December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

To TruthMonger
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > snow wrote: > > You must live in such a nice world, where the sky is always blue, > > the grass always green, and the police eager and willing to serve a happy > > populace. > > Can I come live in your world? > snow > take two of the green ones, three of the yellow ones, and four of the > red ones But But But all I have are little pale blue ones, and big honkin white ones.

1 0

I Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BASIC TRUTHS Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film. A day without sunshine is like, night. Diplomacy is saying "nice doggy " until you find a rock. Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse? I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty. Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it. Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe. He's not dead, he's electroencephalographically challenged. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you. I wonder how much deeper would the ocean be without sponges. Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular? Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Atheism is a non-prophet organization. He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

1 0

www.cypherpunks.to
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What happened to www.cypherpunks.to? It appears to have disappeared.

2 1

Re: Why porn must be stopped at all costs, by Jodi Hoffman
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Jodi- So occasionally I like to turn these arguments around in my head: Why should the smart, mature people under 18 in this country be penalized because your immature, mentally retarded and over-fragile kids can't seem to handle the sight of naked people? What if I wanted to protect my children from the evils of Christianity? Could I ban that from the internet with the same sort of high horse the anti-porn people seem to be riding? And damage and change are completely different things. We're all changed by our experiences. Some people among us were apparantly beat over the head with dirty pictures as children and are now horribly afraid of them. The other bits in her letter (The bible being thrown out of public schools for example) were just plain lies. It's sad that when most of America has to chose between its essential freedoms and the most trivial of protection from objectionable thought, that we chose to lose the freedoms. _______________________________________ -wabe

2 1

Charityware
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My advice to Monty Cantsin or whomever actually wrote this: write shorter pieces! The quote-and-coment style, especially for very long pieces, usually results in people skipping huge sections, or the whole thing. I only scanned this and stopped when I saw the word "cryptoanarchist." At 4:41 AM -0700 11/3/97, Mix wrote: (quoting someone else) >>New payment models will need to come in. How can you extract money >>from a cryptoanarchist? Copyright? Patent? Hah, hah. > >The important thing is establishment of the custom. Most >cryptoanarchists with class will pay. The way to do this is to make >it clear from day one that it is not free software. If you want to >run it, you should buy it. (The problem with share ware is that people >get used to "borrowing" it.) _This_ cryptoanarchist will almost _never_ pay for that which is free. If someone gives me something, no strings attached, and then says, "Oh, the "suggested donation" is $10," I tell them that they should have charged me that in the first place. (I'm obviously not fond of leftie events which are advertised as free, but which require a mandatory voluntary "suggested donation.") More to the point, I use various freebies I get off the Net. Some of them have obscure schemes for sending payments to the alleged authors. Too much hassle. And if it's _free_, why pay anything? Charityware is not a viable business model. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow wrote: > > > People kill for religion, politics, insanity, and fun. > > Nope. Economics, survival, revenge, and insanity. Nope. Voices inside my head.

