December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

replay.com
by The Sheriff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greets, kiddies! Quick question. Has anything constructive come out of nobody(a)replay.com in the past month? I've just signed on with this mailing list, and all I ever read from that anon addy is a flame regarding one person or another. Personally, unless at least a couple folks using replay.com have pitched in usefull information in the past while, I'm irate enough to open up my .kill file. Thanks for your help, The Sheriff.

1 0

new
by wtshaw＠itexas.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jsjia jixrb xpmmt i/bhi tigzz wvrsy smyvo rhxvi jrznw uvyjl nnpye ajsbq bwirh -- wtshaw(a)itexas.net--crypto: maintaining the right to develop, publish, and distribute works of my own creation. Bernstein case: appeal to be heard on December 8th

1 0

Nobody will debate John Gilmore on crypto?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[John Gilmore stopped by for this afternoon's crypto gathering to update us on the Bernstein lawsuit. Seems odd to me that he can't find someone to defend the administration's stance on encryption, especially since NSA's headquarters is close to the University of Maryland. --Declan] ============== Subject: Gilmore speech in Baltimore on encryption policy, Tues night Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:35:12 -0800 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> To: cme(a)cybercash.com, declan(a)well.com From: "Dr. Alan Sherman" <sherman(a)cs.umbc.edu> The UMBC Security Technology Research Group presents Two Divergent Views on Encryption Policy: I. Wisdom and Constitutionality in U.S. Cryptography Policy John Gilmore, Co-Founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation II. A Government Perspective on Encryption Policy [Will anyone from the U.S. Government agree to speak??*] Two divergent views on the topic of encryption policy by freedom activist John Gilmore and by a government official, if one agrees to speak. Journalist Peter Wayner will moderate the event, which is free and open to the public. Note: If no one from the U.S. Government is willing to explain and discuss Government encryption policy, then the event will proceed with John Gilmore alone. 8-10:30 pm Tuesday, December 16, 1997 Lecture Hall III (in Administration Building) University of Maryland Baltimore County http://www.cs.umbc.edu/events/fall97/crypto.shtml The fifth employee of Sun Microsystems and a strong believer in the U.S. Constitution, John Gilmore is currently involved in litigation against several government agencies over matters of freedom of information, freedom of expression, and encryption policies. He will discuss the constitutionality of controlling encryption. Directions: Take Exit #47B off interstate I-95 and follow signs to UMBC. LH III is on the ground floor of the (tall) administration building, adjacent the visitor's parking lot, near the I-95 entrance to UMBC. Host: Dr. Alan T. Sherman Associate Professor, Computer Science sherman(a)cs.umbc.edu http://www.umbc.edu (410) 455-2666 This event is held in cooperation with the UMBC Intellectual Sports Council Honors College Phi Beta Kappa honors society CMSC Council of Majors IFSM Council of Majors * The following U.S. Government officials declined to speak on December 16: Barry Smith (Supervisory Special Agent, FBI) [Mr. Smith has agreed in principle to speak at UMBC in the spring on a law enforcement view of encryption policy; the evening of Dec 16 turned out to be a bad time for him.] William Reinsch (Undersecretary for Export Administration, BXA) Bob Litt (Attorney General's Office, DoJ) Scott Charney (Computer Crimes, DoJ) Bruce McConnell (Information Policy, OMB) Ron Lee (General Counsel, NSA) Dr. Clint Brooks (Director, Cryptographic Policy, NSA) Charlotte Knepper (Co-Chair, Inter-Agency Working Group on Encryption Policy) Chris McLean (Staffer for Senator Bob Kerry; helped draft legislation on encryption policy) I am still hopeful to find a second speaker by Tuesday evening.

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Foulmouthed Timothy May rehashes his lies like a rabid parrot choking on a stale mantra stuck in its poisonous beak. o/ \ / \ / / \o /# ##o # o## #\ Timothy May / \ / \ /o\ / |\ / \

2 1

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