December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGP question
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Not being very knowledgeable in the cypher world, are there any good online >references that compare RSA vs DSS PGP? and why one would be better than >the other? > >thanks If you use PGP 5.0 many people will refuse to read your messages and send them to you. They won't be able to decrypt your messages, verify your signatures, or use your keys. In general, using 5.0 just pisses people off. 5.0 is purposefully incompatable with all previous versions of PGP, they purposefully haven't released usable versions except for Windows and possibly Mac, they've purposefully broke any scripts and programs which invoke PGP, they purposefully made command-line versions of PGP many times more annoying to use, and PGP 5.x encrypts to a "CMR key" without having the decency to ask. Generally the PGP 5.x folks are being complete and total assholes about this entire thing and haven't done anything to improve the state of cryptography today and a whole lot to worsen it. Somebody recently posted a large rant about this titled "PGP 5.0: What were they thinking? (revisited)." CompatabilityMonger

1 0

North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

#Subject: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture CBS news tonight showed cops in a northern CA town use swabs to apply "pepper spray" directly to the eyes of demonstrators in some Congressman's office. One cop administered headlocks, another pried eyelids open and a third administered discipline. That's the ticket. Skip the judge and jury, just let the cops torture the perps. Why stop at pepper spray? Why not bamboo shoots? Electric shocks to the genitals? We must have order. Glad none of those human-rights protestors in DC will care. And none of those left-wing-commie-pinko llllliberals. And none of those right-wing Christians. FedUpMonger

2 1

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 01:42:37 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)) > > > If we abandon democracy then we are admitting that ALL social systems are a > > failure. > > I fail to see the inference there. 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? By our initial assumption we are assured that they can't make adequate decisions about their own life. Every form of government other than democracy assumes a priori that noble oblige is prima facia. To paraphrase an old questions of politics, who governs the governors? Or do you feel we have found angels in the form of kings? Democracy says, you don't need a governor (in that sense). You ARE held responsible for your actions AFTER your actions, not for simply thinking about them or even speaking them. 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. This would guarantee that getting a conviction for anything other than the most heinous crime with the most explicit and incontrovertible evidence will be well nigh impossible, as it should be in a democracy. It should be a mother fucker to put somebody in jail in this country. Judges should not be able to tell someone they need permissio to file a legal complaint. Nor should a judge be able to refuse a juries request to have testimony transcribed because it costs too much. That isn't justice, that is systemic expediency and criminal indiference. Which means we should have the lowest number of incarcerated individuals instead of the most. > Democracy doesn't work that well. Probably no government at all would > be better. Doesn't work what way? Consider, other than democracy, that every form of government has an implicit assumption that there is some base sets of activities that citizens should be permitted and they will be happy. Those activities are determined, except in democracies, by those in power who are NOT elected or otherwise responsible to the people as a whole. In a democracy the people are given the opportunity to make up their mind what to do with their lives and property without having to obtain permission from some authority. Why? Because there isn't such an authority to get permission from in the first place. > > No, it is time WE take responsibility back for our actions and control our > > own lives and quit abrogating it to some asshole who will promise anything > > to get us to give them money for nothing (ie taxes). > > Same thing applies to most government functions. In what way? Paying a government to keep the park clean and mowed and the lights on at night or my streets well paved and de-iced in winter is not quite the same thing as having black-suited ninja wann-be's kicking my door in at 2AM because I choose to smoke a joint or even grow my own weed; or spend six weeks in jail for possessing vitamins that some cop THINKS is drugs; or perhaps because I happen to be a doctor and know how to read and might take exception to being told what I can or can't say; or because I might be of Jewish decent or a Muslim or a Catholic or Anglo or Negro; or etc. etc. There is a reason behind the madness of "Congress shall make no law...". ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > At 7:59 PM -0700 10/30/97, Anonymous wrote: > >#Subject: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture > > > >CBS news tonight showed cops in a northern CA town use swabs to apply > >"pepper spray" directly to the eyes of demonstrators in some Congressman's > >office. One cop administered headlocks, another pried eyelids open and a > >third administered discipline. > > > >That's the ticket. Skip the judge and jury, just let the > >cops torture the perps. Why stop at pepper spray? Why not bamboo shoots? > >Electric shocks to the genitals? We must have order. > On the other hand, the perps were trespaassers in private offices. Me, I > would've been inclined to fire up my Stihl and separate their little fairy > circle at their wrists. The manufacturer of the pepper spray used warns that it should be used from a minimum of three feet away, as closer use will result in tissue damage. Videos show the police spraying it directly in the non-violent demonstrators eyes from inches away. Naturally, even if they shot the non-violent demonstrators in the eye from inches away, with their guns, they would be provided with a taxpayer-supported legal team to claim that the officers were in fear for their lives from seated, handcuffed, unarmed, non-violent demonstrators. If I trespass on Tim's property, I would fully expect him to deal with me in a manner consistent with his declared intentions. I would expect the same from those who claim to be bound by the same rule of law that they _force_ on the citizens. This non-violent demonstrators were willing to accept the agreed upon punishment/cost of their actions in protest of the actions of their public servants. Their public servants, as usual, chose to to act in the manner of savages who are incapable of holding to the rule of law which they use to justify their confiscation of the citizen's right to bear arms in the face of tyranny. Twenty years or so ago, after seeing pictures of mothers and children in chains at a Livermore Labs protest, I wrote a song called "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For The Monkey." If more people had followed my example, we would be singing the praises of government, as Bozo sits in the Oval Office typing new legislation which would likely be far superior to anything we have seen in the last twenty years. "Time flies like an arrow...fruit flies like a banana." TruthMonger

2 1

Cypherspeak
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Canadian Nutly News wrote: > Canadian Nutly News reportwhore ^^^^^ The answer to InfoWar is more InfoWhore!

