December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

Death Penalty Expanded
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What's next, the death penalty for unregistered crypto? No doubt Swinestein plans to introduce her own version of this in Amerika. --Tim # Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 6:43:53 PST # # TAIPEI, Nov 24 (AFP) - Taiwan brought in new heavy penalties # Monday to curb illegal firearm possession in an effort to tackle a # rising crime wave here. # Under an amended law effective from Monday anyone caught # manufacturing, selling or transporting illegal firearms faces the # death penalty. Previously the law stipulated a maximum penalty of # seven years jail. # The move comes just five days after the island's most wanted # fugitive gave himself up to police. # "The amened law is expected to emerge as a deterrent force to # effectively keep at bay illegal holding of firearms," President Lee # Teng-hui said. # In the past, nearly 80 percent of offenders under the law faced # only 18 months jail and were often released on parole after serving # a third of their sentence, official statistics show.

4 3

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:04 PM 11/29/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >> Proof, please. >> >> [I've verified that Dave filters out "poltically incorrect" messages sent >> to the cypherpunks list, while permitting harrassment of Dr. Grubor] >> > >Harrasment of Dr. Grubor will be a demonstration sport during the next >Olympic Winter Games. > Please send the pictures. AOLNewbieBinaryMonger

1 0

Re: The Illusion of Freedom
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Nerthus wrote: >>"Okay soldier, let's see that pass!" Is this the treatment accorded >>to a free man? > >Clearly not. Let me rephrase what I said since it appears it was not >as obvious as I had thought. > >Those who wage war (the politicians/"kings") are rarely the slaves. >Those who die (the soldiers/citizens) usually are. Oh, I see what you mean now. Thanks for the explanation. >The soldiers and citizens are the pawns and other chessmen on the >chessboard who are sacrificed to protect the king of their color >while attempting to checkmate the king of the other color. All >chessmen are expendable, except the two kings. When one of the kings >is checkmated, the game is over. Leaving the loser to slouch off toward Doorn, St. Helena, or Asuncion to die. 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 iQEVAwUBNHuFEZaWtjSmRH/5AQGwGQf+JSwEqXrgjYRcCmBpsHP/IU0SUbjaoekk 0oqF+dvY0QCtf3NwSYKClLg+vB+lIjRYR6qqgr2wvnVGyElC1A2VJUjjuUuvb1BH 27Uu2ldFFKfg4S715TpgktkysuuldqEMWfClJfgNkLFB3whjbSRWZhqQwWdDhnkB sHxj5RbFWZ0yWTcBc0v6Z+NPEok0zMWIkyg3Reazprjjgpn1vxdZMLLmSz9iK0gO tmhASDQ6et9APOzakbH9+pcsLutvkH/LGmwbkadL2DxD3Mlp2xNylOIUBbzPO0yX qbnvkEy01pw+6M/D9C6GIKyIHlubiIvOHCYv8EQSNAbDc3+KNQQusA== =JniS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

This would also explain AOL...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.pretext.com/nov97/short4.htm Mark Grimes: "Why do 39,440 people a month look up "Yahoo" on Yahoo!? Maybe too many ate lead paint as children." A recent compilation of the 200 most popular keywords submitted to the Yahoo! Search engine offers some insights about the types of individuals that prowl the Web. "Baywatch" babe Pam Anderson racked up 172,760 inquiries in a recent month to place 12th--two places behind "weather," 10 places ahead of "Microsoft," and 92 slots before "Bob Dole." Janet Reno could fine Pamela an inch a day until she ranks equally with Bob Dole, as a sex symbol. (3,000,000 places ahead of Reno.) Good News: "Metallica" (59) finished just ahead of "real estate" and "stock quotes"; at No. 82 "anal sex" was just before "cars" and "USA Today." Bad News: "Days of Our Lives" (91) came up more frequently than "marijuana" (93) and "Beatles" (111)." Huh?: The top 50: sex, chat, Playboy, Netscape software, nude, porno, games, porn, weather, Penthouse, Pamela Anderson, pornography, pussy, Persian Kitty, maps, Halloween, music, adult, chat rooms, erotica, Microsoft, jokes, shareware, magazines, pictures, employment, jobs, erotic, gay, Jenny McCarthy, Netscape, bondage, lingerie, hardcore, Cindy Crawford, Hustler, ESPN, supermodels, Disney, Star Wars, girls, movies, Star Trek, mIRC, genealogy, screen savers, Japan, soccer, and tits. I suppose that a more cynical mind than mine might make much of the fact that the comma between 'Microsoft' and 'jokes' may well be a 'typo'. As to why both mentions of Netscape's name are followed by a plethora of requests for information on various forms of sexual perversion, I would like to point out that I am not the *only* person who uses Netscape and Yahoo, so it obviously could not be *totally* due to my search habits. TruthMonger

