December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: WARNING: Serious Pentium Bug
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ray Arachelian wrote: > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, [iso-latin-de] Heinz-Jürgen Keller wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > The german Chaos Computer Club distributes a Dos/Win binary (f00fc7c8.com, > > 5 Bytes :-) ) and a linux version. > > Have a look at http://www.ccc.de . > So has anyone yet developed an ActiveX component of this? :) Heheheh... > come to my site and watch your pentium crash. Heheheheheh! Jeff Sandquist? > =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== > .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. > ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ > <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ > ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. > .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... > ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

1 0

Washington Post on dangers of self-censorship for the Net
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[The Washington Post has it right. This is what many civil libertarians have been warning about for months: the industry and some advocacy groups (who should know better -- http://www.netparents.org/summit_part.html) are falling over themelves in a rush to label, sort, and filter. They hope to stave off a CDA II. But their frantic scurrying is "voluntary" only in the sense that "voluntary" is newspeak for the threat of government censorship. --Declan] ***************** The Washington Post November 10, 1997 EDITORIAL; Pg. A20 'Self-Regulation' and the Net CLOSE WATCHERSs of the long-running TV ratings fight could read it as a series of tussles over exactly how far the government can go in pushing the proprietors of an expressive medium -- such as TV -- to curb that expression through "voluntary" action. When do carrot-and-stick become just stick? That story isn't over yet: Congress, though antsy, has so far managed to stay on the safe side of the line that separates pressure from outright censorship, and the different responses of different networks is ironic proof that the policy isn't completely coercive. But those who want to see yet more variations on the theme can watch the whole pattern play out again in White House efforts to encourage self-regulation on the Internet. The administration, after coming to grief over its dogged support for the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, now takes the position that it's up to software providers, parents and citizen groups to make the Internet safe for children, though the government has a beefed-up role to play in enforcing existing laws in cyberspace, for instance, those against child pornography, stalking or harassment. As an accompaniment, though, it is putting considerable public pressure on Internet players to develop a system of ratings and "taggings" for sites that would allow parents to sort Internet access by a few broadly agreed-upon categories. In a July announcement of steps taken by several large software companies to include "family-friendly" sorting features in their browsers, the president emphasized the importance of law enforcement and parental involvement alike in making sure "we do not allow pornographers and pedophiles to exploit a wonderful medium to abuse our children." The vice president, praising the various filters on the market, called them "safety belts for children traveling the Information Superhighway" -- though surely he's the only person who still calls it that. Last week, though, Ira Magaziner, the administration point-person on Net issues, took a different tone in a speech to Internet advertisers. The "tremendous economic benefits" of the Net won't work, he said, "if we don't get efficient industry self-regulation on issues like privacy and content. . . . If you fail, we will have to go the legislative route. That gets caught up in the political process and will be less rational and efficient." Well, yes -- and also less legal. Don't get us wrong: Self-restraint, in some of these cases, is a pretty good place for the providers of what's now called "content" to end up. But the line between urging self-restraint and threatening government censorship is a thin one. The White House, no less than Congress, needs to watch its step.