1 0

What Will Revolution Look Like?
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some of the questions by Mark Rogaski and others ask about the nature of the revolution I and others are predicting and encouraging. What will a just revolution, like those anticipated by Jefferson, Franklin, and others, look like? The British thought the colonial rebels were "playing dirty" by shooting from behind trees instead of marching in bright uniforms with drums and bugles to herald their way. Modern armies think freedom fighters are "terrorist scum" for not fighting honestly and fairly in their own M-1 Abrams tanks and aircraft carriers. So, too, will revolutionaries be seen as fighting "unfairly" and being unethical sneaks, child killers, and terrorists. (As if children and other innocents did not die in various incidents in past wars, on all sides.) When Jefferson predicted that a revolution was needed every 20 years or so, he surely was not saying that throwing one party out of leadership and putting the other party in was an example of such a revolution, or that "campaign reform" is such an example. Nor was he saying that the only valid revolution would be when a buch of citizens or states got together their own army and marched on Washington. (Actually, raising such an army is in violation of numerous laws about heavy weaons, licenses to carry weapons, etc. No doubt illegal. Ironically.) No, the revolution, when it comes, will likely be different from anything quite like we've seen to date. --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: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The manufacturer of the pepper spray used warns that it should be > used from a minimum of three feet away, as closer use will result > in tissue damage. http://www.tscm.com/mace.html On the third page of Brisbane's Courier Mail yesterday, "Policeman Accused of Assaulting Rape Witness Promoted." ::Boots "Any weapon must be kept concealed until the exact moment of its use"

1 0

Self-proclaimed judge and jury.
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After my success in predicting the outcome of the 'au pair' trial, which is but one of my astonishing string of legal predictions, I have decided to offer my services as self-proclaimed judge and jury, in order to spare the government and its taxpayers the increasingly outrageous cost of incarcerating or freeing the innocent and the guilty, seemingly at random. A bar-table conference of lawyers and judges agreed wholeheartedly with me that the *evidence* presented in the 'au pair's' trial in no way supported a verdict of first, or even second, degree murder. > To convict Woodward of second-degree murder, the jury found > that she intentionally killed the baby with malice, but without > atrocity or premeditation. My panel, to a person, agreed with Barry Scheck that the prosecution had not even "come close" to proving the above, based on the evidence. None of them were foolish enough, however, to believe that the decision of the jury would be based on the evidence and the law. I announced, with an air of certitude, that the verdict would be guilty. My reasoning? 1. Morning talk shows show that the sheeple want *somebody* to pay for each and every perceived wrong done on the face of the media-lit earth. 2. The sheeple don't really give a fat rat's ass about finding the *right* villain, but only the best media-promoted candidate. 3. The obvious target is whoever is 'the least like *me*'! 4. The parents are media friendly, the 'au pair' has British reserve. In short, the British are emotional cryptographers, who obviously have something to hide. Outgoing Americans, who look like us, dress like us and act like us, need only to 'leave us laughing' in order to skip out the door to freedom while pigmentation and/or non-photographic criminals go to the gallows. Guilty! My other successful predictions, in a nutshell: Kennedy Rapist - "White-bread is going to walk." Boxer Rapist - "Nigger's going to jail." Simpson-Brown Murderer: "We were climbing over the fence to OJ's estate hollering, 'We're from the government, and we're here to help you.'" ~My Verdict~ "If the police are shit, blacks will acquit." OJ Civil Trial - Right...like *anyone* is going to brag about predicting the outcome of a black man in front of a rigged jury... In case you think I am *bragging* about my remarkable skill in making correct predictions about the outcome of almost all trials that I take an interest in...guess again. I am a cynical, pessimistic person with low self-esteem, who is able to egoistically consider himself 'superior to the sheeple' only by virtue of the fact that their repetitive echoing of whatever the media 'bleats' in their direction places them in the animal/vegetable/mineral kingdoms which I believe I have risen ever so slightly above in my quest for consciousness. I am, in fact, totally *horrified* that I am able to correctly predict the outcome of what is supposed to be a process of rational judgement by basing my analysis on the supposition that the legal system exists mostly for the purpose of perpetuating its own position of authority, and that its members chief aim is to WIN--at the cost of justice, if need be, and often even out of the interests of mere expediency. From my experience, legal resolution to criminal charges has been quickened more over the years by golf clubs who have 'moved up' an attorney's tee-time, than by any 'right to a speedy trial' legislation has ever done. I would like, deep down inside, to believe that I am full of shit in this regard, but I just keep successfully predicting the outcome of trials by being an irreverent, cynical asshole. Go figure... TruthMonger

