December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Warez Transfer
by Six 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Warez Transfer -------------- To decrypt the 'wrzs9514.xxx.asc' files with PGP, use the password 'warez'. run 'wrzs9514.bat' to get 'wrzs9514.zip' unzip -------------- Tojohoto, You were right...you *can* tell who they are by the way they knock. They took your computer. (They just want to ask it a few questions.) :> Norton Wipeinfo doesn't run in multitasking so I didn't take time to reboot it. I ran 'delete *.*' in one MS-DOS window and ran a 'copy *.*' command on a large directory in another MS-DOS window. By the time they pulled the plug it had already ripped its own head off and shit down its own neck. I had already made sure your harddrive was badly defragmented so the two commands should have made a good mess. I put a boot&fat sector virus on your hard drive and gave them a bootable floppy disk that has another virus on it. (I told them that the floppy disk in your computer was mine so they gave it to me. Then the guy who gave it to me came back and said he needed to have it back. I gave him a disk and the lamer asked me if it was the same one. Duuhhh...) ;? If anyone on the cypherpunks list liked you, they don't now...sorry. I stayed up all night and sent you the file splitting program that Bianca sent. I know she plays with stuff so I guessed it is probably different than what you could get on the Net so I sent it to the cypherpunks list because I don't know if they are going to come get my computers, too. Berzerkeley said you can get in touch if you need to. You must owe him money, eh? Lost Taos said they don't know you and never have and to come before you call. There is something else but I forgot. Have to go and do weird stuff to my computers and disks. Bye <----> 8" pp - "Don't get any on'ya!" ppp - I messed up the .asc file order because 95 --> 3.1 multiple disk transfer duplicates filenames. The decrypted files should come out right though. I will check after I juryrig my computers.

1 0

Can't Find Your Web Site
by up＠uplinkpro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can't find your web site? Uplink will post your site to 50 search engines for $89. We guarantee your satisfaction, or you pay nothing! Millions of people every day use search engines to find web sites. Uplink makes your site easier to find by posting it to the top 50 search engines. Here's how it works: 1. Fill out the form below, and return it to us. 2. We'll post your site to the top 50 search engines within two business days and send you a full promotion report. 3. Pay nothing now. We'll send you a bill for $89 with the promotion report. If you're not completely happy, simply write "cancel" on the bill, and you'll owe nothing. THE SEARCH ENGINES Here's the list of top search engines to which we'll post your site: Alta Vista, Excite, Galaxy, HotBot, Infoseek, Lycos, Magellan, Open Text Web Index, Web Crawler, BizWeb, New Riders WWW Yellow Pages, LinkMonster, True North, Northern Light, YelloWWWeb, The Weekly Bookmark, The Galactic Galaxy, TurnPike, Unlock:The Information Exchange, Your WebScout, Manufacturers Information Network, Net Happenings, Net Mall, Web World Internet Directory, WebVenture Hotlist, What's New, WhatUSeek, JumpLink, Linkcentre Directory, InfoSpace, Jayde Online Directory, BC Internet, BizCardz Business Directory, Net-Announce, New Page ListOne World Plaza, PageHost A-Z, PeekABoo, Project Cool, Scrub The Web, Seven Wonders, Sserv, Starting Point, Web 100, Web Walker, Where2Go, World Wide Business Yellow Pages, Wow! Web Wonders!, WWW Worm, JumpCity. ORDER FORM Hit the REPLY button on your e-mail program and fill out the following information. (This information will be posted to the search engines/indexes): URL: http:// Site Title: Description (250 characters): Key words (250 characters, in descending order of importance): Your name: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: Contact e-mail address (in case we have questions about this order): If billing a different address, please complete the following: Addressee: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: TERMS Terms are net 15 days from date of invoice. ______________________________________________________________________ Uplink, Inc. 39B Mill Plain Road Danbury, CT 06811 Phone: (203) 791-7351 Fax: (203) 790-6407 E-mail: up(a)uplinkpro.com

