December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: More Government Sanctioned Theft
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12/1/97 4:16 PM, Igor Chudov @ home (ichudov(a)www.video-collage.com) passed this wisdom: >In ok.general, Jerry Morgan <jmorgan(a)galstar.com> wrote: >* easttom(a)redriverok.com (Chuck Easttom) wrote: >* > 2. What the hell legit reason is there for a man to be driving >* around with 132 K in a truck?? >* >* The simple possession of any amount of money is not subject to "police >* approval", unless of course we are living in a police state. I am not sure, but it seems to me that there is some sort of currency control laws that say that you cannot have 10K or mor ein oyur possession unless you show there is a good reason, like on your way to the bank, being abusiness heading for the bank atthe end of the day etc, and of course banks report deposits of 10K or more. I know of two different people who were not 'in business' who did perfectly legal transactions that left them with 32K and 47K in cash each instead of big checks and who simply deposited it. One recieved a phone call and the other a visit by IRS asking 'what, why, where' etc within two weeks of depositing money. Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" -- Samuel Johnson "With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." -- Ambrose Bierce's commentary on Johnson's definition.

2 1

Free Live Sex!
by janey＠wannaplay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

****************Attention Video Sex Lovers***************** Never Pay for Video Sex ever again. Brand New Totally Free Live Video Sex Website. Come Check out unlimited Live Video sex Channels. http://209.25.83.24/indexc.htm

1 0

[Fwd: [cpj:279] Re: PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT] [cpj:279] Re: PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 1