2 1

Re: Databasix conspiracy theories
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Andy Dustman wrote: > Note that these comments apply primarily to the cracker remailer. > On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > Perhaps the next wave of attacks on remailers will not consist of > > attempts to shut them down altogether but to progressively cripple them > > by getting certain features disabled, one by one. This seems to have > > already started. The strategy seems to be to fabricate a form of > > "abuse", anonymously through remailers, for which the seemingly > > "logical" solution is to disable a certain feature. This has already > > proven successful with header pasting, for example. Now you can't post > > to Usenet and set the From: address to that of your own 'nym. I think this has not only "already started," but is already reaping exactly the results intended. The remailer attacks are very similar to age-old methods of censorship and control by government and society. Those who define the 'problem' have taken a large step toward directing/controlling the 'solution.' The 'final solution' to remailer spam is to host it @dev.null, but then you end up with a sick, twisted entity like the TruthMailer. <sounds of CypherPunks screaming in anguish, as they slash their wrists> > > If the "camel" can get his nose under the tent and convince operators > > to start filtering on the *CONTENT* of the Subject: line or body of > > usenet posts, the anti-privacy nuts will have scored a major victory. > > In fact, from reading Jeff Burchell's posts, it looks like Gary and his > > DataBasux-ers had initially convinced Jeff to do exactly that. But, in > > a symbolic victory for freedom of speech, he removed those filters for a > > week before he finally shut down Huge Cajones altogether. "If I make the Subject: line, "Make $$$ Fast," then the person who I am anonymously ratting out for murder/molestation is not likely to read it, if there is a copy automatically saved somewhere by the software." My point being that a remailer operator has no way of knowing what the ultimate effect of *any* filtering/blocking will be. (Unless you read all of the email, like I do as the 'Bad Remailer' operator.) > Cracker does have a spam-bait mangler which is somewhat simpler than the > scheme Jeff used. In a nutshell, if there are an inordinately large number > of addresses (compared to other text), the addresses are mangled, i.e., > president(a)whitehouse.gov becomes president <AT> whitehouse <DOT> gov. > Still human-readable but useless for address harvesters. No posts get > dropped or filtered out under this scheme, and no keywords or particular > addresses are looked for. PLATITUDE WARNING!!! "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp." It has been my experience that the 'Fear of Spam/Abuse' is beginning to be the controlling factor in the usefulness, or lack thereof, of an increasing number of remailers. In my opinion, any form of blocking/filtering which is not described in the remailer-help documentation defeats much of the purpose of providing remailer service in the first place. In particular, the very fact that people become confused as to what is, or is not, 'acceptable' use of a remailer tends to lead to a decline in their use. Increasingly, as well, the knowledge that vaguely described filtering/blocking is being done by the remailer leads one to become confused as to what is an unacceptable 'method' of using a remailer. I cannot help but feel that there has to be some simple ways of addressing the spam/abuse issue without making the remailers a hit and miss proposition for the average computer user. e.g. - A stated policy of allowing only 'X' number of emails from the same address/ISP per day--UCE spammers *could* work around this, but they make money by speed and volume, not by farting around with this-and-that. This would immediately eliminate the spammers who are only capable of hitting the return key on their spamming software, leaving the operator free to take specific actions against anyone who does take the time and trouble to circumvent the policy. And someone who has gone to all of that trouble, only to get an email saying, "It didn't work.", is likely to move on to greener pastures fast. What I am getting at is that all an operator really needs to do to eliminate volume-abuse/spamming is to make it 'difficult' for those spamming, not 'impossible.' Remember that the UCE spammers need to send *millions* of emails to survive. When spam became a problem, I joined an anti-spam list and a UCE spammers list. Serious spammers do the same. I think it is important to take the time to *notify* those who you are filtering/blocking, even if it means searching their messages for an email or snailmail contact point. Remember that one reason these people send out the volume they do is that they *need* volume to survive. If you don't notify them that their time and resources are *wasted* by using your remailer, then they will have no reason not to drop you as a route for their spam. I used to see people on the UCE/Spam list bragging about how they were sending 10,000 emails a day through 'X', and 'Y' and 'Z', and then see sysadmins/operators at 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' posting to the anti-spam list, complaining, "I'm spending all of my time dumping 10,000 emails a day from some asshole." I believe that remailer operators should provide examples/details of how any filtering/blocking policy is instituted, in order to inform those who wish to use the remailer, and to discourage those who want to abuse your policy. Subject and Content filtering are a never-ending merry-go-round in which you block "Make $$$ Fast," <including my own spam-spoofs "Make $$$ Fast at Home, Licking Your Own Dick!!!">, and the spammers switch the Subject: line to "In Reply To Your Email." <you all know the drill...