December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Scientology war update
by Tim Griffiths 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wired has a good article on how the war of words on alt.scientology.religion has split over into dawn raids and hardware seizures: http://www.wired.com/wired/3.12/features/alt.scientology.war.html If this is what can be achieved, think what can happen when the government _really_ puts its back it suppression. Time to PGP every file I own... Tim -- Dr Tim Griffiths is in real life t.griffiths(a)ic.ac.uk Vmail on (0)-1392-264197 Public key available - finger tim(a)tim01.ex.ac.uk - Nothing is trivial -

7 6

Re: Nobuki Nakatuji
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonathan Wienke wrote: >Due to his distinctive writing style, John Young should probably have >his anonymous posts translated into English by Nobuki if he truly >wishes to remain anonymous. Good god, Jonathan, you trying to get the JY-box TWA 800ed on CIA-TV Barney? Send fee for using TM nym. Spoofing persistent identities, writing style, secret thoughts and hidden agendas are adult-nut-rated kid's stuff here, the weirdo pitches the easiest of all, especially the puretext missionary position in white socks style of blackhearts which ever vaunts itself best See Jane Read Spot. Who do you think "John Young" is if not a machinic composite of all previous, current and conceivable and abortable of cpunks, and pseudo-cpunks, extra bile-sauced with apish objective journalism gone stale, foul, rancid and roadkill tastier, by all the crazed truly knowns and unknowns passing through claoked in incredibly ordinary, goofily Anglicized, hide-shame names of the world's English-imitating kill-native cultures. To wit: "John Young," no other vapid pseudonym have ever been so often used to hide god's evilist holies. Except the other subscribers.

2 1

Re: Copyrights and Wrongs, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Congress has voted to make not-for-profit copyright infringments a federal felony, as I write in my article at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1588,00.html A Federal court in _LaMacchia_ noted that: "Since 1897, when criminal copyright infringement was first introduced into U.S. copyright law, the concept differentiating criminal from civil copyright violations has been that the infringement must be pursued for purposes of commercial exploitation." This now changes. For the first time in the history of the U.S., nonprofit (noncommercial) copying is a crime. When doing research for the story I stumbled across this quote, from the Supreme Court in Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): ...Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner..." [...] The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion or fraud. -Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

police state rumors
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message >>The following is an UNCONFIRMED RUMOR. If you have any information >>to confirm or deny these statements, please post and cc: >>safety.security(a)cancomm.com. As always, please specify your sources as >>precisely as possible. Thanks, Wes Thomas >> >>-- Forwarded -- >> >>To all, >> >>This e-mail came to me by way of public user in a public library. There was >>no use in replying to this party for he would probably not be the one to >>receive my reply. I cannot verify the facts as presented in this post, but >>I'm sending this out for comments. Anyone with further information on this >>situation please forward it through your network and cc: me a copy at >>safety.security(a)cancomm.com. >> >>Best Regards, >> >>Al Colombo, Editor >>Safety & Security Magazine >>safety.security(a)cancomm.com >>http://web.raex.com/~colombo/ >> >>>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:47:18 -0800 >>>From: *** Public PC User -- Library Documents <user(a)***.edu> >>>Subject: military weapons issud to police depts. >>>To: colombo >>> >>>I'm a former cop with 16 years of experience including intelligence, >>>SWAT, tactical operations, criminal investigations. >>> >>>Police depts. are receiving free of charge from the Defense logistics >>>Agency all kinds of military pattern small arms. these include m-16's >>>(full auto kind), ammo, and even bayonets. Also included is webb gear, >>>ammo pouches, ponchos, night vision devices and passive infra-red and >>>thermal imaging night sights or night vision devices. >>> >>>Sources of mine in the State of WA., say that many PD's are now training >>>in advanced small unit tactics involving MOUT scenarios at the Yakima >>>Army Training Center. MOUT deals with street fighting in an urban >>>warfare context. >>> >>>In addition, automatic weapons instruction (small arms) is also given to >>>these units at the training center and some units report Army >>>instructors (mostly special forces types) are instructing them in long >>>range snipe fire and concenalment mehtods, including reconnaisance and >>>intelligence gathering in the field. >>> >>>Now here's the kicker. The WA. State Criminal Justice Training >>>Commision is allegedly (good source on this) considering expanding the >>>police academy curriculum and training hours from the present 440 hrs. >>>to twice that amount. Civil unrest and street fighting tactics are to >>>be included in the new blocs of instruction. Additional emphasis on >>>sniper and full auto weapons training and intelligence gathering >>>missions, plus joint tactical doctrine in order to facilitate working >>>with military units may also be included. I hear other states are to >>>join in with the same agenda to be implemented. >>> >>>Sources with WA. State Emergency Management Services report that the WA. >>>State Patrol is now designated the LEAD co-ordinating agency for all >>>WAs. State police operations in the event of an emergency and in >>>co-ordinating these operations with elements of the National Guard and >>>US regular Army! >> >>*********************************************************** >>EWAR-L Electronic Warfare Mailing List >>To unsubscribe or subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)sonic.net >>with the following text: unsubscribe EWAR-L or subscribe EWAR-L. >>To post messages, send to: <EWAR-L(a)sonic.net>. Previous posts: >><http://www.sonic.net/~west/ewar/digest.htm>. EWAR Web site: >><http://www.sonic.net/~west/ewar/ewar.htm>. >>-Wes Thomas <west(a)sonic.net>, list owner >> > > >`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >This Hyperborea message was transmitted by or redirected from: >onelight(a)eznet.net >... >[*]^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[*] >| The Galactic Courier @ Hyperborea | >| Internet News Tabloid for the Galactic Guilder | >| Metaphysics & Mischief in Cyberspace | >| ___"all the news that's fit to post!"___ | >[*]_____________________________________________________________________[*] > - - --------------5E8B804B1B913D9C90795D2F-- - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message --===========================_ _= 9575805(248)--

