December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "Kids summit" -- CNNfn interview
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 27 Nov 97 at 13:12, Declan McCullagh wrote: > [I'd still like to hear more on the inner workings of next > week's "kids on the Net" summit from our friends at CDT who > are sponsoring it. The lineup of speakers includes Janet > Reno, Al Gore, and the secretaries of commerce and education. > All joining together to Protect the Children! --Declan] Here is the piece about the CNN show transposed to another, accurately analagous context to show the utter idiocy of what's going on. What's really sad, what's really scary, is how _little_ I actually had to transpose to do this. All I changed were the occurrences of "online," "software," and "Surf." I modified a couple of other related words just to comport with the shift of the metaphor from online to streets/public places. Many paragraphs remain unaltered because they contain none of the key words. For credible transposition, imagine that the "tools" they're discussing are something like a headset, blinders, and body armor that kids can be made to wear while in public to protect them from the realities of public places. Ask yourself how different that would be from the assinine blocking software being discussed in the original interview, and how intelligent is it to presume to think one can mold all public places to be as safe and comfy as the family living room. These people must be on very strong drugs. This is also an indirect statement on the utter superficiality of present day "news" coverage. The original interview _says_ virtually nothing, communicates virtually no facts. It is really just an emotional rallying and back-patting with little discernable in the way of contextual detail. PropagandaMongerII ---------- > HEADLINE: Kids & Public Streets > JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNNfn ANCHOR, ASPHALT JAM: Next week family > advocates, educators and industry leaders are coming together to > discuss ways to keep children safe on public streets. One of the > sponsors of the Streets Summit is Curbwatch, a company that makes > blocking tools to help parents and teachers filter out > objectionable street content. > Joining me now from Stanford, California to discuss the goals > of the summit is Michael Sears. He is the president of Curbwatch. > Michael it's great to have you on ASPHALT JAM. Welcome to you. > MICHAEL SEARS, PRESIDENT, CURBWATCH: Thank you, a pleasure to > be here. > DEFTERIOS: First of all, let's discuss how this summit came > about. Was it a building movement that finally crescendo. > SEARS: I think it is. It's actually the outgrowth of what we > did last June with President Clinton and Vice President Gore. In > fact June and July time frame the SDA (Streets Decency Act) was > overturned. The White House decided to take the initiative and > asked the industry to get together to see what we can do to > actually empower kids and enable kids on the streets. > DEFTERIOS OK. What is the happy medium here, Michael because > that's what everybody is really looking for because the Street > Decency Act did stumble and we had people on both side of the > debate wanting to stake out their territory. What is , in your > view, is the center ground? > SEARS: Well, the debate will continue, but the center ground > really is that it's all about kids. What we're talking about doing > here is bringing together industry and law enforcement and public > policy people and talking about to empower kids on streets and give > them effective tools. Effective tools that are also very easy to > use. > The idea behind that is how can kids actually get onto the > streets, learn, research, discover, play and do it in a really > enriching environment. But also we realize that there are a lot of > safety concerns in public places. That's probably what we're going > to talk about primarily. > DEFTERIOS: How about the ACLU, they were raising concerns > about being blocked out here or filtration or censorship on the > extreme. How do you deal with that side of - the people on that > side of the debate? > SEARS: It's a slippery slope. The idea here is do we block, > companies like Curbwatch, do we block content in public places. > The idea once again is we target your typical 12 year old in the > US. If that 12 year old should see something or if that 12 years > old needs to discover something we try to make sure that we have > all of our technology, all of our processes in place to insure that > information comes forward. Such as, we don't block the idea of > breast, for instance, because breast could be talking about a > chicken recipe. It could be talk about breast cancer. However, if > it's a sexually explicit depiction or expression of that word > that's where you come in and use filtering tools to block. > DEFTERIOS: There's another side to this, of course, that kids > are often much more street savvy than their parents. How do you > over that hurdle? > SEARS: That's a major hurdle. In fact we're talking about > empowering kids with effective tools, but those tools have to be > very easy to use and the ease of use isn't really for the kids > because the kids know how to do this stuff. They know what's on the > streets. They know what's out there and they know how to get > there. What we really provide are the easy to use tools for mom > and dad. So mom and dad pointing and clicking and turning switches > on and off very easily can really control the family's environment. > DEFTERIOS: As you know, this is a political hot potato for > President Clinton because he didn't want to seem extreme on both > side and he would like industry to work it out. When it is all > said and done, Michael, what is the solution here? > SEARS: Well, the solution that this market is all about is > called parental control. Curbwatch started the market about three > years ago and the word parental control itself was important not > only because it's the technology, but because of those first two > words, parental control. Mom and dad have to be involved. Mom and > dad have to engage not only to help the kids in public places, but > also make sure that in street conversations or with graffiti or > with explicit pictures they can really sit down and talk to the > kids and moderate what their kids are doing. We're just a tool. > DEFTERIOS: This is not a government. Not to interrupt you, > but we're almost out of time here. But this is, you're saying, not > government intervention then. > SEARS: Absolutely. > DEFTERIOS: The technology is out there to let the families > tackle this on their own. > SEARS: That on and off switch should be in the hands of moms > and dads not the government. > DEFTERIOS: OK, great. How about your market share before we > let you go tonight? How are you faring against your competition? > SEARS: I think we're doing very well. All the buzz that's > been happening over the last couple of months has helped our shares > as well as our competitors. We've shipped millions of copies, 7.2 > last July. We haven't done the survey lately, but we're clearly in > the tens of millions right now. > DEFTERIOS: OK. It's great to have you. > SEARS: Great to be here. Thanks very much. > DEFTERIOS: And have a nice Thanksgiving holiday. > SEARS: Same to you. Take care. > DEFTERIOS: My pleasure. Michael Sears, president of Curbwatch, > joining us from Stanford, California.

