December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Non Logging News Servers? Try #2
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lcs Remailer Administrator <mix-admin(a)nym.alias.net> wrote: > The unfortunate reality is that almost all news servers log, and there > is no way to tell if you don't actually have an account on the server. > There may be privacy conscious ISPs that actually promote the fact > that they don't log, but I don't know of any to recommend. > > The point of putting that in the help file was also to make people > realize there is a trade-off. Posting to news groups might not > actually be the safest solution. Basically, if you are more worried > about the remailer operators, alt.anonymous messages is probably the > best place to send messages. However, if you are more worried about > your employer/ISP than about the remailer operators, then it probably > makes more sense just to have an ordinary e-mail reply block. One solution to this problem is to run your own personal news server like "souper" that gathers ALL new news article in a certain NG and stores them locally for off-line reading. If you're consistently pulling news messages for the alt.anonymous.messages NG off of a certain server, it could be reasonably inferred that you are the intended recipient of at least SOME of those messages. But if you use a client that invariably grabs all the new messages each time, it would be rather difficult to determine which messages you are interested in. To avoid traffic analysis, use a software program to pull the messages for you. If you do it manually, even if you try to pull them all, you will undoubtedly read and save them in a certain order, or spend more time reading certain ones that will betray your interest in certain messages. As for employers, any of them that are sophistocated enough to be monitoring NNTP connections and creating a profile of your reading habits probably also have their own firewall and news server. IOW, if they run their own news server and carry a certain NG, then they'd have a hard time objecting to your reading it. It would probably be wise to assume a worst-case scenario and only deviate from it when you're sure it's safe to do so. For example, suppose you used a pseudonym to publish an article that was critical of the current Ayatollah in Iran, or perhaps deemed offensive to Islam in general, and you were sentenced to death in absentia ... if they can find and identify you. (Sort of an anonymous Salmon Rushdie.) Start out assuming you need that level of security and go from there. But if someone has gone to the trouble of setting up a 'nym, then he probably perceives a need for more than just a casual level of security. --

1 0

Without Laws, There Are No Rights
by damaged justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1]SIDEBAR [2][LINK] No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation ****No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation 11/28/97 BANGKOK, THAILAND, 1997 NOV 28 (NB) -- By Sasiwimon Boonruang, Bangkok Post. Finding a consensus on how the Internet should be regulated in Thailand is proving to be a difficult task, experts say. Attorney General Office Prosecutor Shinnawat Thongpakdee said the law defines and protects human rights and duties and inevitably involves itself with human behavior. As the Internet is a phenomenon related with human behavior as well, it would "unavoidably" be involved with the law as well. There are several "rights" involved with Internet information: the right to control access to information, right of information use, right of copying information, and the right to publicize information. These rights cannot be separated, he said. The rights come from several laws - "without laws, there are no rights," the prosecutor said. [And a BIG, HEARTY RASPBERRY to this CLUELESS MORON!] In the Internet world, the producers of information own the copyright to their work, and consequently, any law regarding the Internet should also go hand in hand with copyright laws. There is no solution at the moment as to whether there should be compulsory laws regarding the Internet because it's difficult to use legal means to enforce such laws, and they would also vary greatly from one country to the next. One practical approach would be drawing up of a worldwide conventional agreement regarding Internet regulation, allowing each country to sign off of their own choosing. At the very least, he said, we should accumulate information concerning the Internet in order to consider what should be allowed or prohibited - this information would be useful in the future. Mr Shinnawat added that Internet technology is very new for the legal sector and other societies, and it was difficult to make any conclusions in legal term about the Internet at the moment. He said the Internet provided the opportunity for all - rich and poor alike - to access and make use of information, even though the reality would be that the gap between rich and poor would grow even wider. According to Internet Thailand Service Center (ITSC) President Trin Tantsetthi, infringement on the Internet has increased greatly during the last year, and laws regarding the Internet would be very hard to enforce. For example, there were already 30,000 documents on the Internet in Thailand already. Copyright infringements on the works of others was wrong in both moral and legal terms, he said, but using legal means to deal with it would prove difficult. Social pressures might be an alternative. Wanchai Kanti, of Thammasat University, said people should have freedom of speech and freedom to express opinions, and that the flow of information "should not be closed", especially to academic institutes. There should not be laws to control Internet content, although opinions expressed should be done in a responsible manner. Reported By Newsbytes News Network: [3]http://www.newsbytes.com (19971128) [4]Copyright ©Newsbytes News Network. All rightsreserved. For more Newsbytes see http://www.newsbytes.com. [5]Home | [6]Daily | [7]Weekly | [8]Publishers | [9]Search References 1. http://www.newsbytes.com/menus/navbar.map 2. http://ad.preferences.com/click.ng;spacedesc=CliqTech_Newsbytes_468x60_CTGe… 3. http://www.newsbytes.com/ 4. http://www.nbnn.com/copyrght.html 5. http://www.nbnn.com/home.html 6. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_daily.html 7. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_week.html 8. http://www.nbnn.com/publishers/publi_1.html 9. http://www.nbnn.com/html_p/search.html

1 0

Microsoft Rides Again
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Micro$oft fucked me up the ass. Please help. I'm bleeding to death.