1 0

Business Loans For You
by loans＠xitau.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you need to increase profits in your business? Do you need venture capital to get you there? Are you frustrated with your bank turning you down for the capital your business needs to grow? Be frustrated no more. Zion Worldwide can put you in touch with hundreds of offshore investors waiting to invest in a viable business just like yours. What Is An Offshore Investor? An offshore investor may be an offshore bank or a group of offshore lenders looking to invest in and to lend money to viable business enterprises both in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Why Not My Own Bank? U.S. federal banking law permits American banks to tie up a lot of their money in overhead expenses and advertising costs. Which means that American banks have less money to lend out to their customers (the ones who gave the banks their money in the first place!). Offshore banks, on the other hand, are required by offshore banking rules and regulations to lend more of their customer's money to, you guessed it, their customers. And groups of offshore lenders (often referred to as 'conglomerates'), are not necessarily restricted to the number or type of businesses that they can invest in, as long as these businesses are viable and show potential for future growth and profit. How Do I Take Advantage Of These Offshore Lending Opportunities? Zion Worldwide works with literally dozens and dozens of offshore banks and conglomerates across the world to put American businesses in touch with reputable offshore lenders. By submitting an offshore loan application to Zion Worldwide, your businesss automatically becomes eligible for the following types of offshore funding: Venture Capital Loans, Signature Loans, Equipment Leasing, Cash Grants, Self Liquidating Loans and a $25,000 Line of Offshore Credit, as well as offshore corporate credit cards. How Do I Apply And How Much Does It Cost? To apply simply write to: Zion Worldwide 5015 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 125, Las Vegas, NV, 89102. ..and ask for an offshore loan application. There is a non-refundable application fee of $200US payable to Zion Worldwide via money order, cashier's check, Visa or Mastercard. Why The $200 Fee? When you make application for offshore lending opportunities, Zion Worldwide literally sends your company's loan application to several major funding institutions around the globe. The $200US application fee assists our organization to cover the costs of shipping your loan application documents around the world. How Does Zion Worldwide Make Its Money? When your company's loan application arrives back to our office, Zion Worldwide receives a brokerage fee from our offshore lenders for finding them viable businesses to invest in. Can I Apply? Any viable business in the US or abroad may make application to Zion Worldwide in order to receive serious consideration from Zion's offshore lenders. Is It Hard To Apply? Absolutely not. Simply prepare to provide your company's past earnings as well as future earnings potential, as well as some documented business plan and, of course, some basic business details (e.g. your company's name, address, phone, fax etc.) and you're set. In fact, we want you to succeed in securing your loan, because when you succeed, we succeed. Why Is Zion Worldwide Located In Las Vegas? Nevada is America's last haven for judgment proof corporations (better than Delaware, better than Wyoming). Zion Worldwide strives to take full advantage of all of the incorporation benefits that the State of Nevada provides. What's The Catch? Sometimes interest rates on offshore loans are higher than interests rates on similar loans in the United States. However, apply for an offshore loan, then immediately turn around and expand your business with it, and of course, enjoy the increased profits your business generates, repay your offshore loan early, and the interest charged to you on your offshore loan will total no more than the interest on a loan you can (or can't) get in the US. AnyThing Else? Nope, except 'Apply Today'

1 0

Re: Another Anti-Privacy Bigot Heard From (was: The Guilmette/Burnore deba
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > : The only exception I see is if > : someone threatens the life or wellbeing of another. Then I can understand > : why someone that posts anonymously should get into trouble. > > So when someone posting anonymously makes statements about YOU that are > outright lies what will you say? Will you consider that part of your > exception (falling under the well being of another) or will it be under the > protection from the government part? > > You totally missed his point and turned it into a freedom of speech thing. > > Well guess what bozo, it's NOT within someone's rights to post lies about > another person. THAT's why it's being done anonymously. It's not fear of the > government that's keeping the anon asshole anonymous. It's knowing that if > his/her identity is discovered, he/she could be held accountable for the > _LIES_. What part do you expect the goverment to play in this scenario, though? Shall they establish an "Internet Truth Police" squad? The problem is, for just about every accusation there is another voice saying that the first accusation is false and counter-accusing that the original accuser is a "filthy rotten liar". Neither of these rival accusations deserves to be believed without supporting evidence. It's obvious that when you refer to one party in a debate as an "anon asshole" that your mind is already made up and you're really afraid of hearing all the facts. It is evident that there are a far larger number of NON-anonymous "assholes" on the net. Such ad hominem anti-privacy bigotry only betrays the weakness of your position. Ideas can stand on their own and if you must resort to an ad hominem smear campaign to make your point, you are already well on your way to losing the debate. Are you implying that if an "anonymous asshole" were to say, for example, that the world is flat that you'd prefer to know the person's name so that you could dig up dirt to smear him with rather than simply refuting his IDEA? Why do I get the impression that your modus operandi is to intimidate potential opponents into remaining silent rather than refuting their ideas in reasoned, rational debate? To anyone who hates privacy so much, I'd invite them to post their snail mail address, home phone number, Social Security number, and date of birth lest they likewise be accused of "hiding" something. Most are too hypocritical to do so, of course. --