State Department Advisory Committee Meeting
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: aboss(a)vm.temple.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:19:51 -0500 Reply-To: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Sender: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)VM.TEMPLE.EDU> From: Amelia Boss <ABOSS(a)VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Subject: State Department Advisory Committee Meeting To: DIGSIG(a)VM.TEMPLE.EDU I previously posted an announcement concerning a meeting of the State Department's Advisory Committeee on Private International Law on the digital signatures. There have been two changes. First, the location has changed. It will now be held at the Department of commerce, Conference Room 5855 beginning at 9:30 on Monday, December 15 (until 4:40pm). Second, it will be a *one* day only meeting. If you are planning to attend, please notify Rosie Gonzales at the State Department: (202) 776-8420; fax 202-776-8482; email at pildb(a)his.com. Or, call Brian Hengesbaugh at the Department of Commerce: 202-482-4620, fax 202-482-4076. In order to register for the meeting, they will need your name and government agency identification (if any), or affiliation and address, as well as phone, fax, and email address if available. Entry to the Commerce Department should be through the main entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues. Hotel Accommodations: There are two hotels that have agreed to offer, on a space-available basis, rooms at the government rate ($108/single; 128/double). However, you must advise the hotel when making arrangements that you are a State Department invitee and that the government rate should be applied. They, in turn, will contact the L/PIL to verify (authenticate?) that you are on the list of attendees, so please make sure that you have followed the procedures in the previous paragraph. The two hotels are the Windham Bristol Hotel at 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (walking distance to State and two blocks from Foggy Bottom metro) [202-955-6400; fax 202-955-5765] and the State Plaza Hotel at 2117 E Street NW (across from the State Department) [phone 202-861-8200; fax 202-659-8601]. Hope to see many of you there. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > >(I would like to see Cc: and Bcc: being allowed to be pasted in also). > > At minimum, addresses in Cc: and Bcc: need to be checked against > blocking lists, and it's probably worth checking the number of > names in the list against some threshold - especialy Bcc:s, > which tend to be popularly used by spamware. As long as blocking requests are authenticated with some sort of "cookie" token scheme, that would be acceptable. That goes for INDIVIDUAL blocking requests. Somewhat more discretion ought to be used for requests to block an entire domain. That should probably only be done upon request from the "postmaster" at that domain, and when an entire domain is blocked, that fact should probably be announced in advance, publicly, in alt.privacy.anon-server to inform users in that domain who might not have been made aware of the action and who might need to recreate 'nym reply blocks, etc., before their incoming mail gets embargoed. For example, if I had a 'nym with a reply block that directed replies to my e-mail account at work (I don't, BTW), and my employer decided that it no longer wanted its employees to be able to receive anonymous e-mail, then it would only be polite for the employer to notify the employees well in advance of that policy change. But in case the employer failed to do so, a public notice should also be made. In fact, I'd say that domain-wide blocking requests should only be accepted from "postmaster" or one of the contact addresses listed with InterNIC for that domain. One large ISP, for example, allowed a user (who was not an employee nor a representative of the ISP) to sign up for the user ID "abuse". > >I would also like to see From: pasted in. In fact I can see no > >purpose to restrict what can be pasted in, other than to reduce > >complaints to the remailer operator possibly. > > Too easy to be abused by forgers, as are Reply-To: and Sender:. I'm not sure what the actual use of a "Sender:" header is, but pasting in a "Reply-To:" header is not technically forgery, since it does not imply where a message came From:. It is only a suggestion where replies should be directed. When the From: and Reply-To: lines both exist, but differ, most software gives the user an option of which address to reply to. Thus, in the final analysis the person replying makes and is responsible for the decision as to where to send his reply. > >My software shows be all headers. I am not sure what other software > >would do, probably, only display the first From field (the remailers). > > > MSMail and other closed systems are generally quite arrogant > about only showing you the mail headers they "know" you want to see, > and discarding the rest, whether that's what you want or not. > Lots of mail clients only show you one From:, either discarding > others or making them available in a "Show all headers" mode. All the more reason to only allow pasting in the replacement mode. > There are other remailer-like systems that provide mailboxes > for anonymous retrieval; I think Jenaer does something like that. > And then of course there are hotmail and juno :-) That doesn't solve the problem of how to post with a NON-replyable pseudonym, though. It has been suggested that the practice of pasting in a From: header should not be allowed because it is subject to abuse and that this can better be accomplished through a 'nym server. But if the person doesn't want e-mail replies, why should a 'nym server be burdened with maintaining a reply mechanism that the 'nym owner doesn't want to use? Even if the reply block is redirected to /dev/null(a)somedomain.com, handling replies, incoming mail bombs, etc. is unnecessary work. The fact that the remailer net has implemented source-level blocking upon request means it already has more safeguards in place against "forgery" than 90% of the ISPs have. It's quite ironic to see people like Gary Burnore complain that allowing a remailer user to set an arbitrary From: is "abusive" when the ISP he (and you) post from, Netcom, allows that very thing. There are actually two valid reasons I can think of to paste in a From: header: One is to post "from" a pseudonym without having to go through the 'nymserver. For example, to make posts and send correspondence when the 'nym server is down or to be able to post from a non-secure site without having to compromise security by making one's PGP secret keyring accessible at that site. The second reason would be to post using a non-replyable pseudonym. Many newsreaders gather only the headers of Usenet messages and list them by their Subject: and From: lines. Without the ability to set a From: line, one's posts to a thread are indistinguishable from all the other ones from "nobody(a)replay.com". If I want to call myself "Santa Claus", it's far easier to paste in a "From: Santa Claus <sclaus(a)northpole.gov>" than to go to the trouble of creating a replyable 'nym at a 'nym server just to put something recognizeable in the From: header. The problem with eliminating any feature that gets abused is that it's an open invitation for someone to deliberately abuse it just to get it eliminated. Whenever possible, a solution should be sought which eliminates abuse while still allowing legitimate use. - - -- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIQzwwbp0h8ZvosNAQFLpgf+LS9VIGvUV3JKRHp+/ZtoRUkhNgH0h2Jg tr/5gazeo+k0EHnaA/jvdnZ2HKSSkKguXaAnzejBnTtfvfQa38GcWBZsve/4fC9e YAv80++wGj/0RhgwNEp8ovm57u5KQmybOqxmfeQ8H/cc8jyfhZEBGb2sxIbqvze5 NvzMGUHpKfUfduxo+kGeoOPOO+CkpM1sd5RmFSPojd6DgG3gNELjLD1jWLpZT7BC YlBOJFh39ibssjQQO1lcLokdgqlDLQZWx1Lar9fyuWHlO5z+2wKkI+MICMkF32YE dd3sPuhZxEGZGHyV+gybqm961G/7VctAXWrKlXuELb1HYUpsSkU+GA== =Q+h9 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~ This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message. It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net. Date: Tue Dec 2 17:00:03 1997 GMT From: comsec(a)nym.alias.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEUAwUBNIQ+mE5NDhYLYPHNAQHVxQf3Y3DTPTUfLoQ/4qMM4Dxn58WS3zGQQpG3 +R6nVXONkQ5NpkSEdhoJDA8ANU9Xf/Bd0o1WtVhoTzutqULMUQjKKPKUtda/rxHh IkhgeFHuTq8jYfLso0MQkWFDGusd3BKacChKF83Rp0s6lOUZw0gr+ejVQNK6jLR6 PCzu5arH+X5y/4kRL12mLk/q72wW6ghN28b/9ogL+P8dWVfQjpSkJBA77OX4bQqE 2EixaU9xOwUOcBWnvmukXaPZF2PQ99MGOVQ9xZrdP6TSpWcmgbW1gg0xBPn6uCkl VD/TWTnCGMF86n0La85nx8/ypR6GxpyrcSrBpdkUdhgU61xmNXyS =aLBH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

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