December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Make More Sales!
by M4f7mtcED＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Make More Sales!!! ****************************************************************** Your product, service, information, opportunity can be seen by thousands or even millions in just days! We are experienced commercial emailers who know how important it is to get your message, product, or service out to the masses FAST! We offer fast turn around at a fair price. At S. Direct Marketing we offer: Highly targeted ads: We use the most advanced software available to "extract" or find people that might be interested in your offer by entering "key words" in search engines and browsers. We can target your ad to the following criteria: Hobbies, Special Interests, Bus. Opp., Income Seekers, MLM, and much more. Your cost to extract targeted email addresses is only 1.5 cents per email address, i.e. 10,000 targeted emails would be $150; 20,000 emails for $300. The cost for us to mail all targeted email lists is an additional $50. I extract 50 to 100,000 AOL addresses every day! "No one else can do this by the way". The cost for these general lists are 1 cent for every 10 names.... Just tell us how many you want. I will personally extract all the duplicate names for you. Thus making it a clean list. Yes! We sell our lists! If you need us to generate a lists for you, just call for our rates. We will need an additional 3-5 days to generate a targeted list. A targeted list of 25,000 emails can typically generate as much response as a general list of 1,000,000 emails! Price Rates for General (Non Targeted) Emails 10,000 emails $50 25,000 emails $55 50,000 emails $65 100,000 emails $115 150,000 emails $145 200,000 emails $195 300,000 emails $250 Ordering Instructions: We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, check by fax or you can mail check or money order. Please print this order form and have it ready when you call our office. Our office hours are: 9am to 9pm (PST) 7-days. Call now! 510-653-4709 You will be given directions on where and how to send us your order. 30

1 0

USA Today editorial opposing criminal copyright bill
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An opposing view from Rep. Goodlatte also appears at the URL below. My article on this unprecedented criminal copyright bill is: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1588,00.html -Declan ====== http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/nceditf.htm USA Today Editorial 12/01/97- Updated 11:14 PM ET Law limits use of Net In 1994, Massachusetts Institute of Technology student David LaMacchia invited on-line users to download $1 million worth of copyrighted computer software that he'd put on the Internet. In spite of his antics, charges against LaMacchia were dismissed. Thanks to a legal loophole, hackers who break copyrights just for fun can't be criminally prosecuted. LaMacchia's case is just the most notorious example of how the growth of the Internet has strained the nation's copyright laws. Duplicating materials in cyberspace is as easy as clicking a mouse. The market for pirated goods is as infinite as the World Wide Web. And under copyright laws from the 1800s, infringement occurs only if a person makes money from the illegal act. Determined to deter the hackers, Congress passed a bill last month making it a felony to duplicate copyrighted materials on line, including computer software, recordings, books and articles. But the bill awaiting President Clinton's signature puts more than hackers at risk. It threatens the actions of scientists, academics and Web users, exposing them to criminal penalties of up to six years in jail. Researchers frequently use the Internet to distribute articles that they write but that other publications copyright. And the Internet now plays an important role in peer review. Scientists post their published research on a Web site in hope of encouraging the exchange of scientific information. Until now, copyright infringement wasn't a worry for these folks. Courts recognized the "fair use" of copyrighted works for noncommercial purposes, including teaching, research and criticism. To bar the use of all copyrighted material would be like telling film critics they couldn't quote dialogue in their movie reviews. Yet under its new law, Congress makes it a crime to duplicate copyrighted materials on line but neglects to include specific "fair use" legal protections allowing the duplication of copyrighted materials that doesn't hurt a work's commercial value. Lawmakers argue that protections aren't needed because the bill calls for the prosecution only of those who "willfully" violate copyrights. Their argument overlooks all the people who know they're using copyrighted material but do so without criminal intent: the researchers, students, writers and Web surfers who duplicate copyrighted materials as a way to communicate. Unless a clear exemption is written into law, all risk becoming targets for overly aggressive prosecutors. There are compelling reasons to revise copyright laws for our digital age. But without guaranteeing researchers the same protections on line as they have off, Congress risks limiting the Internet's legitimate uses. ###

1 0

GLAAD report on filtering software: "Access Denied"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

======= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:16:07 -0500 From: Cathy Renna <CathyR(a)twbg.com> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan(a)well.com> Hi Declan-- I am greatly appreciating your comments and articles about the summit (Loren Javier and I are attending right now. Here is our release about the filtering software report. Cathy Renna Washington, DC Media Resource Center Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) (202) 986-1360 fax: (202) 667-0902 renna(a)glaad.org VISIT THE GLAAD WEB SITE AT http://www.glaad.org! ALERT LINE 1-800-GAY-MEDIA "GLAAD" and "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" are registered trademarks of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Inc. MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Liz Tracey, GLAAD (212) 807-1700 pgr. (800) 946-4646 pin# 1423527 e-mail: tracey(a)glaad.org GLAAD RELEASES GROUNDBREAKING INTERNET FILTERING SOFTWARE REPORT NATION'S ONLY LESBIAN & GAY MEDIA ADVOCACY GROUP EXAMINES COMPLEX ISSUES IN "ACCESS DENIED" NEW YORK, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1997-The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today announced from the historic Internet Summit the release of their comprehensive and groundbreaking report on Internet Filtering Software and ratings systems, "Access Denied: The Impact of Internet Filtering Software on the Lesbian and Gay Community." In the wake of the Communications Decency Act decision, Reno v. ACLU, and with the Internet Summit: Focus on Children being held through tomorrow in the nation's capital, GLAAD has completed an exhaustive survey of how Internet filtering software, and future proposed ratings systems affect the lesbian and gay community. The findings mark the first time a lesbian and gay media advocacy organization has produced research and analysis of such depth on the issue of Internet access. "The majority of software currently on the market, as well as new products in development, place informational Web sites serving the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in the same categories as sexually explicit sites," the executive summary reports. "The software developers are either unable or unwilling to consider that information about sexual orientation and identity (e.g., a gay square dancing site) has nothing to do with sexual behavior, and everything to do with culture and identity." "Access Denied" contains sections analyzing the legal, political and social implications of enforced invisibility on the Web. It also includes overviews written by members of groups such as Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International (GLPCI) and Peacefire (an entirely youth-run cyberliberties group), as well as testimonials from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth, who, as seen in the report, are those most directly affected by the lack of access to important information via the Web or Internet newsgroups. "I urge everyone who uses the Interent to read this report, and learn the troubling implications of the widespread use of filtering software," states Joan M. Garry, GLAAD Executive Director. "As a mother, I can assure you that while GLAAD has examined the disturbing aspects of filtering, we never lost sight of the youngest users of the Internet-our children. Whether it is through the testimonials of lesbian and gay youth, or an essay written by a gay father, the voices in this report must be heard now-perhaps soon, they will be much harder to find." The report also includes a thorough review of the currently available software, ratings systems and search engines, recommendations for industry leaders on how to make the Internet both friendly and fair, as well as a proposal for a future ratings system, FAIRsite, which would measure the accessibility and accuracy of various ratings systems and software. GLAAD is a national organization that promotes fair, accurate and inclusive representation of individuals and events in the media as a means of combating homophobia and all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. -30-

1 0

Re: Pasting in From:
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Robert A. Costner" <pooh(a)efga.org> wrote: > >But you don't need a special anonymity server to do that; > >a keyserver plus either a personna certificate or some archiving mechanism is enough. > >The certificate shows that you're the first+only person at that > >certificate issuer to use the name you've chosen; the archive > >shows that the first poster using the name <nym> used PGP Key <key>. > >I have a PGP key I use for signing pseudonyms which performs > >the personna certificate function - I'll verify uniqueness > >of keys that I've signed. > > I was thinking of remailers sending out anon messages with a distinct from > line that has zero connection (in the nym database) to any email address. > Is this possible? To establish a nym only through one way communication? I can think of a couple of ways this could be implemented. You could either allow the user to select an e-mail address to use, then do an nslookup to verify that the domain does not exist, or else choose a domain that's actually nothing but a bit bucket. The cleanest implementation might be to create a "bitbucket.efga.org", alias all incoming mail (except for perhaps "postmaster") to /dev/null, then assign non-replyable 'nyms off of that. That would eliminate the need for managing reply blocks and confirmation cookies. This is much more preferable to these people you see who post with a From: address of "nobody(a)nowhere.com", probably not realizing that nowhere.com is actually a real domain. But implementing such a server is still a lot more work than simply allowing From: headers to be pasted and allowing source blocking for anyone who is worried about being the victim of abuse of such a scheme. - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIRgZwbp0h8ZvosNAQGC7gf+PRUB+6Zuxns3E+BWZoM3kkzn4MD9vcip 1MvQRFRvTTdvGM4vFySYcZByv7SQJdIiVZItyzMe4qMz+Ft/xpbWUYmz3mOpws9H RW3sbsFywNzp4pCxolKhMJ8QTQI/tHb3CHT6thHkbgjpzr4bJlL6trLKn+btY2d/ MdNq61oPCTq4YYdj9kC8WebngjfJZOvcvQhX1OLtUaagrpL8DiGxivGSz/Rdl6ZC Yr8m8m0V/l6WA4HG3ZKTDoBz6OBxI7VROZRZdJkCRHKgScQP9/4+UYnSbew1rAhE apoUG3Ds7kiIUoZ9gLz01sYvRRaWelIjIZLp+RfnMPvtwXexP2uA8Q== =+uAL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

anon remailer
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This guy has the IQ of a turnip... relevant to anon remailers & society thread... Tuesday December 2 12:07 PM EST Hate e-mail case to be retried SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance, federal prosecutors will retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to Asian students at UC Irvine. Prosecutors announced their decision while opposing a bail request for Richard Machado of Los Angeles, the first person in the United States to be tried on charges of committing a hate crime over the Internet. His first trial on those charges ended with a deadlocked jury in November. Jurors voted 9 to 3 to acquit the former UC Irvine student. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Genaco told Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler that it is important that the case be resolved because other similar cases are certain to occur. Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was first charged. Machado's retrial is scheduled to begin Jan. 27. _- David Honig honig(a)alum.mit.edu --------------------------------------------------- If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. -TJ

