December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Steak Knife Decryption (fwd)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Trei ----- >From trei(a)process.com Mon Jun 9 18:21:21 1997 Message-Id: <199706091411.KAA26392(a)www.video-collage.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is <trei@popserver> From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> Organization: Process Software To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home), cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net, mpd(a)netcom.com Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 10:20:41 -6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Steak Knife Decryption Reply-to: trei(a)process.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) > Subject: Re: Steak Knife Decryption > To: mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:44:15 -0500 (CDT) > Cc: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > Organization: Bool Sheet Software > Reply-to: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > Mike Duvos wrote: > > > I am not quite clear if rational people can get something out of > torturing other rational people. Maybe, I am confused and wrong > somewhere. > - Igor. Torture is a means of producing an irrational state in people's minds (at least temporarily), thus causing them to do things they would not rationally do (sign a prepared confession, reveal a secret, etc) If torture could not do this, it would not be used; verbal persuasion over tea and crumpets is *so* much more pleasant. Even people who might be able to face a more or less painless death with equanimity (in the pursuit of some greater cause) may break down as the bamboo splints are pushed under their fingernails. 'Rational torture victim' is an oxymoron. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Trei -----

1 0

Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here are some of my responses on another list... --Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:46:47 -0400 To: "Vangelis" <vangelis(a)qnis.net> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> Subject: How "child porn" laws ban pix of girls in leotards At 11:54 -0700 6/9/97, Vangelis wrote: >None of this out-of-control angry mob shit, alright? THINK. If it's too >hard a task to go after ONLY those genuinely responsible and you'd rather >go after their friends, family, co-workers, customers, or anyone else >you've rationalized as somehow indirectly encouraging the activity w/o >actually participating, then you've got no business playing vigilante - >you've become just another wreckless crusader *blinded* by his own >self-righteous outrage. Christianity, the Nazi Party, and Prohibition, and >McCarthyism (just to name a few) have already given us enough of those. This is well said. Read that paragraph again. The true enemy here is *NOT* the pervs trading child porn. It's the censorhappy wackos who want to censor others. The main reason folks seem to be in a lather about the "threat" of child porn is that it might ruin the Net for everyone. That is, it gives Congress an excuse to censor it and bring it under ever-tightening controls. But isn't it clear that the true enemy is the censor? Stamp out child porn and then Congress will use Nazi sites, or regular porn sites, or sites that collect personal information as an excuse and justification for censorship. That's why you should attack the censors (and the real child molestors), not those trading dirty JPEGs. Also, I see a lot of uninformed rants on this list about "we must uphold child porn laws." Few people seem to realize that the long-standing Federal child porn law outlawed *pictures of dancing girls wearing leotards*. I'm not making this up. No nudity. No breasts. Certainly no genitals. But the Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the Knox case. Now the law is even worse, since it criminalizes morphed images that *look* like kids in leotards, even if the models were 25-year old adults. Be cautious when praising such laws. -Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:10:42 -0400 To: Tepes <tepes(a)reincarnate.com> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> Subject: Re: My War At 06:59 -0400 6/9/97, Tepes wrote: >Yeah, a friend of mine accidentally came across kiddie-porn a few months >ago. She e-mailed all the headers, etc. to Customs' Child Porn dept. and >they e-mailed her back saying that they really can't do anything about it. >What the hell do they have a Child Porn task force if they can't do >anything about it! Perhaps because Customs has nothing to do with enforcement of domestic laws? I hope you're not proposing expanding the police powers of the Feds. I mean, your friend is doing the equivalent of asking the National Park Service why she isn't getting her welfare checks on time. >What is also equally sick is rape porn. Excuse me, but what is "rape porn?" What, a picture of two people having sex that's titled "rape?" Not quite. Just like those pictures of a 40 year old guy and a 20 year old girl having "incest sex," it's a fantasy. Free speech. Don't sweat it. Let others enjoy their fantasies. -Declan

2 1

hidden.net temporarily down
by Patrick May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The magic smoke escaped from the machine running remailer(a)hidden.net. It is being moved to a new machine forthwith. Expect a couple days downtime while the IP address change propogates. remailer-admin(a)hidden.net