> If an operator wishes to block whitehouse.gov from abuse by psychotic child-molesting, terrorist CypherPunks (like yourselves), then it should be stated plainly in the remailer-help, for the youngster who mistakenly thinks they have sent a plea for help to the whitehouse, or another .gov site, or an AOL site, or whoever you use your policy to block. I know the problems faced by those providing public remailer services, and I appreciate the efforts/problems of the operators. I help people running private remailers for specific groups needing privacy and security, and it is still not a piece of cake. My problem is in many ways the opposite of many remailer operators. I have people who sometimes need to send out several hundred emails to people in a manner where they can reply anonymously, and have run into filtering/blocking problems which seemed to change randomly, at times. So I can sympathize with those who have few computer skills and give up on remailers because "...they don't seem to work." My concern is that efforts toward total abuse-security will result in the same convuluted dysfunctionality that results from those seeking total privacy-security (without ever achieving that, either). Blocking/Filtering == Censorship! I recognize the need for each remailer operator to set their policy according to their own individual situation, as it may be better to allow threatening letters to legislators only one day a week than not to provide the service at all, but I think it is important to make it as clear as possible what the policy is, and how it is instituted, so that remailers can be more than just toys for the computer literate. I also think that the remailer-help sent out should contain some way for a potential user to bypass remailer policy, if necessary. e.g. - "I run a suicide support list and need to send/receive several hundred emails sometimes. Please reply to me at the *real* address I am providing, as to whether you can allow me to send that many per day through your system." Blocking/Filtering == Censorship! Certainly there are those who seek to invent newer and better forms of 'abuse' in an attempt to exercise disruptive power over the remailer operator, but it has been my experience that those who engage in those activities in order to fight perceived 'hypocrisy/censorship' are much more likely to target those who do not clearly explain their policies and the reasons behind them, as well as asking for feedback from those who disagree, or think they have a better idea. There will always be those who attack remailers who have a policy of 'censoring' life-threatening letters to legislators, or 'censoring' pictures of Mickey butt-fucking Minnie addressed to children's lists. What is important to remember is that they have a right to their view, and to push the envelope, or yank your string, or whatever. As a remailer operator, it is *your* role to enforce whatever policy you personally believe in (or need to institute in order to survive as a remailer). It is also your burden to bear, to figure out how to do so without negating the goals that have inspired you to offer the service, in the first place. Personally, I think that remailers are one of the most important remaining providers of tools supporting freedom of speech/communication on the InterNet. I and many others appreciate the service much more than is apparent from the ratio of thank you's to fuck you's that you receive, so you should all give yourselves a couple million pats on the back. (Except for those greedy assholes at Cracker...and the Commies who run Replay...and the Mountie Jackboots running Jam...and the Godless anarchists at bureau42...and all those operators sucking John Gilmore's cock..and......

1 0

"Lynch mob mentality" at Senate violent music hearing