1 0

Thanks to AnonyMace, we know: / Re: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Boots wrote: > Anonymous wrote: > > The manufacturer of the pepper spray used warns that it should be > > used from a minimum of three feet away, as closer use will result > > in tissue damage. > > http://www.tscm.com/mace.html Chemical Mace®, A trademark for a mixture of organic chemicals used in aerosol form as a weapon to disable with intense burning pain, blepharospasm, acute bronchitis, and respiratory irritation. -- "American Heritage Dictionary", 1991 i.e. - The police in Humboldt county used 'weapons' against peaceful passive-resisters. Mace is an aerosol weapon (tear gas) that is used to disable violent attackers. i.e. - ibid. What Is Mace Made Of? (Formulations) CN (Original Mace) CS CN/OC Blend CS/OC Blend OC 5.5% OC 10% OC Foam CN -- Chloracetophenone (Lacrimator Agent) Relatively toxic Fast Acting (Upper Respiratory Tract, Lachrymatory, Eyes) Irritating to the Skin (burning and itching sensation) CS -- Orthochlorbenzalmalononitrle (Lacrimator Agent) Extreme burning of the eyes, and flowing tears Stinging sensation on all moist skin Tightness in the chest and throat (Lung and Bronchial Irritant) OC -- Oleoresin of Capsicum (Inflammation Agent) Severe involuntary closing of the eyes/Spasms of Eyelids Severe burning of the eyes, and flowing tears Intense pain on all exposed all skin i.e. - The police *sentenced* unconvicted citizens to receive the *punishment* of *severe* burning and *intense* pain by use of *chemical warfare*. How Does It Work? CN and CS are both irritants and lacrimator agents...if it gets into the respiratory tract is causes severe coughing and choking. ^^^^^^ For CN and CS to work effectively the person being sprayed must be able to feel pain ^^^^ OC on the other hand is a inflammation agent...it causes...the entire respiratory system to seize up and go into spasms. i.e. - Severe Pain and Spasms == Punishment Legalities Any time you use Mace (or any kind of weapon) be prepared to defend yourself in civil or criminal court. Spraying someone with Mace is (by legal definition) an assault, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ and you must be legally justified to spray someone. You can easily go to jail or get sued for misusing a defensive ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ *^^^^^^^^^* spray or any level of physical force. i.e. - If you are a *citizen-unit*. Keep in mind that the use of any kind of defensive weapon could result in death. i.e. - Do the police give a fat rat's ass if they kill the citizens by using *chemical warfare* when it is not necessary, except to perhaps 'teach someone a lesson' by sentencing them to be punished before trial? No. When to Use - Use of Force Ladder Confrontational Avoidance Physical Presence Key Verbal Skills Body Language - Assault is Imminent/Possible Defensive Tactics/Martial Arts/C&R/Open Hand Chemical Weapons Impact Weapons Edged Weapons Firearms i.e. - The word "defensive" is used, time and time again in this evaluation of the proper use of mace. The words *punishment* and *expediency* are, not surpsingly, absent from this discourse. [If you follow the links to the government material on the use of these deadly chemical weapons, you will find constant references to "restraint" of "aggressive" individuals, and as an "alternative" to "physical violence."] About the author: [BTW, he's is trained in "Cryptanalysis"] James M. Atkinson, is an internationally recognized leader and trainer in the field of Technical Surveillance Counter Measures (TSCM), Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Electronic Surveillance Technology, Telecommunications, Intelligence Acquisition and Analysis, Covert and Tactical Operations, Counterintelligence, Computer and Communications Systems, High Speed Photonic Networking, High Security Locksmithing, Electronic Counterterrorism, Explosives Detection, Chemical Weapons, Security Evaluation, and Consulting. Mr. Atkinson has been trained by the U.S. Government in Intelligence, Covert Operations, Technical Surveillance, and Cryptanalysis. He is a graduate of the Defense Intelligence School and has extensive field experience in military, technical intelligence, and covert operations. He is a veteran with eight years of active duty military service, followed by two years of employment with a U.S. intelligence agency, and holds a Top Secret security clearance. He has completed advanced tactical training, and has been certified as both an Instructor and a Master Instructor of chemical weapons and is literally the person who "teaches the teachers". Mr. Atkinson is also the author of numerous books, including multiple titles related to chemical weapons.

1 0

Re: Self-proclamed judge and jury.
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMonger wrote: > I am a cynical, pessimistic person with low self-esteem, who is able > to egoistically consider himself 'superior to the sheeple' only by > virtue of the fact that their repetitive echoing of whatever the media > 'bleats' in their direction places them in the animal/vegetable/mineral > kingdoms which I believe I have risen ever so slightly above in my > quest for consciousness. "Stupidity is the one arena of of human achievement where most people fulfill their potential." -- Jonathan Wienke

1 0