1 0

Home Business! $350 a month overhead, Monthly Income of $3,000.00 +
by 42793813＠hur.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you want a scam or get rich quick scheme, then save us both time and DELETE NOW! Serious Inquiries ONLY, please. CALL NOW.......1-800-230-6423

1 0

Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- politas(a)dynamite.com.au (Politas) wrote: > >Are you saying that Hotmail should be made a guarantor of the identity of > >its accountholders, or merely that they could be required, under certain > >circumstances, to divulge what information (if any) it possesses, regardless > >of its accuracy? AFAIK, the latter case is currently operative, since > >Hotmail's records are presumably already subject to subpoena (in the USA, > >at least -- I just realized you're posting from an Aussie domain). > > The latter. Additionally, if they cannot provide a reliable next link in > the identity chain (like another validated email address or a time-stamped > IP address used to register the account), they should be held responsible > for the posts from that account. Why should the operator of the delivery medium be held responsible for the contents of a message? Perhaps the laws are different "down under", but here in the USA anyone can deposit coins in a public telephone and make a phone call without identifying himself. The person can't be identified, and neither can you hold the telephone company responsible for any damages you claim resulted from the call. It's the same with the US Postal Service. You can mail a letter from a public mail box and as long as the proper postage is attached, it will be delivered even if it doesn't have a return address, or if it contains a false return address. But if someone mails you a letter bomb, you can't sue the US Postal Service. So why institute draconian rules to restrict e-mail which are stricter than those for other communications media? I'll reiterate my opinion that such restrictive rules would cripple the usefulness of many currently-available services. I seriously doubt that Hotmail would take on the expense of identifying each of its account holders as well as assuming liability for any that it misidentified, in order to provide a FREE service. In fact, it would impact most ISPs. As long as you pay your monthly access fees on time, most ISPs take you at your word that the name and address you supplied on your application are correct. I would suggest that the recipient of a piece of e-mail should bear the responsibility for authenticating its sender before sending someone money, or taking other action that could potentially incur a financial loss. Transferring that duty to the ISP makes no sense. For one thing, who would you hold responsible? Your own ISP? The one listed in the return address? Even if it's forged? What if the ISP is located in another jurisdiction? - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJmXHAbp0h8ZvosNAQFC1wf+N7lY2dXQNXt/Wl4MXPR+c2Intr4bG9Xw N7qaKiHRqNszuD55yx5iXhKRgxtbnlBzMuUv3sr800M3kmrXqQJBzeDA/ljcASSU Bi5kBHlpTcASm5H1jhRjRSk0BL+KCuTzmunCSExiB7tD2XNb/qGO+4bpcMdJ2A3z nY7kmNjptt9vZJ3ZSz2l/n7IbplcUXWiRcHeJ4Nwp6ehjYzJX43d5snzhymJhLlK 6paX461Szcn5+3ILgv2JPfMxdG282mY1dSzxpScaHZ1pu0dh3702TlO37A9sfykc 4yAFDDLaCBnidyw0Fz//YGpgNhCYphKDyx1yNF7Aeyni0Kv0YovAtg== =8nzS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Can I do Pubkic Domain that -
by Bruce Balden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Exportability rules are based up the notion that the USA has the best technology (perhaps true) and that non-Americans, such as the notorious Chinese, are too far behind. Whereas the truth is that many countries in the have the necessary technology and have possessed it for a long time. There is absolutely no evidence that the US gov't crypto export rules are impeding drug cartels in the least. So there is a peverse mix cognitive dissonance, xenophobia ("what do those chinks know anyway?!!), and sycophantism (telling the President what he wants to hear). Somebody please tell me how this idiocy can persist. -----Original Message----- >At 12:58 PM 12/18/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >>At 12:04 PM -0700 12/18/97, David Honig wrote: >>>At 06:33 PM 12/17/97 -0800, Bruce Balden wrote: >>>> >>>>Those guys just never learn that not only is the barn door open, but that >>>>contents were never theirs to begin with. >>>> >>> >>>They blew their chance to regulate *computers* as military tech. >>>Computers, after all, were developed by the military for ballistic, bombs, >>>and codes. >> >>I can't follow your logic here. Several points: > >> > > >The develoment of computers can be traced along numerous threads. One >thread (from say the 40's to 50's) >traces the encouragement of the codebreaking, ballistics, h-bomb fluid >dynamics, and missile >control community. > >By the 50's the computer was done, and improvements were just making better >implementations. > >It is admittedly oversimplifying to follow only one thread (e.g., only >mathematical or engineering development), >but in the early days (way before intel) computers were built for the uses >I describe. > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------ > David Honig Orbit Technology > honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu > > M-16 : Don Quixote :: PGP : Louis Freeh > Let freedom ring (or screech at 28.8) > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Censorware Search Engine update and request for files
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Over at the Netly News Network, we've decided it's time to update our Censorware Search Engine. For those of you who haven't checked it recently, it's a one-of-a-kind web site that lets you see if you've been blocked by filtering software: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/spoofcentral/censored/ We're planning to update this with newer decrypted lists from some of the vendors like SurfWatch, CyberPatrol, and so on. If you have a list and you'd like it to be included, please send it along. -Declan