1 0

mail2news gateway (fwd)
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone has more info ------ For the past several weeks, a right wing extremist group in Topeka, Kansas has been tampering with mail2news gateways, including yours, to prevent several people who oppose their hate agenda from posting to the usenet through your gateway. The affected gateways include at least alt.revisionism, alt.christnet, alt.politics.homosexuality and alt.abortion. Posts are returned "user unknown" suggesting that the mailbox may have been deleted. This is a group of *fanatics* (Westboro Baptist Church) whose website godhatesfags.com may be known to you. They also operate several other websites under aliases the best-known of which is revwhite.bestsites.net. They advocate murdering abortion clinic workers, homosexuals and blacks. 'Rev White' (actually a member of the Fred Phelps family aka Westboro Baptist Church) was responsible for conducting a reign of terrorism last year (see "WIRED" magazine, Jan. 1997) against the irc that included death threats and operator sabotage. Several in this group are highly skilled in hacking and are willing to spend whatever time it takes launching denial of service attacks so that some of their opponents' viewpoints can't be posted. And they're willing to do this everyday if necessary to harass and intimidate others into silence. Several of them have criminal records in Topeka. I'm writing to ask you in the name of fair play to re-open these gateways and do whatever is necessary to keep them open. Better yet, I hope you can kept them in the act like a Canadian ISP did and report them to Special Agent Tom Maiorana FBI 300 U.S. Courthouse Kansas City, MO 64106 816-221-6100 Thank you for whatever assistance you can be in this matter. -- Alex de Joode | usura(a)SABOTAGE.ORG | http://www.sabotage.org Sabotage Internet: Your Internet Problem Provider.