1 0

Re: Why porn must be stopped at all costs, by Jodi Hoffman
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan "Socrates" McCullagh wrote: >[Wow. First time I've ever been personally accused of being "a major >reason for the downward spiral of society." --Declan] > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:53:27 -0500 >From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm(a)ibm.net> >To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Subject: Why porn must be stopped at all costs..... > >ALL: >I've forgotten how long I've been on this email list. Maybe too long. > >Try as I might, I cannot forget standing on the steps of the Supreme >Court building with my husband and 10 year old daughter in the >freezing drizzle. I really thought we could make a difference, >standing there with our banner and signs, one of which read, "DON'T >SACRIFICE MY CHILD ON THE ALTAR OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT." Stupid me. >As the saying goes...we've come a long way, baby. > >As I wander back through all the posts on this list, it finally dawns >on me what this is all about, this 'fight censorship' rhetoric. It's >nothing more and nothing less than a lot of egotistical, self-serving >brats who absolutely refuse to grow up, including you, Declan. Don't >you realize that YOU are a major reason for the downward spiral of >society? Instead of trying to protect children, you want to empower >them. Even a moron knows that when you do so, that power has to be >taken from someone. Unfortunately, that someone is the parent. I >have to ask myself just how many on this list have children. Not >many, I would say. Hoffman's claim that she is unable to control what her child sees is weak. It's easy enough keep kids off the Net. It's easy to buy software that only reveals approved parts of the Net. So what is it about our Constitution that Hoffman finds so offensive? It certainly doesn't harm her own child. If we were to be charitable, we would say that she is concerned about other people's children seeing pornography. The only problem is, that the parents of these children are just as able as she is to control their involvement with the Net. Yet, apparently, she is unhappy with the choices these parents are making and wishes to overrule them. At best, this is inconsistent with her claim that she believes parents should decide what their own children see. If we were to be accurate, instead of charitable, we would observe that it is most likely that Hoffman is offended by pornography in general, no matter who sees it. For instance, this statement refers to an adult, not a child: "So, keep protecting your porn-induced orgasms." Rather than stating her beliefs openly and honestly, she is hiding behind children, particularly her own child, to put promote her outrageous, unconstitutional, and un-American totalitarian policies. (Hoffman may not even be completely conscious of her own motivations. Often, this sort of person begins with an agenda, and then works him or herself up into a rage using other reasons for the justification, somewhat reminiscent of the "Two Minute Hate" sessions described in Orwell's "1984".) I said a few days ago that people who would use the excuse of protecting children to promote their own twisted agenda are the lowest of the low. Hoffman is, I believe, a perfect example. I pity her child. This is also a good example of why the use of remailers is advisable. It lowers the odds that some whacko will come after you with an axe. 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 iQEVAwUBNF5DqZaWtjSmRH/5AQEoXAf+Ie7zmRl8+PJRZbrFILK7crgyCPZX6LRw tVctKgWgmGlAVWbCyNeAJj6Y3AqBF1gwzhcSkY9OBMmcBYXEf23xi+5UkipD4rJ7 3QGDapph7F94tWzsSeO2NzTVUadawoE7bNl5lL5SaBjXoPpBkH96OAxHJ6zgobAA K/6z3QBeEDrUeP7pHmmBBVY6X3Z5b8CJGhuqP/gMifl2RsvU/xvFz6LWtRkzR389 zs0UsqDxKQ3yH8Bjdt85dVsyiwSzrLFjQVLNO2JNvOQDgwMpusB4KnMcgp13vgm4 xZ0j9y2EJBgekNwb0sC35BWkACZOuJSSG4bMGuWZR7NP3O/YaV19EA== =zPYs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RSA Blows Smoke
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Wierd News RSA Blows Standards Smoke James Glave james(a)wired.com" 6:16pm 31.Oct.97.PST http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/8196.html Today's announcement "http://www.rsa.com/smimelive/html/9710311.html" by RSA Data Security stating that the company has formally applied to the Internet Engineering Task Force to establish an email security standard is a blatant lie rooted in greed, allege sources close to the process. "RSA is lying, and I am really livid," said Paul Hoffman of the Internet Mail Coalition. "RSA has not submitted anything." The flap centers around the company's ongoing efforts to get its proprietary S/MIME email encryption technology endorsed as a standard by the task force. Such an endorsement would give the company credibility, and potentially, an increased market share over rival Pretty Good Privacy. PGP submitted a competing protocol for standards consideration last month. The Internet standards process is lengthy and complicated at best. The sticking point in RSA's efforts to date is that the task force will only consider non-proprietary technologies for the standards track. But S/MIME 2, the protocol at the heart of the effort, includes core RSA technologies that must be licensed. To be considered for standardization, RSA must relinquish "change control," or the ability to modify the technology, to the task force. And the portion the task force is most interested in altering is the portion that requires RSA technology. As a result, getting change control "has been like pulling teeth," claims Jeff Schiller, the organization's security director. "Their goal has always been get this into the IETF but don't really give up control," said Schiller. "[They want to] make sure that when the standard comes down, if an anyone wants to implement it then they have to be a licensee." Schiller says that until change control is secured, RSA has no hope of coming near a formal application - as they had claimed to have already done this morning. RSA, however, claims that it has granted change control. "They are trying to get more market share by claiming that the IETF is endorsing their commercial product," alleged Schiller. RSA, in fact, is only one of five groups that have worked on S/MIME 2, which is about to be submitted by the Internet Mail Coalition to the IETF as an informational request for comments. Now, in order to retain its hold on the S/MIME technology, RSA is taking sole credit for submitting it to the task force, some observers claim. "It's totally disacknowledging the work of a lot of other people," said Hoffman. A request for comments is one of the initial steps in the certification process, and Hoffman says that the Internet Mail Coalition has yet to put S/MIME 2 forward. Further, Schiller says, "When we do, it is not trying to get it as an Internet standard. It won't go - and therefore we are not going to try." Hoffman reiterated that S/MIME 2 won't be an Internet standard because it relies on proprietary security technology and weak encryption. The Internet Mail Coalition is about to begin work on S/MIME 3, which will use stronger encryption and true open standards. Tim Matthews, product manager for RSA, acknowledged that the announcement may be open to misinterpretation. "It's basically a summation of all the work we've been doing over the past month," he said. Instead of helping its own cause, and gaining public mindshare, RSA's announcement may end up flying back in its face. "If it fragments the S/MIME camp it could help PGP a bit," said Charles Breed, director of technology for competitor PGP. "I hope [the announcement] hasn't sunk their chances because there are still a lot of people who want to do S/MIME," said Hoffman. "RSA's greediness could sink this, but I really hope it doesn't." - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNFx0To9Co1n+aLhhAQHzQwQAwfbrjUYnFP2Q72Zbld6zDOeprNWV/9Lc fzGy7wiS0Jewx9dgMxMw1jHonlqLak469XzJzJVbSnGpvfpau1QJjWus1sKDbUeL YC87k71t7vTcnWumqnsndlItwbn8AVw5TRLqRxsF+cz4PaspIAx4hIY8V9jDBIk6 EY9J1FSeFkg= =SINu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