1 0

Digital Signatures
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You can't see it up here, but this is a signed message using a protocol which is modestly titled "Cantsin Protocol No. 1". Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. At the bottom of this message you will find a series of hexadecimal numbers expressed in ASCII which comprise the signature. I considered using ASCII armor or uuencode to store the information, but the straight numbers are easier to work with. That is, the components of the signature are easily manipulated using off the shelf tools such as Perl. Also, because certain numbers are freely accessible, the message is easy to filter without necessarily calling other programs. It makes it easy to find signed messages using search engines which are not necessarily aware of encryption protocol formats. Having the numbers exposed has a nice feel. It lets you see exactly what is going on. It encourages people to investigate the meaning of the numbers and to think about the information a signature really conveys. Cantsin Protocol No. 1 uses El Gamal to sign hashes generated by SHA1. Executive summary of the signature format: <Cantsin Protocol No. 1 code> <comments> <SHA1 hash of public key components> <SHA1 hash of message> <offset> <length> <a> <b> The first line is "16A5942B6EED349ECF4594C784DFD177 [Cantsin Protocol No. 1]". The hexadecimal number was chosen randomly and is the indicator that this is a Cantsin Protocol No. 1 signature. The number was chosen randomly and it is somewhat unlikely that anybody else will accidently choose it. The text following the number is just there so a human reading it will know what they are looking at. No program should rely on that text. The signature begins where the code (i.e., "16A59...") begins - it need not be preceded by a newline. (It can be used to sign anything, in other words.) The public portion of an El Gamal key consists of three variables p, g, and y. p is a large prime, g is a randomly chosen number, and y is computed using the secret key. (See "Applied Cryptography" for the details. I'm using Schneier's nomenclature.) Monty Cantsin's public authentication key is: p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g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y: A7006552F14B2F34E80B79BD51558578771327BA2E758109F28C9C455E620ADF475C8513DF4466717961FC82A979110D8389C9CE740EBFAFB57F53B443F311F62B17814BBC2967DE63879B18B7E22E0998EA6615DF599FB956FE4A5F20BEB26E81F7BFE275FAD9F98E139E31E621229FA525246B30F626B90935B37AF2CB22956419CADBD4FB3A9EAF5E3821D8EA10327167BA1A34D04F6EF23F40F2857F071497398E4DDACAA8840F062433AF29A3705F7CAD7CF5F4F59C56EC7228AE011D372C4DE6D6708971400B70401573E9832142DF5CB56726103093F6290F6EF9E9FAD75A4786917ED6F97862F1D7E66CDCB874981B8DB088B101689FF6103D431824 (This key should not be used for communication. It is not very well secured. Also, I like Adam Back's assertion that authentication keys should be different from communications keys.) The second line in the signature is an SHA1 hash of the public key. The hash is computed on the concatenation of the hexadecimal ASCII forms of p, g, and y respectively. There should be no leading zeros. (Remember to leave off the newline!) The third line is an SHA1 hash of the message itself. The fourth line contains an offset and a length to specify the area of the text which is signed. The offset is relative to the signature itself. That is, the first character of the Cantsin Protocol No. 1 code is at position 0. As signatures are usually appended, the offset will usually be the additive inverse of the length. This is an unobtrusive and highly flexible signature format. No text is modified to accommodate the protocol. No information needs to be prepended to the text. This means that signing a document only makes it longer at the end - the area a reader cares the least about. You can sign as often as you like and it won't really matter that much. This protocol could be used to sign The Declaration of Independence. Not only that, but it is possible to be highly selective in what is signed. The user could sign a portion of a message without modifying or sabotaging other signatures. It is completely compatible with other signature formats. Not only can you sign the subset of text which another user signed, but signatures can even overlap. The last two lines are the signatures themselves. El Gamal signatures consist of two values which Schneier calls "a" and "b". Note that the signature does not contain a time stamp! Users who want time stamps can add one in the text. El Gamal is simple enough that the signature on this message can be checked using standard Unix tools such as dc version 1.1. Let's say M is the SHA1 hash of the message. It is checked by verifying the truth of this equation: (y^a * a^b) mod p = g^M mod p. (dc version 1.1 has an | operator which is used to compute equations of the from a^b mod n like: a b n |. The left side of the equation will be easier to compute if you compute ((y^a mod p) * (a^b mod p)) mod p instead.) You also need to be able to compute SHA1 hashes. I've been using something called "sha1file" which, I believe, originated at Adam Back's web site. I have some crude tools for making and verifying these signatures, but they still need work. At some point they will be released into the public domain. Aside from ordinary message signing, there are at least two good uses for these signatures. One is for timestamping services. Since the signature is unobtrusive, it would be easy to route a message to all known timestamping services. The timestamp can only fail if all timestamping services fail. Yet, the message would still be completely readable without any garbage at the top. Another is for authenticating messages from the distributed cypherpunks mailing list machines. Right now it would be somewhat ugly to have all three machines signing every message. But, with this protocol it just makes each message a little longer. This would prevent certain kinds of attack and make it harder to exploit a compromise of any of the mailing list machines. (It's harder because an undeniable trail of inconsistency is left even if the compromiser has the power to sign messages at will.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Digital Signatures To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 16A5942B6EED349ECF4594C784DFD177 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0