4 3

Message
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Schear wrote: >Nerthus wrote: >>Might be a bit of a stretch, but I think this is because money today is >>inherently a liability, that is a debt that someone, somewhere has promised >>to pay back. > >You've got this all backwards. The bearer certificates (paper money) issued >by governments is an interest-free loan by those holding the paper to the >issuer. This is true, but it is only part of the picture. The paper currency issuer (the central bank) is enjoying seigniorage, that is -- in the case of the US - -- the Federal Reserve is collecting revenue from the interest earned on the outstanding paper dollars. This earned interest is given to the Treasury and accounted for as revenue for the federal government. However, this tells us nothing about the currency's real worth. We need to look deeper to find the source of the paper currency's value. When the US government wants to create money, it issues debt instruments such as T-Bills to the Fed or to a commercial bank. The bank then credits the government's deposit (checking) account for the face value of the T-Bill. The bank believes it will collect this money back plus interest in a certain amount of time. The government can then ask the Fed to issue some paper cash in exchange for the deposit currency (new paper is then created). The T-Bill is nothing but a promise by the federal government to pay back a debt. The government has taken a loan from a bank and promises to pay it back in 1,5,10 or 30 years with interest. The money to pay it back comes directly from the tax revenues the government collects from its citizens. Thus paper currency is based on the debt saddled upon future generations of citizens/taxpayers. Interestingly, this is not much different than John Q. Public getting cash advances on his credits cards for a few years and then wondering why he is $25k in the hole and growing at 18% per annum. Many people, especially politicians, always go for the short term gain, regardless of the long term consequences. Debt-based currency (primarily a 20th century phenomenon) has ushered in a new era of political and financial irresponsibility. Eventually the debts must either be reneged on or paid off. When that time finally comes, neither option will paint a pretty picture. Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIxg7Ra1d3zm4nqOEQJnnwCfaOLKaiCiYuqUJRSVBLc1Q6aZ4VIAoNJY EdB96VwVlxlcI9u3Glnwjf1y =vMJq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime?
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Schear wrote: >This topic, of course, is near the top of many libertarian e-commerce >agendas. Almost every mainstream news article and regulatory report repeats >the littany that Money Laundering, that is the movement of money to disguise >it origin (even if there are no predicate offenses) must remain illegal >because it damages or is a threat to the world banking and financial system >(not just the tax take of governments), but I have yet to see any >explanation of how and why. Anyone care to comment? Might be a bit of a stretch, but I think this is because money today is inherently a liability, that is a debt that someone, somewhere has promised to pay back. Such is the nature of fractional reserve banking and debt-based currencies under which the international financial system functions. Thus if the origin of the money (the indebted party) is obscured, it becomes increasingly difficult to manage the quality of the world's money supply. After all, how can the issuer of the money collect on the debt that ultimately backs it when the issuer has no idea who to collect the debt from? Take away the ability to manage debt effectively and the issuer's money quickly becomes worthless (be it a commercial bank issuing deposit currency as a loan to its customers or a