2 1

Re: RESULT: comp.org.cauce passes 548:122
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

devin(a)premier1.net (Devin Ganger) wrote: > : If an address points back to a real address, then it's not *ANONYMOUS*, > : though. > > I think you're pushing an unrealistic and overlarge definition of > anonymity here. > > Anonymous simply means that I don't know the real identity of the person, > and that I have no easy way of ascertaining that knowledge. However, I > can still deal with that anonymous persona *as* that anonymous persona. > > Two-way anonymous remailers fit that description. So would a message through a TRUE anonymous remailer (not a nymserver) that was PGP-signed with the same key used for other posts. In fact, it would provide a more reliable correspondence between the post and its anonymous author than relying on a mere From: address in the header. Yet the proponents of the CAUCE proposal insisted on a repliable (and mailbombable, spammable, etc.) address. Why? > What you and others are talking about when you discuss anonymity is > something far beyond that -- you're talking about a complete > disassociation between the speakers and their words (or posts). Whether > one calls that "privacy" or "irresponsibility" is a flamewar of a > different color, and totally beside the point. It is a concept that > certainly *contains* anonymity as a necessary pre-condition, but it goes > far beyond the bounds of anonymity. "Anononymous but traceable" is an oxymoron that necessarily depends on trusting a person who "holds the secrets". The security of the anon.penet.fi remailer, for example, depended upon the ability of its operator to defend the security of its database against attacks from powerful, censorious elements such as the "Church" of $cientology. Ultimately, it was unable to do so and chose to shut down rather to incur expensive litigation in defense of the privacy of its clients. Not trusting such traceable schemes to protect one's privacy does not "go far beyond the bounds of anonymity". Calling any such scheme true anonymity is nothing but SNAKE OIL. The "fortress 'nym server" in which the operator is not only personally trustworthy but also possesses the ability to defend against any and all external attacks on the integrity of its identifying database simply does not exist in the real world. The fallacious assumption at work here seems to be that the validity of an idea is somehow dependent on the identity of the messenger conveying that idea. Thus, the notion of "2+2=4" may not be valid if the identity of the person stating it cannot be verified. Personally, if I got a knock on my door at 2 AM warning me that my house was on fire, I'd investigate it, even I didn't know the person warning me. > In this case, it seems that the *intent* behind the comp.org.cauce > proposal was to allow anonymity in an environment that also allowed some > level of accountability, which the total privacy thing necessarily > lessens. And, again, whether or not the means they chose to pursue that > intent were duplicitous or not is a flamewar for other days and > newsgroups. The fact that identification through a unique, non-forgeable PGP signature on each post was rejected but a repliable e-mail address was accepted as that form of "accountability" casts doubt on the true motives behind this requirement, though. Real world experience on the internet should teach any objective observer that a repliable e-mail address is no guarantee of "accountability". The presumption is apparently that any perceived misbehavior can be remedied by either killfiling the person's e-mail address, or Net-copping the individual and harassing his/her sysadmin into cancelling the account. But how often have we seen Usenet spammers who can acquire new accounts faster than the old ones can be killfiled or nuked? --

1 0

Apology -- FBI abduction story
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am sorry for the recent interruption of the cypherpunks mailing list. I was abducted by the FBI along with my computer. They are accusing me of sponsoring seditious libel against the government. They let me go after I explained them that the Cypherpunks Crack Force from the Mayonnaise Mountain is ready to mount Million Man Assault against Washington, D.C. Seriously, it happened because the DNS records for algebra.com got screwed up. I am sorry. It is not going to happen again in the near future. igor

3 2

Re: Factor a 2048-bit number
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty Cantsin > Hint 2: There is an observation which suggests the number may be > factored. A one word hint will reveal this observation. > (I want to hold off on Hint 3 for a little while in case somebody is > already working on the problem. If anybody wants me to withhold Hint > 3, please post a message to the list and I may do so. It seems to me > that it will be more fun to solve without Hint 3.) > Wouldn't it be neat to actually factor a 2048-bit number which was the > product of two large primes? The wording of the original challenge suggested there was a trick to this particular factorisation. My guess that q=p+2 was wrong, so square rooting (cheap) and using the 2 nearest odd integers was a loser. -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

2 1

List still active???
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know that the listserver at algebra.com is down. Are the other servers still working? Is anybody out there? -- Phelix

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I factored a 2048 bit key and all I got was Jerry Springers' "Too Hot for Television" videocassette and this bumber sticker, "I Brake For Illegal Immigrants" -Joe7

2 1

Re: [cpe:4985] State Department Advisory Group
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga wrote: > > I'm surprised they don't want a sperm sample, too. > --- begin forwarded text > To expedite admission for those of you wishing to attend, please provide > your name, affiliation, address, telephone number, date of birth and social > security number by close of business, Wednesday, December 10. Joe Smith, Joe Smith Organization, 123 Joe Smith drive, Smithville, JS, (JOE) JOE-SMITH, JO/ES/MITH, JOE-SMITH-JS, <squirt-squirt>.

1 0