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*************** [Forwarded with permission. --Declan] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:53:02 -0500 From: Nina Crowley <crowleyn(a)ultranet.com> Subject: Senate hearing summary Hi, This is really long but I think everyone should get a sense of the lynch mob mentality in last weeks Senate subcommittee hearing. Senate Subcommittee Hearing Senator Sam Brownbacks subcommittee hearing on the possible effect of music violence on society was a major disaster for music and freedom of expression. The hearing, held on Nov.6, for 2 hours, had a very restricted list of speakers. For the two weeks previous to the hearing I and many others applied to testify and were denied. Brownbacks staff member in charge of overseeing the panels was Cherie Harder. (Ms. Harder appeared in the Oct. 19 MTV special "Fight for the Right" representing Empower America.) Ms. Harder was doggedly dedicated to preserving the short and biased list of speakers, refusing to consider additional speakers or an extended hearing time allotment. Senator Brownback (who on Wednesday seemed open to exploring the issue) took a totally different tack in his opening statement. He outlined societys current ills including a jump in teen suicide, pregnancy, crime, and drug use. He talked of a "sense that we have lost ground" (in the war against teens perhaps? nc) and that society has grown "coarser, meaner, and more alienated". He reports that "there has been a marked increase in explicit violence and misogyny in popular music". (Sen. Brownback offered no reference to statistics which support any of these statements. His stated belief that "research, debate and discussion" were needed was certainly not carried out in this biased and, it seemed at times, rehearsed condemnation of popular music. nc) He said "The most appropriate place to begin that inquiry is with the music itself." (It is astounding that he could make this statement after refusing requests from several major recording artists over the previous two weeks! nc) He cited the songs "Mo Thugs" or "Slap a Ho" by Dove Shack and shock rockers Marilyn Manson and Cannibal Corpse as examples of problem songs and artists. (These are the same songs and artists that were attacked by C. Delores Tucker, Wm. Bennett, Sen Lieberman, and Sen. Nunn in May of 1996. Can you cite a rise in violence in music if you dont take the time to listen to new artists? nc) Sen. Brownback went on to quote a Carnegie Foundation study (these are the same people speaker Dr. Stanley Roberts wrote for in 1990) which shows teens spending less time with their parents and more time listening to music. He ended with saying that "it stands to reason that prolonged exposure to such hate-filled lyrics . . . could have an effect on ones attitudes, assumptions, . . . decisions, and behavior. Understanding the nature and extent of the influence of music violence may well be the first step . . . for ensuring a more civil society." Senator Joseph Lieberman was the first to testify. His testimony began here and continued from the dais. At the conclusion of his testimony he took his seat next to Senator Brownback on the subcommittee and preceded every question to a panelist with another 3 or 4 minutes further outlining his beliefs. He effectively manipulated the situation to provide himself with 2 hours worth of pontificating and captive media attention. He spoke of our "broken culture", our "surreal, Alice-in-Wonderland" culture in which kids our better armed than police, we celebrate brazen luminaries like Dennis Rodman, and "dont seem to blink when prominent corporate citizens sell music to our children that celebrates violence". He cited tv shows like Foxs "When Animals Attack" and video games like "Postal", and advertisers like Calvin Klein as perverse and degrading. (He also mentioned the songs Brownback did but spelled Ho wrong.nc) He wants to take a close look at gangsta rap, stating that rappers celebrate murder and mayhem on their cds then live it on the streets which led to Tupacs and B.I.G.s deaths. He also outlined FBI investigations of Death Row as evidence of the kind of people who produce this music. He, as did every one of the speakers said Im not "talking about censorship". He wants corporate responsibility on the part of recording companies, particularly Seagrams and Sony, adoption of basic standards for music, Seagrams to "dump" Marilyn Manson, and said "In the meantime, I hope the RIAA will consider improving its one-size-fits-all labeling system". I urge you to go to Liebermans website at: http://www.senate.gov/member/ct/lieberman/releases/r110697c.html to read his statement in its entirety. The next speaker was Mr. Raymond Kuntz of Burlington, ND. He tearfully related the story of his sons suicide. When his wife went to wake their son for school they found him dead of a gunshot wound, still wearing his headphones with Marilyn Mansons Anti-Christ Superstar cd still in the player. The boys favorite song was "The Reflecting God", the lyrics to which were included in Mr. Kuntz packet. He also included,(and entered into the record) an interview with Marilyn from the June 96 issue of High Times. Mr. Kuntz, in his statement called MM a "drug fiend" who publicly uses drugs and, who takes LSD and then goes to Disney World. He reported that MM, during his shows has exposed his genitalia, sodomized himself with a stick which he then threw into the crowd, and asks fans to spit on him. (Keep in mind here that after each testimony, Sen. Lieberman would repeat and expound on the most "heinous" anti-music facts in each presentation. After this one he shook his head and said something like ~imagine asking people to spit on you