, you can't reason with them and it will kill you. They're meat-bop (thanks Rudy!) machines with faulty processors. Democracies should be based on cooperation, NOT compromise (ie giving up rights to make sombodies elses job easier). [eighth spin-doctor lie down] Tim and others predict a revolution, while I agree in principal that a social and political revolution and hence an accounting (hopefuly with about another 50 amendments to the Constitution) is coming I disagree that it will or needs to be violent. This ilk of 'patriot' hates so much they have become what they hate - users of violence to get their way and to hell with the consequences. They're simply the next wave of oppressors if we let them. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: PGP 5.5 available outside US
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It seems that unknown Cypherpunks have yet again shown their disrespect of > US export laws by exporting the latest version of PGP. The Windows version > of PGP 5.5 is now available for your downloading pleasure at > ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/crypto/incoming/PGP55.zip > -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. > "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" First, a PGP employee announces that PGP 5.5 is available for download. Second, I try to download it a dozen times, only to have the connection broken each time, after outrageously long periods of waiting for an extremely slow transfer. Third, PGP 5.5 disappears from the server. Fourth, everyone I talk to tells me their attempt to download the file failed. I don't _need_ PGP 5.5. I have a beta-test version of PGP 5.0 which serves me rudimentarily well for my purposes. I would like to check out PGP 5.5 in order to make a proper evaluation of the features and technology involved, but it seems that it is not available for this purpose. PGP will undoubtedly survive without my support, but I find it sad that after many years of supporting PGP products, I can no longer do so with any amount of integrity. Anonymous

3 2

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:35:38 +0000 > From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths(a)exeter.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT > Mark wrote: > > > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Indeed. Yet in a democracy, any two other members are assumed to know > > better than me, and any 51% to know better than the other 49%. > > > > Democracy is merely the scoundrel's last attempt to maintain the divine > > right of kings by coverting it into the divine right of the elected. > > > > >Which means we should have the lowest number of incarcerated individuals > > >instead of the most. I didn't write any of this. Please be more careful with your quotes. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

3 2

[SURVEY] pgp5.x / pgp2.x users
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fill out and email me, and I'll tabulate results, and post here and on ietf-open-pgp: ==============================8<============================== mini straw poll on pgp2.x and 5.x usage: 1. What are you currently using for everyday use: 2.x or 5.x [ 2 or 5 ] 2. What proportion of people you use PGP to communicate with are using 5.x [ x / y ] 3. How many of the 5.x users you communicate with are cypherpunks [ z ] ==============================8<============================== The question has come up on ietf-open-pgp as to how important it is for the OpenPGP standard to support backwards compatibility with pgp2.x. The tension arises because 2 of the 3 cryptographic algorithms used in pgp2.x are patented in some parts of the world. (IDEA being patented in Europe, and US; and RSA being patented in the US and Canada). The IETF generally likes to steer clear of patented algorithms as MUSTs in standards. This encourages implementations, etc. (Personally I'm pretty keen on this point, though I would like more backwards compatible pgp5.x implementations -- I've already received emails I can't read without resorting to the pgp5 command line app, which doesn't work with my mailer integrated system.) So the question arises, just how many pgp2.x users are there. PGP Inc are pointing to the ratio of RSA keys to DSA/EG keys on keyservers as showing that pgp2.x users are in the minority. However that ratio is something like 20,000 to 75,000, and I'm sure we've heard statistics in the past about there being literally millions of pgp 2.x users. One suspects that either many pgp 2.x users aren't using keyservers (I know several cypherpunks who have something against key servers and avoid them for perceived security or privacy reasons), and/or the pgp2.x user base is exaggerated. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0