PGP compatibility
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: >Of course your copy of PGP 5.0 is compatible with prior versions. I know >this, you know this, and the anonymous author claiming otherwise knows >this. He simply hopes that there are some people that don't know this. The >idea behind the original post and others like it over the last few days is >to spread FUD about PGP 5.0 after other attacks failed for lack of merrit. >If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually some people will believe you. >PSYOPS 101. Let's not fall for it. >[Yes, I know that DSA keys can not be read by PGP 2.6. Neither will Word >1.0 read Word 7.0 files. So what?] Let me guess, Lucky, you're using Windows, right? If I was a Windows user exclusively I probably wouldn't give a damn either. Robert's version is compatable because he's gone to strides to *make* it compatable. Most users haven't done this. PGP Inc. has taken a *multi-platform* *network-wide* system and broken it. They released a Windows version months ago completely severing lines of communication between 5.0 and 2.x users. Finally, after months, they get around to releasing a UNIX version so that everybody else can use PGP 5.x. Of course the damned thing *still* isn't stable, *still* has a timebomb in it, and *still* has the command line broken. PGP Inc. recommends that people report bugs, get new versions, etc. at http://beta.pgp.com, but as was covered in detail in another posting that site is a pretty much disabled (or incomplete if you want to think of it that way). Microsoft Word is something completely different. We aren't distributing Word 7.0 documents all over the Internet as a standard communications practice. When I encrypt a message to you using PGP 2.6, I'm using a version of a program which is released for certain platforms. When I encrypt a message to you using PGP 5.0 I'm using a version which is released for certain platforms, but not all the platforms 2.x was available on. 5.x produces messages which are incompatable with 2.x. As a result 2.x users, which includes the UNIX community (which, last I checked, was rather large), are excluded from the message traffic the Windows users are sending around. Of course I'm talking about signatures and sometimes encryption, but, again, last I checked that was a major reason to use PGP in the first place. Then again, given the quality of the average Window user's message traffic on the network today maybe that isn't such a great loss. It should be worthy of note that I'd be using one of the betas for 5.x right now if the PGP folks hadn't purposefully broken every script known to man. I can comment out the timebomb for the expired (i.e. broken in yet another way) versions they're releasing, or at least were as of last week. Let's redefine SMTP, NNTP, FTP, and HTTP so that they looks nothing like what currently exists, install it on major providers, and write a set of UNIX clients. When Windows and Mac users complain about this we can all stand up proudly and proclaim that they'll just have to wait a few months for somebody to write the software which will allow them to again take part, and that their complaining about this completely idiotic tactic is "FUD". And, of course, since the SMTP2, NNTP2, HTTP2, and FTP2 protocols are so much better than their previous versions (that wouldn't be too hard) this is all very smart and nobody should mind. If PGP Inc. had released a sane UNIX version along with their Mac and Winblows versions there would be considerably less bitching happening right now. Hell, they could have released patches for 2.6. Instead they've waited months and still don't have one out which works.

3 2

Monty Cantsin README
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please post your public key somewhere. There's a variety of keyservers, or even to this list would be adequate. KeyMonger

1 0