3 5

Re: ADL
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Re: FC: ADL and CyberPatrol On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 at 00:04:33 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > From: "David Smith" <bladex(a)bga.com> > To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu > Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:25:23 +0000 > Subject: Cyber Patrol to Block Hate Speech > > Cyber Patrol to block hate speech > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,17431,00.html?dtn.head > > Summary -- Cyber Patrol has teamed up with the Anti- > Defamation League to offer a "special version" of sites > reviewed by the ADL. > > Here's the weirdest thing about the story --- if you > access a site on their "hate list" you don't get a block, > but rather you get redirected to the ADL website. > > ... > Blocking access isn't enough -- you will now be told what > to read and what to think about prejudice, bigotry, and > race relations. > > I don't have anything for or against the ADL -- just that > history dictates that this power will be used and abused > to stifle thought and free expression. Much as I agree in principle with counteracting mindless prejudice such as that directed against Jews, and despite the fact that I grew up among Jews and studied with my best friend in grade school when he took his religious lessons, the ADL has zero credibility with me for a very good reason: I had a role in an organization that, while it was populated with a good many bible-thumping Christians, took great care not to encourage, promote or give a platform to voices of unreason. The nature of the organization was political and in no way dealt with religious issues or issues which would find people dividing along any religious or ethnic line. Nonetheless, I was stunned one day to read mention of our organization characterized as "anti-semitic" by the ADL in a national publication. To have provided such erroneous information to the author of the article the ADL either had to have been grossly negligent in its gathering and analysis of facts or had to be pursuing other agenda in using the clout of its pronouncements. I rather think it may have been the latter (the organization was Constitutional and anti-income tax, while the ADL probably harbors more than its share of socialists who bristle at any challenge to the taxing authority of the state). My qualification to judge the ADL's deficiency in this matter was absolute. I had personally written and/or reviewed every piece of literature the organization had published, including newsletters, from its inception. There was no propagation of policy or position with which I was not personally acquainted, and nowhere had the organization ever published anything that could even vaguely be interpreted as anti-semitic. So I regard the ADL with extreme suspicion, not on the vaporous basis of pre-judgement or hearsay but on the solid basis of having been visited with unwarranted and groundless personal damage at their hands, not unlike the small club of people who know the treachery of Sixty Minutes for what it is by personal experience. The ADL does its proclaimed purpose a radical disservice by verging sharply from the straight and narrow that is mandatory in any holier-than-thou endeavor. I would lay down my life for any of a number of my Jewish friends, but I wouldn't give the ADL the time of day even if the Apocalypse were upon us. VeracityMongerII