government's central bank issuing cash currency to its citizens based on a debt placed upon future generations of citizens). A money's value is measured by the quality of debt backing it. If the debt is defaulted on (whether through obscurity, Chapter 11, etcetera), the money loses value, which in turn can have negative systemic repercussions throughout the world's financial markets. The recent Asian currency devaluations (South Korea in particular) and the accompanying financial woes are a good example of what happens when the debt quality of money devalues. Nerthus - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 mQGiBDR6Du8RBAD/Atm9StFSTuaNTOtM0wH+BsKQcU8sB6kykqiRsCdfeoPdI2cW TifPTIFFJuSRb9JCda6OQcafloXeAN9nbE+GweDQGk9qQ3egsukPXZ1QLaZhx8Y0 bbbs1EKyNMIpPK0JyFycC+ehKbOVNnB+LlcofROS6C2BqxV6jV2bTh4/OwCg/3RA +J+IBZKJ+t8SrkePekrr8VkD+gMrK6wghoYjPJjve4GFNtIclbltnaxPvNblt3Gn TS+AKXRXvRvtqlbh6nkOzJZCGgDl5S4Sl9ugQZm4Dnhv1wJJptw1VaNIvx4vJh5k 0Ehv0QqLyyJLM1qkb+qSm726fj7x2VMUDz1B2J8BZnRSeyX7Owv96l2hbfhsWOSL kTzsA/47BVqGxA5aQhvXSuD6OuvzAsSNZUUL2pnyYmCkX/DrGzG1BDgb9AdUPbql s138nr/yLjBXwbbZnrqVLLBn9mVfqQZL1HB9MgKFaCT8Pi2Q/EpyM5kN/sMkA/c/ nmk6JVHvPyCdLwJLA0r5iKHyPbZyPbc6C1FfXD9V92O3dhvCw7QjTmVydGh1cyA8 Y3lwaGVycHVua3NAY3liZXJwYXNzLm5ldD6JAEsEEBECAAsFAjR6Du8ECwMBAgAK CRAWtXd85uJ6jrcdAJ0bB92r7CriqXzXAmPC5ldE0VftWACgoiV33M0m6V3L0OsV CFPIMuVS3oaJARUDBRA0eg8e4VbBl7TmNwkBAQXECACjSwCnkSP9Dv06s0HMLvT9 DwjXryxvx+oMgO6CjHe5eHmLpyNDMTuhnZYByr/DU9iWAEvAYJncAl7/o7e8OcU/ vrzU2hAcjS9yaKN/Q1ltZAhg01hLhadlxvclaxuHVZ/TaO+ci5Ew1d7wzMPBWUyE jBDHVN4902pTBaPpGqBV3yGYg5I403L9+bB8qD1Od8ALr83ha/mF6MRYV4m0Qar+ GHs6wwH3Zi+gAQMUVkC1rvJKoGicHBL7Ky+NmdydCTi4IBpiIalsdOVAF6aNkRI6 q41hmNYevzmjsk4KWQdCi+FWKj1f+soxyGPK4/lkQk17EWpdYR63+GpU88ecmrBy uQENBDR6Dv0QBADYL1ossXAnUFX3NgVrEg4BvRr8wyhrRrddBKI9XE8vLNdHoci1 7Xtor82Fr3kyBTx/6jW2HIkuFe1PPaJqjoXfxMQc/e5xbG3Sc65VgxUqY369rc0X yPWXnkDgGaeLJfMP6YEFWqOwyGGSkySKaiQrZXJdPnudjAhB4Aq4W/ZC4QACAgP/ UmOxIbdm014V8jSZHDpMCvHX69xMcKxk6pofza4fM+NN6wZLrUA9+us6JKMxq3j/ tSBX4M/VwhmtXdn27lbrR4blwQM/u0jGgqk3qAwEXiv2TweYCpWtfuEjbmv9LKpC um/6Sh/KhlNGoyxm6eEOTG3hSH6rKiCTACbtuotDQhKJAD8DBRg0eg79FrV3fObi eo4RAqt/AJ9qf0ixg3olUg2kYJEbmHMVzx+6EwCcC91whsrTD2nsNdCUkzhc333R Aoo= =aekz - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIiUkxa1d3zm4nqOEQLaYQCcDRU9qkloaPTshE3coevIIdDxlXQAnjVx fcCqzFIilN8K6KLj346uJkCP =0xDo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Fwd: (Fwd) GILC on racism, Asian events, copyright, etc. (472 l (fwd)] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 10:34:09 -0600 > From: TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> > Subject: [Fwd: (Fwd) GILC on racism, Asian events, copyright, etc. (472 l (fwd)] > [B3.3] CDA's Younger Big Brother > > Last week, in another attempt to clear the Internet of pornography, > United States Senator Dan Coats (Republican from Indiana, former aid > to Dan Quayle, and the originator of the failed CDA) introduced S. > 1482, which seeks to prohibit commerical Internet sites from > distributing material considered "harmful to minors" under 17 years > old. Violators wil be imprisoned for six months with a $50,000 fine. > Supporters of the bill say that it's newly focused, because it covers > only material that's "harmful to minors," and not material that's > "indenent." Coats's concern is over the free "teasers" (images of > naked women and simulated sex acts) that most pornographic sites offer > viewers. This seems to me to be a step backward. Indecent at least has an implicit relationship with sex while harmful to minors does not. Does the bill make some notice that it applies only to sex and sex related issues or can this be applied to any subject matter that would be harmful to minors? This could impact all sorts information such as bomb info, ways to make booze, drug related sites, etc. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