in this time of Aids~. nc) Dr. Frank Palumbo, of the American Academy of Peditarics, is a practicing pediatrician from Washington DC. He referred to the AAP Committee on Communications policy statements of December 1989 and 1995 as the official statements of the Academy. (new paragraph in his statement - does this mean that what follows are his thoughts, not the thoughts of the Academy - its not clear. nc) He acknowledged the importance of music in a teens identity. He outlined the increase in violence, drugs, and sex in rock music over the past four decades citing heavy metal and rap as being of greatest concern. He quoted lyrics from Nine Inch Nails "Big Man with a Gun" and some MM lyrics as examples. He reports that "To date, no studies have documented a cause-and-effect relationship between sexually explicit or violent lyrics and adverse behavioral effects. But we can all acknowledge the overall effect music has on people." (!?) He stated that music videos may have a significant behavioral impact by desensitizing violence and reported that music videos by Guns-N-Roses and Beastie Boys videos each had 36 violent episodes in performing just one song. (And, back to that war against teens, nc) he referred to a report entitled "Kids These Days: What Americans Really Think About the Next Generation" which decried sex and violence but reported that "only half of those surveyed (49%) think pressuring the entertainment industry . . . will be a very effective way to help kids" and that "perhaps people doubt that the industry will be responsive to public pressure". Dr. Palumbo ended his testimony with a list of recommendations one of which was for the "music industry to develop and apply a system of specific content labeling regarding violence, sex, drugs, or offensive lyrics,". Hilary Rosen, President of the RIAA was the next to testify. Before beginning she entered into the record Mass. M.I.C.s anti-censorship petition directed at Sen. Lieberman among others, containing 7836 sigs. by young people across the country. She also mentioned presenting introducing statements by musicians although I never saw evidence of them. In spite of extensive research in preparation for this hearing Hilary was astoundingly ill prepared. The message by the RIAA in the days preceding the hearing was that pro-music pro-speech forces should try not to upset the Senators. In spite of obvious anti-music sentiments expressed by committee members in meetings previous to the hearing, the RIAA underestimated the seriousness of the attack and was not prepared to push back. Hilary was asked for sales figures for MMs cd and others and "had no idea", when asked for demographic information about purchasers of this and other cds she also had "no idea". Sen. Brownback reiterated those questions several times and was obviously angry that she either didnt know or was hiding something. Hilarys statement began with references to Elvis and teen suicide references in "Romeo and Juliet" (Brownback said he felt it was insulting to even compare MM to Shakespeare.nc) Hilary expressed the industrys concern and gave examples of musicians working to combat teen violence, sex, drug use etc. She cited Heavy D, Ice Cube, and Queen Latifah. (However, RIAA, chose not to facilitate the participation of a prominent rap artist in presenting his concerns to the Senators. Even though they cite his contributions among these others in their research materials.nc) Hilary went on to describe the Musicians Assistance Program and "our"(?) Rock The Vote campaign. She said that "by no means" are our "artists perfect" and reported that there were scenes from Chain Saw Massacre or NYPD Blue that she would not let a 10 yr. old see. She then reported on the "parental advisory sticker" program and said that "We support efforts to have retailers restrict sales of albums to consumers under the age of 17."!!!! (~This is exactly the issue that got me into the fight to preserve free expression in the first place in 1995. At that time the RIAA was actively fighting cities and states that tried to enforce this kind of censorship. RIAAs attitudes seem to have changed dramatically over these two years. You have to ask yourself how damaging their attitudes toward preserving free expression could be in another 2 years! nc~) Hilary reported that in a record store with 110,000 titles, less than œ of one percent of a stores total inventory will carry a parental advisory logo. (and more than 3/4s of of those titles are by black artists - Hilary didnt say that, I did nc). (Does that mean that mean that stickered product is not meaningful or is expendable? nc) She reported that record company execs constantly make choices to not put out songs which dont meet the test of artistic credibility. (Brownback questioned her on this issue repeatedly. He managed not to say you think MM has artistic credibility but it was clearly what he was getting at.) She encouraged parents to read the lyrics to songs their kids brought home. (Brownback mentioned at one point that he wished lyrics could be printed in the paper!) Hilary also stressed that if a parent disapproves of something