2 3

A Netly Thanksgiving (guess I should have posted this earlier)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=========== http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1602,00.html The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/) November 28, 1997 A Netly News Thanksgiving by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Here at the Netly News, we have a feast of things for which we're thankful during this holiday season: Ricochet radio modems. MacOS 8. A Supreme Court that supports free speech online. DVD. Cable companies offering 400 Kbit/sec Net-connections. But we're also grateful to the personalities who made this year an unforgettable one: Heaven's Gate: A special Netly thanks to these suicide cultists for providing us with seemingly unlimited article fodder. From the blinking red alert headline of their celestial home page to the computer-generated painting of a resident of the kingdom of heaven, their web site was a treasure trove for journalists. Buried in the invisible space at the bottom of the home page were hundreds of hidden words: UFO, space alien, extraterrestrial, misinformation, second coming, end times, alien abductions, Yoda, Yoga. Wonderful stuff. Louis Freeh: The butt of a thousand jokes on the Net ("Freedom isn't Freeh"), the FBI director emerged this year as the arch-enemy of strong encryption. We had worried that Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's departure might mean fewer good stories from the Justice Department. But Freeh came to the rescue, saying publicly that Americans should not be allowed to buy encryption products without a backdoor for law enforcement. [...]

1 0

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[...] May is a slant-eyed, rice-gibbling jap in a redneck disguise. ---._.--- / | \ / * \ ( @@ ) / _/-||-\_ \ / '/ || \` \ / / () \ \ / /| |\ \ / / | | \ \ / / / o o \ \ \ / / ( ) \ \ <_ ' `--`___'`___'--' ` _> / '~~--- / = \ ---~~` \ ,,,/ / ( v ) \ \,,, \ / / @|-' '-|@ \ \ / \__/ ////// \__/ Dave Smith bends over for Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the rest of the Databasix gang. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[For details on some of the proposals presented, read the full article. --Declan] ============ http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1608,00.html The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/) December 2, 1997 Censorware Summit 2.0 by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) If there's one political controversy that promises never to die, it's sex and the Net. There seems to be something about the combination of children and cyberporn that makes otherwise levelheaded adults more than a little worried -- and even a little irrational. Enter the politicans, always happy to pacify parents with soothing rhetoric. Vice President Al Gore is scheduled to speak this morning at a two-day summit dedicated to protecting kids online. Of course, the Communications Decency Act's backers had claimed that that particularly nasty law (which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional) did just that. They were joined by the White House, which two years ago said "the President firmly supports the Communications Decency Act" to "regulate the exposure of children to computer pornography." This time, however, the White House would like to avoid the same embarrassing mistakes -- and, perhaps more importantly, would like to avoid pissing off high tech firms that could be hefty campaign contributors to Al Gore 2000. Instead of endorsing new federal legislation, the Clinton administration says it'll oppose it as long as industry regulates itself. And, of course, if firms play ball, their CEOs get to share the limelight with the veep [...]