"Kids Safe" calls for mandatory blocking sw; op-ed on summit
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Dec. 5, 1997--Saying that we must protect children from the dangers of >sexually explicit material on the Internet, a leading child-safety advocate >Friday called on Congress to enact legislation to mandate that every >computer sold in the United States by 1999 be outfitted with parental >software that can block out sexually explicit or adult Web sites. "Oh my gawd! A nipple! I'm harmed for life! I'm going to hell! Jesus doesn't like this! All for a nipple!" Um, yeah. And the far-right wackos strike again, this time in the guide of "Kids Safe." And now in addition to paying for Windoze when you buy a computer you get to pay for censorware which you don't want. What if my machine comes with Linux preinstalled? Is censorware still mandated? What if I deliberately come up with a way to purposefully break the censorware every time they release it? What if I come up with a way to get around the idiotware...err, censorware? What if I specify that I don't want them to even TOUCH my hard drive -- just stick it in the case and hand me the CDs? But the #1 reason this is stupid is: What keeps me from using an ActiveX applet to exploit the "everyone is root" "feature" in Windows to remove the censorware or, better yet, check to see if it is installed and horribly hose the system? Granted nothing keeps me from destroying the system as it stands now, but this just gives people a reason to do it other than the standard (and justified) "Windows' point and click crap has destroyed the network." And of course there are two ways to use the actual ratings for civil disobediance. You can either rate porn as "acceptable for children" or you can rate *everything* as "hard-core XXX with graphic gunshots to the head, a bunch of blood, and people cussing." The same applies for filters; I can obsfuscate trigger words (i.e. "fuck" as "fsck" or "fuq") or I can deliberately strewn them all over my pages so that people are, in effect, FORCED to turn it off to read everything from a technical paper to a FAQ for comp.lang.c. One of these days these idiots are going to learn two things: 1) You can successfully censor very little material, and 2) It pisses people off and they go out of their way to offend and put up porn. Remember back during the Exon debacle? Hell, porn was posted to Cypherpunks.

1 0

"Kids Safe" calls for mandatory blocking sw; op-ed on summit (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: 9 Dec 1997 02:26:07 -0000 > From: Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)secret.squirrel.owl.de> > Subject: "Kids Safe" calls for mandatory blocking sw; op-ed on summit > One of these days these idiots are going to learn two things: 1) You can > successfully censor very little material, and 2) It pisses people off and > they go out of their way to offend and put up porn. Remember back during the > Exon debacle? Hell, porn was posted to Cypherpunks. What a pipe dream, as one dies another is born.