their kids bought the record stores would take it back. Hilary said "As long as there is an audience demanding to listen, there will be people willing to produce artists far outside the mainstream." ! (reasons for a war against teens,nc) During questioning after her prepared testimony Hilary stated music stores will not sell stickered product to those under 17, (a fact which is totally untrue and an amazingly stupid and dangerous statement on her part.nc) By the end of the hearing C. Delores Tucker produced a kid who testified as to how easy it was for kids under 17 to buy stickered product, that kids can find out on the street where they can buy - (now Hilary has managed to make stickered product look like an illegal narcotic. Shes also practically told legislators to push for mandatory labeling and restrictions! nc) (Hilary Rosen was clearly not concerned with freedom of expression or in protecting music from the attacks of these Senators. We would have fared better if she had not spoken at all.nc) The final two panelists were C. Delores Tucker and Dr. Donald F. Roberts of Stanford University. Tucker showed up with her blown up photos of Marilyn Manson and had the same inflammatory statements to make against rap and rock. Her testimony was totally unremarkable and there was nothing new (for that reason and because my fingers are about to fall off Ill not go into details. I will forward a copy of her testimony to anyone who would like one.) Unfortunately I did not get a copy of Dr. Roberts testimony. It was brief and significantly similar to Dr. Palumbos in terms of statements about musics effect on young people. Of note is the fact that Senator Lieberman welcomed Dr. Roberts by saying that he was glad to see him and that they had worked together before on these important issues. (enough said,nc). As the hearing was about to end, Ms. Tucker begged that the young boy shed brought along "all this way" have a chance to speak. Brownbacks initial response was that he couldnt allow it because so many others had asked to speak but were refused. Tucker begged a bit more and Brownback consented. The boy testified as to how easy it was to buy "stickered" cds if you were under 17 (which Brownback made sure he repeated a few times) and then the young man described the satanic fans who had invaded his neighborhood before an MM concert "doing violent stuff" like "smashing windshields." At this point Michael Eric Dyson asked from his seat, if in the interest of fairness, he be allowed to speak also. Brownback refused him. (Dyson had repeatedly sought an opportunity to appear at the hearing and Jesse Jackson had written to Brownback on his behalf asking that Dyson be heard, all to no avail). The hearing adjourned to a press conference in the hall. Speakers there were Dyson, myself, and Bill Adler. Mr. Dyson spoke eloquently on the hearings, the bias in the panels, these repeated attacks on rap, and the "mean spirited" tactic of Ms. Tucker among other things. I spoke for a couple of minutes after which Mr. Tucker pushed his way through the crowd of reporters rushing Dyson and saying he was furious at how Dyson had described his wife and that he would "die" protecting her reputation. Several people stepped in to pull Mr. Tucker back while Michael Dyson calmly stood by his previous statements. As Mr. Tucker was pulled away he pointed at Dyson saying that "the next time we meet youd better bring an extra pair of glasses, cause youre going to need them." All of this was caught on film. Security then ended the press conference. Thats pretty much what took place. A real disaster for free speech and for music. Nina Fight Censorship - Listen to the Banned! Mass. M.I.C. http://www.ultranet.com/~crowleyn/mmic.html

3 2

Re: Content controls
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:57 PM -0700 11/8/97, William H. Geiger III wrote: >Once you have given me the keys to unlock and display the data I can save >it, copy it, reproduce it and distribut it. To assume otherwise shows a >lack of understanding of computer systems and moderen OS's. Sure I would >need to write some software and jump through some hoops to do it but there >is nothing that your system can do to prevent me from doing so. Now wether >it is worth the effort to do so will depend on the value of the data >involved. Once you have given me the ability to display the data you have >lost the battle as I can do whatever I want with it. Exactly so. Once able to go into the listener's ears, the viewer's eyeballs, or the customer's whatever, the battle is basically lost. About the best that can be hoped for is to insert some "almost unnoticeable mark"--a watermark, a notch filter (a la early scheme for combatting DAT piracy), etc. And even these "almost unoticeable marks" are easily twiddled away. Unless they are so noticeable that serious image or sound distortion occurs when the marks are removed or obscured. Even purely digital works are easily copied. Even unique IDs per software piece are easily removed (e.g., by having N customers compare and diff out the noncommon bits). --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."