1 0

Call 4 Participation
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: blacklodge.c2.net: majordom set sender to owner-spki(a)c2.org using -f Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Yahya Al-Salqan <Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com> Reply-To: Yahya Al-Salqan <Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com> Subject: Call 4 Participation To: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com, spki(a)c2.net Cc: SECURITY-TF(a)ILLILOUETTE.Sun.COM, Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-spki(a)c2.net Precedence: bulk The second IEEE International Workshop on Enterprise Security will take place next week (June 18-21) at the MIT. The workshop will host a Panel discussion on the "Future of the Internet Security at the IETF." The Panelist are: 1) Carl Ellison, CyberCash, SPKI author at the IETF 2) Don Eastlake, CyberCash, Secure DNS author at the IETF 3) Perry Mitzger, Co-chair of SPKI and SecSH at the IETF 4) Tatu Ylonen, author SSH at IETF 5) Steve Lloyd, Entrust 6) Tom Polk, NIST, editor of PKIX at teh IETF You are invited to take advantage of this opportunity to learn about the future of Internet security. Visit http://www.cerc.wvu.edy/SECWK/ for more information on the presentations and discussion groups. I look forward to meeting some of you at the Workshop, Best Regards, --Yahya Al-Salqan, PhD Sun Microsystems Enterprise Security General Chair --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Response to "My War"
by se7en 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been away for most of the day, and came home to see I hit a sensitive spot in one way or another with many people. I tried to respond to many people who sent me private messages, but for some strange ass reason all of my mail is bouncing as "host unknown." I am quite sure aol.com exists. So I am going to try and respond to much of it here. In my long rant, I realized the message was getting too long, and paraphrased some of my larger thoughts. I figured everyone would know what I was trying to get at, but I was wrong. To clarify a few points, before I get to the debate: I was not advocating the destruction of servers that are used by large numbers of people. I was thinking of the terminology used by the people trading...fserv/ftp servers, many of which are virtual to their desktops which can be shut on and off at will by them as desired. My reference to destruction of servers fit this definition. I don't want to affect large numbers of innocent users to get the few scumbags out there. That is not acceptable. Precision strikes yes, not mass strikes for the "greater good." That is asinine. Nor was I attempting, as some did point out, to be some sort of "ring leader" in this crusade. I do not plan to organize some large anti-kiddie porn team. I plan on spending a few hours a week, on my own, identifying active participants in this activity. I plan on gathering logs of various types of activity to justify my actions. I plan on taking action which will affect only these individuals. I will make public postings on my own accord to various places on the Internet (dc-stuff WILL NOT be one of these places). These are things I am doing on my own. If others would like to join the effort, I would ask they do the same thing. Spend a few hours a week in their world to identify the traders and do what you do best to either wreck them or make things a serious hassle for them to continue. I do not want a personal strike team to organize and manage. As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and upload it to the Internet. No one has the right to force a six year old girl to suck his dick until cum is running down her face, take pictures of the whole thing, and, once again, upload it to the Internet. This is not covered. Go back to school if you think it is. Anyone who thinks this doesn't affect the young children, you are wrong. I doubt these children consented to the sexual activity. I doubt they consented to being photographed. I doubt they consented to the pictures being distributed to others. I am sure this affects the emotional/psychological state of the child victim in many ways beyond what most of us can understand. I think we can all agree that is creates a less-than-optimal psychological state in the children. I know my actions are themselves illegal. I am not going to try to morally justify it with comments such as "It's for the greater good," or "What they are doing is more illegal than hacking." I know my actions against these people are illegal, and many for good reason. It is destruction of property. I am honest enough to admit I will be breaking laws. At least I don't try to rationalize it behind some strange, twisted sense of logic. I am not here to force my morals on anyone. If you agree with me, fine. If you have the ability to do something about it, fine. If you disagree, fine. I have had some disagreements against my email/plan/whatever. I have read evry single one of them. I do not hate those who disagree with me. I see the logic in their arguments. I actually encourage it, as it helps me to define what I plan to do better. Everyone has the right to say what they want, whether they agree or not. That includes me, that includes you. This, of course, as long as it doesn't violate the more fundamental rights of others. Agree with me? Yes. Disagree with me? Yes. Distribute child porn. No! On an interesting note, in instances where I have talked one-on-one with law enforcement agencies in the past, I have thrown several hypothetical cases their way to judge their reaction: (A small glimpse of my Defcon speech) ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and poked around a left, would you arrest me?" THEM: "No. We don't have the time or resources for that. We aren't interested in the people who look around without causing damage despite what everyone thinks." ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and destroyed it, would you arrest me." THEM: "Most definitely." ME: "If I was at Defcon and entered a system without authorization that was dedicated to the distribution of child pornography and destroyed it, and you were looking over my shoulder the whole time and saw what I did, would you arrest me?" THEM" "I would turn around and walk away." se7en

3 2

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I really don't think that se7en just wants to censor the kiddie porn sites; I think he is on a personal vendetta (like McVeigh). He didn't call for anyone to support legislation and propose new, tough laws, but called for hackers to go after this particular target. On the net anyone is prey, remember; kiddie porn dealers not exempted. It's moot to discuss whether eliminating a few thousand digital images will make any difference on the availability/market desireability of these pictures (I expect these are all backed up somewhere, anyway, so destroying them probably wouldn't actually make much difference, but just anger the owners.) How many photos of real children arranged into sexual poses or imposed upon to perform sexual acts does it take to satisfy an addict? How many photos which are not duplicates do these people actually possess, and how many more do they seek to obtain? Is it the number of them, or the thrill of the "new"? That a certain number of these photos are in circulation may not be so important as the fact that they are "new" (to the person looking to get them). This means that having free circulation of large numbers of images may be beside the point (I am speculating and calculating based on almost total ignorance of the psychology of this type of individual). If these pedophiles just want to fantasize, I would offer they could get a package of Macromedia Freehand or Director and Photoshop and create their own. But that probably wouldn't be satisfactory to them. I expect there is something in the qualities and character of real children which draw them. But I digress. The subject was hacking at your own chosen target. Some people hack children's innocence; some people hack the hackers. Que sera' sera'. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:Response to 'My War'
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James A Donald writes: > fAt 10:07 PM 6/9/97 -0700, se7en wrote: > > Anyone who thinks this doesn't affect the young children, you are wrong. > > I doubt these children consented to the sexual activity. I doubt they > > consented to being photographed. I doubt they consented to the pictures > > being distributed to others. > > Most of these children are adults now. A great many of them are > grandmothers. Yet I see no prosecutions for the distribution of > images by the supposed victims. [...] > Produce a victim and you will find it a lot easier to prosecute. See http://www.net.be/connerotte/english-text.html for the timeline of last year's child sex & porn scandal in Belgium. Some of the victims there will never bring suit: they are dead. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