1 0

GAK
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Timothy C. Mayonnaise is not only as queer as >a three dollar bill, but he is also into >having sex with children. > > ___ > <*,*> Timothy C. Mayonnaise > [`-'] > ' - ' This is a bad thing? In the Land of the Freeh "children" are defined as "anybody under 18 years of age." A 16 year old is a "child" according to the government but obviously isn't such. The "before 18 they're too immature" argument doesn't fly too well. At 18 they don't suddenly become "mature." If they aren't "mature" by about 14, think of it as evolution in action. As for homosexuality and/or uniqueness, this is supposed to be protected. Of course it won't be if Klintonkov gets his way.

1 0

PGP / Outlook Express Plugin Problem
by Jonathan Wienke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just received a CD from Microsoft with a subscription to MSN and the install for Internet Explorer 4.0 and Outlook Express. I installed Explorer and Outlook but have not been able to get Outlook to recognize the PGP plugin. (I reinstalled PGP after installing Outlook) Does anyone have any suggestions? I have encrypt and sign buttons, but they are for Outlook's bozo built-in encryption and require a "digital ID" from VeriSign, which I have no desire to buy. Jonathan Wienke

1 0

it ain't BLUE anymore!
by brownlist＠goplay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mailbombers? start your engines ... http://www.webpost.net/brownlist

2 1

Re: "Good job NANAE. You really fucked up royally." -- sez DataBasix
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > No, otherwise it'd say 'theanonassholeislosing@ ^^^^^^^^^^^ Keep up your bigoted remarks towards those of us who'd rather not contribute our e-mail addresses to spammers and abusers. Your true colors are showing ever more clearly with each passing day. > Changing your tune a bit? hahaha You're losing. If believing that makes you happy, go right ahead. > I remember that you have no clue what you're talking about anymore. You > complain that I don't sign my posts yet you miss one thing. I'm not posting > from databasix.com. That's where the accusations are leveled towards. Those > were the posts that were forged. When I post from DataBasix, I'll pgp sign > them. You were posting from Netcom, not DataBasix, when you accused the poster of a technical question to alt.privacy.anon-server of wanting the the information so that he could permit "forgery". > You're an abusive asshole and you're posting anonymously. There are > legitimate reasons for using a remailer. None of your posts have fit that > criteria. If you're campaigning for "privacy czar", this isn't going to win you any votes. Once again, when you take the time and effort to set up your own remailer, then you have the privilege of determining "legitimate reasons for using it". Have you, Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>, or your other flunkies at DataBasix EVER had ANYTHING civil to say publicly about anonymous posters? Care to cite an example? > : Then why did you demand that Jeff violate the privacy of all of his > : users by turning over his user logs to you and Belinda Bryan > : <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>? > : And when he said that the only condition > : he'd release them was in response to a letter FROM YOUR LAWYER, > : Belinda Bryan sent such a letter? > > One doesn't need to be a lawyer to send a letter. You didn't answer the question. You demanded ALL of the user logs for Jeff's Huge Cajones remailer. Why? What would have happened to all of the e-mail addresses of his users if Jeff had given in to that demand? > : Perhaps the remailer users would like to know what purpose you had > : in mind for demanding the e-mail addresses of EVERYONE who either > : SENT or RECEIVED anonymous mail through Jeff's remailer. > > Perhaps readers would be interested in knowing the real reason you're so > attracted to me. Maybe someday you'll post your demands. Just leave remailers and their users the he** alone, Gary! > Blah Blah Blah. You're such a lousy liar. You've still never posted one shred > of evidence that I ever abused anything or tried to shut a remailer down or > had one shut down or whatever you like to think. It's more likely it's YOU > who want remailers shut down. Many are now complaining about tactics such as > yours. Posting lies from behind a remailer is one good way to try to get them > shut down. Why do you want remailers shut down so badly? You call me a liar, then you proceed with your typical "big lie" technique of accusing me without evidence. "Posting lies from behind a remailer"? Do you fancy yourself to be the "truth squad" or "Thought Police", Gary? Have you got a Perl script in your back pocket that will filter posts for "truth" and "lies" that you'd care to donate to the remailer net, or should remailer operators just block all posts that even mention your name just to be on the "safe" side? It's interesting that you'd claim "Posting lies from behind a remailer is one good way to try to get them shut down". Is that your goal? Have you tried that tactic before, perhaps as a pretext to get a remailer shut down? Your unproven accusations are a bit mis-targeted. I'm the one who's USING a remailer, you're the one who's consistently CRITICIZED them. Have you even USED a remailer (that you'll admit to)? Have you ever contributed money or technical expertise to setting up or operating one? Back when you were lecturing people on how a remailer ought to be run, you were politely invited to set up your own and SHOW us all how a remailer should be run. That invitation is still open. > : Just to refresh your memory, you were asked whether you had asked > : Jeff Burchell to censor any anonymous posts that mentioned your > : name. You stonewalled the question, flippantly suggesting that > : he/she ask the operator. Someone did just that, and Jeff's post is > : the result of that. Looks like you gambled and lost that time! > > I said (and I told him) I wanted any post with my email address in the From > line or To line dropped. > > Looks like your creativity is running out. Looks like you gambled > and lost. You were harassing Jeff in June and yet you weren't able to produce any evidence of "forged" posts any more recent than February, and even those appeared to have been forged to LOOK like they had originated from a remailer. The problem is, the person who posted that manufactured "evidence" was not very knowledgeable about remailers, and attempted to implicate a server, Mailmasher, that didn't even support header pasting. (It was a 'nym server, not a remailer.) Nevertheless, your associate at DataBasix, William J. McClatchie, used this bogus "evidence" as part of his campaign to get Mailmasher shut down. (Still wanna claim that DataBasix is not anti-remailer?) According to Jeff, you also demanded that he block what you called "inflammatory posts". He also indicated that he was blocking posts that contained your e-mail address in the *BODY* of the post (which most replies to your posts would contain) because YOU DEMANDED IT. Once again you've been caught in a lie, Gary. "Forged" From: lines were already a non-problem -- it was the CONTENT that you sought to censor. I might add that while remailers have long ago removed the capability of "forging" From: lines to usenet posts, your own ISP, Netcom, has not. Maybe you ought to be whining to them and accusing your fellow Netcommies of being "abusers". There certainly seem to be a lot more abuse complaints about Netcom users than there are about remailer users. Could it be that spammers and UCErs find Netcom more tolerant of their net abuse than do the remailers you continually attack? > You've lost. It's not working anymore. Your unfounded and unproven > accusations have proved you the liar. You've yet to explain why you've go t > such a 'thing' for me. Bet I got your account closed for spamming or UCE. You weren't able to send any spam or UCE to my account because I've never given the address to you. That, apparently, is what's bugging you about the fact that I'm anonymous. We all know about how you and Belinda Bryan like to Netcop anyone who dares to disagree with you, but I was not among your victims. Sorry to disappoint you. The existence of people like you on the net is one of the best selling points for posting anonymously and not indiscriminately broadcasting one's name and e-mail address worldwide with every post. It's sort of hard to blackmail someone by posting confidential information, like old tax liens, if you don't know his name, isn't it? Is that what's bugging you about not knowing my name? It's interesting that in a recent post, your fellow DataBasix-er Belinda Bryan expressed concern about her UNLISTED phone number or her street address being revealed on the net. So why is it OK to "hide behind the skirts of" an unlisted phone number, but using an "unlisted" e-mail address somehow makes one a "dickless coward with no balls" (to use her own words)? --

1 0

Robinson CypherPunk
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ====================================================== > Q. How long did the real Robinson Crusoe live on that > desert island? > A. Alexander Selkirk? Nine years. In 1703, the old pirate > got mad at his ship's master, one Capt. William Dampier, > and jumped overboard. Slept that night on the beach. Next > morning he hailed the ship, but the captain just laughed > at him and set sail. It was the same Capt. Dampier who > saw Selkirk's campfire smoke nine years later and sent a > boat ashore. Selkirk was still mad. Madder. Took two days > to talk him into going aboard. > ============================================== > LMBoyd Web Site / U. S. Newspapers / Start Email / Stop Email > http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm

1 0

If you fought to defend your country...
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

...you fit the 'profile' of the OKC bomber. Be afraid...be very afraid. TruthMonger

12 14

At night, the ice weasels come...
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.pretext.com/nov97/short3.htm "Don't get me wrong. I'm not a technophobe. I just think people need to practice safe surfing," Cottrell says. "In some ways the Anonymizer is the virtual condom." From: 'The Anonymizer'--by Clay Hathorn

6 5