1 0

Re: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I think the answer to your question is that most of us find the very idea >of filterware distasteful (let alone the generally poor quality of the >implementations. However, that's much the same as I find american cars >distasteful. If somebody else wants to blow their money on one of those >pieces of crap, by all means let them. (I admit, they're slowly getting >better) This leads us to poke fun at the current systems and argue against >people actually using them, much the same way a christian friend of mine >keeps trying to get me to accept jesus into my heart and love him so that I >won't go to hell. On the other hand, we get really pissed off when >somebody tries to force us and our kids to use this crap. It doesn't >matter if it is AOL or the FBI, outside coercion is outside coercion. Or public school districts, which are arms of the government regardless of the fact that many of them have the word "independant" in their name and have a quasi-independant regulatory joke known as a "school board." Strangely enough I'm taxed to provide Internet feeds in the schools, then taxed to censor those feeds, then bitched at for not "thinking about the children" when I post to USENET, then threatened with government regulation for the same. All while the public school system is turning out people who can't read or do basic mathematics. And we still come back to the old question: Who determines what is "suitable for children?" Since I, for instance, consider absolutely no material to be "inappropriate for children" on basis of their age and I absolutely deplore censorship in all its forms I would rate everything as "suitable for children," even if that means that I have to rate a porn page as having "no nudity," or a copy of a hack and slash novel with blood and gore all over the place as "no violence." It's blatently obvious to a human that they're walking into a porn page or a copy of The Terrorist's Handbook before they actually transfer it. Since the sole purpose of automated filtering and rating systems is to censor material which some censor decides is "inappropriate" for a particular audience without any input from that audience at all, and in many cases I'm the one paying for the network feed to begin with, screw them. And I'll put whatever I want on my pages, even if that is a ratings tag, thank you. If Little Johnny is of such fragile mentality that he will be damaged for life because he sees a penis or a breast, then he was screwed already. Think of it as evolution in action. Rate falsely and watch them load.

1 0

Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mix <mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> wrote: > >:gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > > [clipped only the equine manure parts of Mr. Burnore's article ] > > Hmmmm. Nothing left. > > Isn't it amazing how the Anti-Privacy Mr. > Burnore thinks there is only ONE anonymous person posting to correct his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > outrageous lies and massive disinformation? Uh, oh! Head for the hills! Our secret is out! We have all of these remailers and they only have ONE USER. <g> > Isn't it amazing how Dumbo Mr. > Burnore calls 'an asshole' all those who choose to post a dissenting opinion > anonymously? Isn't it amazing how Anti-Free Speech Mr. > Burnore demands to know all anonymous identities yet himself hides the > addresses of where he lives and works? Most control freaks like Gary Burnore and the rest of the DataBasix Gang are hypocritical about privacy. They want to invade that of others at will while protecting their own. Gary Burnore and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)netcom.com> were worried that their UNLISTED PHONE NUMBERS might be given out, but anyone who dares criticize their actions with an "unlisted" e-mail address is an "anon asshole". OK, let's make Gary happy. If he's so worried that my asshole is "anonymous", I guess I'd better give it a name -- "Burnore" sounds about right to me. So to all control freaks -- "stick it in your Burnore". I'm still wondering what wondrous plans Gary and Belinda had for all those e-mail addresses of the users of the Huge Cajones Remailer if Jeff Burchell had turned them over to DataBasux as they had demanded. (Not just the senders but the RECIPIENTS as well!) Fortunately, Jeff was smarter than your average Burnore and didn't keep such things around to tempt DataBasix, Scientology, etc., so we'll never find out.

1 0

"MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT"
by wildcard＠bittsnwhitts.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><HTML><PRE> "THE PLASTIC MONEY" QUESTION: How would you and your Family like to have a Visa "Cash" Card that has; No Credit Check - No Qualifying - No Interest - and NO PAYMENTS! is accepeted around the world and best of all, IT EARNS YOU MONEY! just for "Telling" NOT "Selling" others about it! <A HREF="http://www.bittsnwhitts.com/wildcard/345/index.htm"> http://www.bittsnwhitts.com/wildcard/345/index.htm</A> While at the site, be sure to click on Print Application for more information. Plus Call: 1-800-995-0796 ext 1288 and just listen,.... ask them about the NEW Executive Starter Kit that makes an already great program even better!!! Like what you hear ........Tell 'em ID# 345 sent you, .... then tell your Friends! Thank You =========================================================== To remove your address from our mailing list, you must reply to: remove(a)bittsnwhitts.com and write remove in the subject ===========================================================. </PRE></HTML> </PRE></HTML>

1 0