2 1

A Design for Life
by Shift Control 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This week the award-winning Shift Control presents... The Design Issue David Carson, former surfing pro turned international advertising consultant, is one of the most influential and instantly recognisable graphic designers of his generation. Edo van Duyn talks to him in a Shift Control exclusive. The Royal College of Art's Industrial Design Engineering course has over the years moulded some of Britain's greatest creative talents - including the inventor of the Dual Cyclone vacuum, James Dyson. Shift Control talks to some of this year's graduates to discover the gadgets and gizmos of tomorrow. And Andrew Byrom presents a guide to contemporary typography - the ubiquitous, ephemeral and disposable art form that's defining design in the Nineties. Also this week, Shift Control launches the Design Gallery - a brand new section featuring the some of the best examples of British art and design. Plus: Shift Control announces the creation of the world's first bionic bee, and you have another chance to win £200 in our short story competition. All this plus the usual selection of rants, reckoners, reviews and revelations, waiting for you NOW at www.shiftcontrol.com _____________________________________________ Shift Control is produced by the Guardian's New Media Lab with help from Boddingtons and Stella Artois Dry To unsubscribe from this mailing list send e-mail to shiftcontrol-request(a)nml.guardian.co.uk with the following text in the body of the mail message: unsubscribe

1 0

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Subject: How "child porn" laws ban pix of girls in leotards > > At 11:54 -0700 6/9/97, Vangelis wrote: > >None of this out-of-control angry mob shit, alright? THINK. If it's too > >hard a task to go after ONLY those genuinely responsible and you'd rather > >go after their friends, family, co-workers, customers, or anyone else > >you've rationalized as somehow indirectly encouraging the activity w/o > >actually participating, then you've got no business playing vigilante - > >you've become just another wreckless crusader *blinded* by his own > >self-righteous outrage. Christianity, the Nazi Party, and Prohibition, and > >McCarthyism (just to name a few) have already given us enough of those. It seems logical to deduce that a child pornographer would want to cover up their activity by loud protestations about child porno on the internet. The obvious solution to child pornography on the internet is to attack those who most loudly protest against it. > The main reason folks seem to be in a lather about the "threat" of child > porn is that it might ruin the Net for everyone. That is, it gives Congress > an excuse to censor it and bring it under ever-tightening controls. Perhaps the answer, as with alcohol and gambling, is to put child pornography under government regulatory control. Find a way to tax it. Then only those who were not decent, law-abiding child pornographers would have to fear imprisonment. > Also, I see a lot of uninformed rants on this list about "we must uphold > child porn laws." Few people seem to realize that the long-standing Federal > child porn law outlawed *pictures of dancing girls wearing leotards*. I'm > not making this up. No nudity. No breasts. Certainly no genitals. But the > Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the Knox case. Now the law is even > worse, since it criminalizes morphed images that *look* like kids in > leotards, even if the models were 25-year old adults. And William Geiger could be criminalized by the fact that his bad speling and the gramma make his posts *look* like crypto. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Comrade Declan: Thank you for labeling se7en's thoughtcrime as such and blocking his subversive and enturbulating assertions from the fight-censorship mailing list. The counterrevolutionary sedition that there is such a thing as kiddie porn on the Holy Internet shall be suppressed forthwith. Verily, traitor to the Holy Cause se7en is naught but an NSA Shill, who belongs in the Pit of Despair with the other thought criminals. Operation Free Speech II is proceeding according to the Five-Year Plan. - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEPAwUBM50l2kFGBFr0lf2RAQGRsgfLB6Fqg6Cefsr5u0zI9DIE2JD1I3fB6q0l c+JEgnbpqpVWH9kqzY/tQxP78dh/pUUOIGzNuohIoad8f70BSp6PJUoQbaVrV5+p K3SsTDxTIwZ77ubJSkPtean1RJRY8Nerv42CGrkSWo/HsdHBE6GH0pmDzBDgCAoS BIXJvg4FM44wGAX+uWfiKd9JK/F3m9a/6m4sUOhmZEBIXF8GYa1TQQBlDOuuNqsM dfYNQnu74TyhQM4qHEC9fqr+t4yC2bnemcVWVk8ddkM/vNMqrGfbyimLV7vsl30s 31aDJ5VoWVrcxV2qLCDxAJPTlxHeGtFRWCfmswRZ/U1eMw== =M9iS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0