2 1

Selling a Persistent Identity
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- How would you sell a persistent identity with a good reputation? The obvious method of selling the secret key doesn't work because the buyer has to trust the seller not to resell it. This could be solved by revealing your True Name, but that's no fun. A nym with a good reputation for this sort of business could be used, but that wouldn't be any fun either since it could link a series of identities with one source. The only thing I can think of is to have a trusted party who creates and manages the key. When the owner of the key wants to sign something, he or she sends it to the trusted party for signing and transmission. To sell the key, the trusted party is instructed to accept the buyer's messages instead of the seller's. The buyer and the seller never actually possess the key themselves. Is there a better way to do this? 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 iQEVAwUBNGi+FZaWtjSmRH/5AQFS1Qf+OPGg/JLuKVB7nab83W1Yh23woJ/om5pD VDsiawtPAcwBRZhwVfOZltuJvovT7rgU7+Jqp6tzhuD8QApY48BSi36ywz+IQnH8 tLJgGV/g1j/afalEhdaOB13LsoBpYmTLvptK296FvUXYPNYumx3e16M8hJxq8SNF 2Tm3Z+ifH0gRLJKjAhOqyG2iMqnmtIYZzmhavPz6thjrE9nKaEE2PII5T2SP9B/J sNsOJ7sjElWGlxemEGc9uR9wAKV/5qlMRRB8DOdLgcQTndjikvHU5uPb9lLYiSYc 4/nDbZNfe6W+gZj71Utm2Ubwu+x/3+fF46Db7j5e6XSrGCx+EzC7nA== =QIDm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dumb of me to get in the middle of this, but the bloodlust's up: Tim's statements are gutsy and right: there's no gain in self-censoring, shading one's anger to appease the goons of whatever firepower. (Bob, go to end.) Most massive firepower can't focus on or hit exclusively small targets, that's what's a lie about "surgical" strikes. Waste the countryside, yes, hit one rabbit and not the beloved dog and fellow hunter, little chance. What it takes is sharpshooting: a one shot, one target, one pig, one sticker. True, Horushi's snipe worked, it nailed an innocent, though a couple of others died to set him up for his own nailing. True, Waco worked, it charred a crowd of innocents, though a few others got plugged setting up the roast, and the 2nd roast. True, firebombing works, as does mass weaponing --nukes, chemicals and germs -- but indiscriminately, by terrorism of the masses, at the price of also terrifying the citizenry paying for the megadeath heritage. All standoff firepower is limited against the individual by imprecision of the killing machines and cowardice of the operators -- artillery, planes, ships, satellites, take your pick. They savage territory to save the operator's ass, who, as anyone knows who been around these candyass strutters, aint got what it takes to cut the guy's throat who's stabbing your eye. What's my point? Well, for lack of a better word, it's personal courage, going nuts when the time's right, the guts to not shut the fuck up when you're told to by those who're a whole lot bigger, who've got more armaments and thinks they're smarter and more ruthless and meaner and have the troops, rank and medals to back it up. Just remember that most of those strengths are for getting somebody else or a machine to do what is too fucking terrifying to do yourself directly. Do this when the monster accosts: pull your forelock, say sorry sir, then upstab the fucker's groin, as he doubles, hack the cord, he'll go down quivering, then cut out his liver, kick up his green face, squat close, show him the blob, take a bite, chew, savor, swallow, put lip to dying ear, whisper, "tasty." Go home, get a beer, stare the tube, sharpen your tool. Or as maddog Tim sez, lock and load. But look, I'm with Bob, too, my tool's philosophy gone berzerk, trash words, wags, gags, alliterations, mouth shooting. My steel weapons are locked from burglars who scare the shit out of me just by looking like ordinarily ugly wall streeters, that is, like my maddog neighbors eyeing me for junk IPO sales. Sure glad my war's long over, happily getting dimmer, easier to forget the godawful. Hey, it's veteran's day, anybody want to croak and limp to glories past?