2 1

Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tuesday I stopped by the Freedom Forum's conference, where they released a report on the state of the First Amendment. It's worth checking out: http://www.freedomforum.org/newsstand/reports/sofa/intro.asp Each day of this nation's life, in meetings of school boards, library boards, city councils, state legislatures, and Congress itself, figures of respect and renown rise on behalf of a supportive public and proclaim, "I believe in the First Amendment, but" Each such announcement precedes a proposal to regulate our speech in order to elevate our lives. And so we have one of the more equisite ironies of a freedom-loving society: Americans truly believe they believe in free speech. Still, there is always that "but," that qualification of their commitment to the rights and values embedded in those 45 words of the First Amendment. In survey after survey, Americans stand steadfast in support of the general notion of free speech. In the particulars, however, we waver. When asked to countenance the very speech the First Amendment was drawn to protectthe speech of the radical, the rascal, even the revoltingwe become unsure. We do believe in free speech for ourselves, but for the most part we are not so sure about others, especially those whose words offend our taste, threaten our children, or challenge our convictions. Also at the conference: http://www.freedomforum.org/first/1997/12/16sofa.asp Keynote speaker Keen Umbehr told the audience that he lost his job, his community and even family and friends during his First Amendment battle with the county commission in Wabaunsee County, Kansas. Umbehr, who had a contract to haul the county's trash, also wrote editorials for the local newspaper, often alleging violations of law and other misconduct by the county commission. "What I wrote was true, and I could back it up," Umbehr said. "I believed that my constitutional rights were live and real, waiting to be activated. I felt that writing articles and speaking out about the government not only was my right, it was my duty to speak the truth, regardless of the fact that my whole livelihood was based on that county contract." The county terminated his contract in retaliation for his articles. Umbehr sued, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 1996 the court upheld Umbehr's free-speech rights. "The troops on the front lines of the First Amendment fight desperately need some help," Umbehr told the audience of attorneys, scholars and experts. "You have the knowledge in here, and they need it out there." -Declan

12 29

Crescendo News - Version 3.0 now available
by LiveUpdate News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're receiving this email because you downloaded Crescendo in the past, and we want to keep you posted on the latest developments here at LiveUpdate. We hope you are enjoying Crescendo! In case you haven't already heard, Crescendo version 3.0 has been released. This new version includes cool new features like auto-detach, playlist support, encryption, Java and JavaScript programmability and more. Download a copy today from http://www.liveupdate.com/dl.html. As an added bonus at this time of release, and to ensure an enjoyable listening experience, we can now offer you, for a limited time, the Roland Virtual Sound Canvas Music Pack (VSC-550W). This is Roland's software wavetable Sound Canvas and includes a complete set of software tools that will help you create and edit MIDI files for many uses. Included in the VSC-550W Music Pack: * The Roland GS software synthesizer, * Cakewalk Express music sequencing software and * DoReMiX unique music creation software all on one CD-ROM. The Roland Virtual Sound Canvas Music Pack sells regularly for $57. Add Crescendo PLUS for Netscape and Internet Explorer, and the entire package is worth almost $100. By special arrangement with Edirol Corporation (distributors of the Roland Sound Canvas in North America), when you purchase the Crescendo Plus Roland Edition today, you will receive all the above software listed for a special value price of only $65 (including Shipping & Handling!) Note: This offer is only available to addresses in North America. Simply go to http://www.liveupdate.com/soundcanvas.html and we'll send it right out to you! If you wish to be removed from this list, please send a message to newsletter(a)liveupdate.com. Warmest holiday wishes, Your friends at LiveUpdate

1 0

Re: message dependent hashcash => no double
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear (schear(a)lvdi.net) wrote: >We all know we must affix postage to our snailmail. >Its time to embrace the postal system's paradigm and educate the reminder >of the Net. That's an extremely bad analogy; we're not paying for the Net to carry our mail, because we've already paid our ISP for that. We're paying for remailers to process our mail or for humans to read it. A better analogy would be for snail-junkmail to include a five dollar bill to encourage people to open it rather than junk it unopened. (Of course this really only applies to real digital cash, but that's what hashcash is a substitute for.) Mark

1 0