5 5

Re: Pasting in From:
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+NOspam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) > :If Gary Burnore is so concerned about "forgery", maybe he ought to > :start using that PGP key he keeps advertising in his .sig to > :actually sign his posts. Unless he does, he's still vulnerable to > :forgery from his fellow Netcom users who are still allowed to insert > :arbitrary From: lines in their Usenet posts. Actually, forging a > :post with Gary Burnore's name and address in the From: line can be > :much more convincingly (no disclaimers) done from a throwaway > :Netcruiser account, and with less effort than learning the proper > :protocol to do it through a remailer. > > > Please specify how PGP signing the inside of a post will stop UCE-Baiting. PGP signing a post is a lot like the new anti-counterfeiting measures in US currency, only a lot more effective. But if some bozo decides to start printing up three dollar bills with a portrait of Mickey Mouse, and others are foolish enough to accept them, what are you going to do? It's hard to protect people from their own stupidity. I'd contend that a $3 bill isn't even a counterfeit or forgery, since there is not genuine equivalent which it seeks to fraudulently duplicate. Maybe it's time that the brain-dead software that mindlessly harvests e-mail addresses from the net was shut down. That sounds like the real problem. > :Munging of addresses is better left to the discretion of the poster. > :Let those who perceive a need for this "capability" use it. At > :least one of the mail2news gateways implements that as an option for > :those desiring it. I'm in favor of leaving that choice with the > :poster. > > Please specify how PGP signing the inside of a post will stop UCE-Baiting. I'm not sure what comment you intended to make about that paragraph, since it appears that you inadvertantly pasted in your comment from the last paragraph again. The text you're supposedly commenting on nowhere mentions PGP. > :Mr. Burnore made a similar "forgery" complaint here several months > :ago and was advised to PGP sign his posts and request source-level > :blocking if he perceived forgery to be a problem. He has evidently > :not taken the trouble to implement the first suggestion and, > :assuming he took the second suggestion, he's posted no evidence to > :suggest that it's not been effective. > > The second has been effective. I've not denied that. Since you've already found a solution to the problem that works, there seems to be no need to do anything more drastic to solve it. > I can see however, that > allowing anon posts with someone elses' address in the from line is a great > tool for UCE-Baiting. I fail to see any other reason for it in an anonymous > post. What other reason would there be for putting a REAL email address in > the from line of an ANONYMOUS post? For one thing, to identify posts as originating from one's pseudonym, which *MIGHT* be a "real" e-mail address. Most times I've seen it used, though, it has been used to place identifying information in the From: field which many newsreaders use to identify posts so that they are recognizeable by the reader. > Again, it's nothing to do with the CONTENT. It has more to do with the ability > to post to an mlm group with someone elses' email address. Oh, and btw, if a > NETCOM customer is caught doing this, his/her account is terminated. The key word there is "caught", and then you'd have to convince Netcom to actually do something about it. It is my understanding that spammers routinely utilize Netcom's OPEN SMTP SERVERS to send out their spam, using whatever From: field they wish, and Netcom doesn't seem to care. Anyone using those same servers to send mail to a mail2news gateway could forge someone's name and e-mail address to a Usenet post, couldn't they? Also, even if a complaint to Netcom got an individual account shut down, that wouldn't stop some other Netcom user from doing the same thing, nor would it stop the first Netcom user from opening another account under a phony name and repeating the process, or even doing it from a non-Netcom account. So if my e-mail address were being forged via Netcom, would they be able to source-block it as the remailers currently can do? If not, doesn't your own ISP have a bigger abuse potential than the remailer net? > AGAIN IT'S NOT FORGERY THAT'S A PROBLEM. IT'S UCE BAITING. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's no need to shout. Perhaps you've forgotten two earlier posts you made to this NG in the past couple of weeks in which you said: -> Subject: Re: Controlling the From: line in PIdaho -> -> Hopefully replay has corrected this as others have suggested so that the above -> CAN'T be done. It's a simple way to forge someone else's name. Early last ^^^^^ -> year comes to mind. -> -> [...] -> -> Posting anonymously is a valid thing to do, posting with someone else's name -> in the From line is simply forgery. Try sending your message from a hotmail ^^^^^^^ -> address or other site where you can just make up a name if you want this sort -> of thing. And in another post: -> Subject: Re: 'from' other than anonymous -> -> [...] -> -> Again, a forged from line (Forged as in someone's _REAL_ email address shows ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ -> up) is a BAD THING. You claimed to be concerned about FORGERY back then, now you're saying "IT'S NOT FORGERY THAT'S A PROBLEM". Which is the case? > AGAIN. Please specify how PGP signing a post will stop UCE Baiting based soley > on the from line. But you were given two solutions, so if one of them works, then you don't need the other one. --

1 0

Announcing availability of Crowds 1.1.1 for Win95, WinNT, Unix
by Aviel Rubin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Crowds: A system for anonymous web transactions Top 10 reasons why you might be interested in Crowds 10. The price - crowds is free 9. Easy to install - download the code, untar, and run. Then, simply point your browser proxy settings to it and you can browse anonymously 8. Public service - by running the crowds code, you provide others with anonymity, even if you don't use it all the time. 7. Big brother is on the net - this helps you hide 6. It's nobody's business what you are browsing 5. For this to work, there needs to be a large user community 4. Portable - now works on Windows95, WindowsNT, and all versions of Unix we tried 3. Win Crowds T-shirts and coffee mugs - details to come 2. Take a stand for privacy 1. Don't be the last person on the Internet to obtain privacy More information, including full source code is avilable at http://www.research.att.com/projects/crowds. - Mike Reiter - Avi Rubin ********************************************************************* Aviel D. Rubin rubin(a)research.att.com Secure Systems Research Dept. Adjunct Professor at NYU AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue http://www.research.att.com/~rubin/ Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Voice: +1 973 360-8356 USA FAX: +1 973 360-8809 --> Check out http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr/websec/ for a new book on web security (The Web Security Sourcebook). *********************************************************************

1 0