4 4

Re: 1st Ammendment Tossed in Paladin Case
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > In the infamous "Twenty-Nine Palms" poll of soldiers, asking if troops > would fire on civilians if ordered to carry out an order, the longer the > soldier had been in the service, the less likely he was to say he would. > (The context of this order is generally believed to be related to a > Department of Defense involvement in the wholesale disarming of the > population under a state of emergency, FEMA or U.N. orders, etc.) Note that "Twenty-Nine Palms" was the military home/liason of those involved in the INSLAW travesty. (Everyone _not_ working for the Department of Justice who can say "Fuck You" to Congress and get away with it, raise your hand.) > This is consistent with the military retireds I know being _extremely_ > anti-government. Usually with a right-wing flavor, but then that is > understandable. It is a fact that we tend to narrow our range of perception when we get involved in any cult/religion/organization and bestow some of our own innate responsibility/authority upon them. Once separated from the group, however, we then tend to regain more control over our individual beliefs and values, whereupon we are more likely to recognize where we stepped beyond or own moral/ethical values while caught up, to whatever extent, in 'group mind.' This has been discussed on the list (e.g. Declan goes to Washington!) and, thankfully, we have a weird enough assortment of not-quite-normal SubGenius Bizzaro CypherPundits to keep us pissing all over ourselves and one another to make the possibility of us becoming dues-paying members of the CypherSheeple Union a remote possibility. A CypherPunk nuking DC would not be a tragedy. What would be a tragedy would be if, after being asked "Why?", he or she turned around to ask 'the group', "Uuhhh...why did I do that, again? Hey! Where did everybody go?" Any physical war or revolution in the future will be largely dependent upon the success of the parallel InfoWar designed to direct (or prevent) the thinking of those who the government provides with weapons and authority. We need as many of them as possible to be smiling inwardly to themselves when they say, "My gun is loaded, Sarge...and I'm 'right behind' you, all the way." LoadAndUnlockMonger

2 1

Re: Gun Control brings on a New Arms Race
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >(A friend of a friend scored a "cold" Glock 17L...$400 in "NQA" >condition, immediate delivery.) What is a "cold" weapon? What does "NQA" mean? Thanks. 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 iQEVAwUBNGi1EZaWtjSmRH/5AQEmVgf/VAzaeo6sgWdNgeBDROt9iZWFZcQi/CZX vvT0cgaOYlSiIKGUKNLqRj8wevyNKQ6fiVLQjMt6zPXCFxzt+BL32NbGOpDZa2Jb YdcGWI3umciOYDxpDMVfnx3W16NiY4rwE5ckj1UnaJHgvut7Y4EtqPjsgcvg86O3 1PhPOxQcCJV+YYIAFu97IYaqkf8L2b+FUNa3DiMqHdTkj2TmbcQWWMPNPPxKIOqJ rMFgN8FSrkh7Js80vdre7Lipg32DyMr6xyzaW5OOxQ5J2IZLZNckn5wNyvulJXio zJyrZEeCwoIW1quHPiiH9/NirjMqw/w0Oi9qvusVKE0az6J6/xLoBQ== =lsaA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Secure Hashing for Entropy
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Often we have a source of entropy whose output we use as the input to a secure hash function. Does it matter if the hashing function is secure? I don't think so. All that really matters is that the function hashes evenly so that any input string is about as likely as any other input string to result in a particular hash. Even if the hash function is weak and collisions can be found, if it is even the same level of entropy is still available. Have I got this right? 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 iQEVAwUBNGi7K5aWtjSmRH/5AQHNmgf8DddkfsAzC1xTLmOn1eS8Vsxx7HgxwEOh VGpiRC2D29N+y0z9+JZltiNd298QmfvlArYRXBFAC8dKvznf6HWa/xPetW+KqebQ qOKel9hw3pfT8jeRC6G1M9oarWPjU9jOGLlv/DByCI8EcUVvb3Kk9PxdywFpT289 vEFmfDQObHH9BtQFf2hrphx8FtE8QHWIeJMcA16QfKZX/nel9pWEyaXUfE6Rvwuh 3REctj4E/uoTi4FRBjxgFx4pnraIGqg2wVA8Q/iGr41BxauBgRZ+sMZt0CH/x9cc IAKSUuY709Gme6HEqWLyMDdIDZ3Y24xbd9r3eyjFGZZYeaGwG4KowQ== =Ey6Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1