December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Tremble Bureaucrats
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Gov May Tighten Crypto Exports
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Markoff reports today on a plan to tighten crypto exports for non-bank financial companies and reactions from industry trying to loosen them: http://www.nytimes.com Mirrored: http://jya.com/tighten.txt

2 1

BIOS Help
by Brandon Crosby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, Does anyone know where specs for Award BIOS chips are? I accidentily locked mine and lost the password. -Brandon Crosby

3 2

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 00:46:22 EST > While I have no love for the japs, I mus point out in all fairness that > FDR was attacking them on all fronts for years: 1) stopping the japs > from immigrating into the us, 2) cutting off their supplies of raw > materials (and therefore pushing the japs to conquer the territories > that would assure the supply). In particular, right before the japs > attacked pearl harbor, the US embargoed oil shipments to the japs. > The japs had said previously that they'd consider such an embargo > as a declaration of war. In particular, their line about p.h. was > that it wasn't a "sulplise attack", and that the US had previously > declared war on the japs by imposing the embargo. The Japanese joined the Tri-partite on Sept. 27, 1940. 5 days later it began its first attacks in Indo-china, 13 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. America was shocked by these acts and interpreted them as openly hostile and tended to strengthen Chian Kai-shek's claims as the legitimate Chinese authority. Prior to this signing Japanese forces had advanced up the Kowloon Peninsula to glair through the wire at Hong Kong. Tokyo demanded the British close the Burma Road and cease all war material trade with China. The British requested the Americans invoke a general embargo as well as moving naval forces to the western Pacific. The Americans rejected all these suggestions. They had moved the Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Pearl Harbor. Because of the upcoming election it was felt that such actions would be interpreted as support for the British colonialism which was politicaly unacceptable to much of America. The British responded by offering to close the Burma Road for 3 months (during the monsoon season when there was little traffic to interrupt). Only in July of 1940, 2 months before Japan signed the act, did Roosevelt finaly put an embargo in place which covered aviation fuel, lubricants, and certain scrap iron and steel. In September the regulations were tightened. Only in Nov. after being re-elected did he include copper, zinc, brass, oil-drilling equipment, and other strategic materials. It's important to note that as early as January 1941 the Emporer had ordered Yamamoto to review the attack on Hawaii. Presumably because he felt uncomfortable with the entire thing. So the time line is something like this: 15 months prior to Pearl Harbor the US places an embargo on Japan presumably because of their aggressive policies. 13 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor the Japanese sign the Tri-partite Act. 12 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor the Emporer gets cold feet and orders a review of the plan. > My recollection is that Hitler's generla staff was busily designing the > plans for invading the US, to be implemented after he was done with > the GB and the USSR. They involved invading via his latin american > allies (notably mexico) and possibly canada. However there was no > way to sell the war against germany to the american public, except > as part of a package deal with the war on japs. Actualy at the time, German invasion through Mexico was felt to be a real possibility. There was significant build-up of both covert agents in Mexico as well as military forces along the border during this time. Note, I would appreciate any references to the regulation of Japanese nationals transiting through or applying for residence in the US during this period. Can't say that I've ever seen this issue in anything I've read. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord ?"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"cracker"} = "<remailer(a)anon.efga.org> cpunk mix remix pgp hash ksub esub latent cut ek reord post"; $remailer{'redneck'} = '<config(a)anon.efga.org> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"bureau42"} = "<remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org> cpunk mix pgp ksub hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"neva"} = "<remailer(a)neva.org> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub ?"; $remailer{"lcs"} = "<mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> mix"; $remailer{"medusa"} = "<medusa(a)weasel.owl.de> mix middle" $remailer{"McCain"} = "<mccain(a)notatla.demon.co.uk> mix middle"; $remailer{"valdeez"} = "<valdeez(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"arrid"} = "<arrid(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"hera"} = "<goddesshera(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"htuttle"} = "<h_tuttle(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp hash latent cut post ek"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix reno winsock) (weasel squirrel medusa) (cracker redneck) (nym lcs) (valdeez arrid hera) This remailer list is somewhat phooey. Go check out http://www.publius.net/rlist.html for a good one. Last update: Thu 23 Oct 97 15:48:06 PDT remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- hera goddesshera(a)juno.com ------------ 5:03:45 99.86% nym config(a)nym.alias.net +*#**#**### :34 95.82% redneck config(a)anon.efga.org #*##*+#**** 2:00 95.44% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com +++ ++++++* 19:18 95.27% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de -- ---+--- 2:34:19 95.16% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net *++***+ ++ 11:26 95.11% replay remailer(a)replay.com **** *** 10:06 94.93% arrid arrid(a)juno.com ----.------ 8:50:34 94.41% bureau42 remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org --------- 3:38:29 93.53% cracker remailer(a)anon.efga.org + +*+*+*+ 16:32 92.80% jam remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca + +*-++++ 24:14 92.79% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net -..-..---- 9:59:18 92.22% neva remailer(a)neva.org ------****+ 1:03:02 90.39% valdeez valdeez(a)juno.com 4:58:22 -36.97% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net 1:01:28 -2.65% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:45:35 -0500 (EST) > From: Jon Galt <jongalt(a)pinn.net> > Subject: Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism > being committed. (Of course there is another definition of crime.) How about an act which harms a person or their property without their prior permission? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism (fwd)
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:19:18 -0600 From: TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> Reply-To: 6ualdv8(a)sk.sympatico.ca To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes(a)ssds.com> Subject: Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism Jim Burnes wrote: > (ahem...now back to your regularly scheduled silliness) Jim, Did you get enough drugs to share with *everybody*? Actually I'm fresh out. I think I'll go back to the coffee pot and brew some more... ;-)

1 0

Re: Further costs of war
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th >being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what >the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? 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 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Further costs of war
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th >being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what >the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? 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 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Free speech and jlist groups press conf on ratings (12/1)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** MEDIA ADVISORY ** Press Conference on Internet Ratings and Filtering WHO: Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA) WHAT: Press conference announcing the formation of IFEA, a coalition of organizations devoted to the continuation of the Internet as a forum for open expression and to identify new threats to free expression and First Amendment values on the Internet, whether legal or technological. WHEN: Monday, December 1, 12:30 p.m. WHERE: First Amendment Lounge National Press Club 14th & F Streets, N.W. Washington, DC WHY: To address the free speech issues raised by proposals to rate and filter "objectionable" content on the Internet. These proposals will be featured prominently at the White House-endorsed "Internet Online Summit" that opens on December 2. Representatives of the following IFEA member organizations will be available for comment: American Civil Liberties Union American Society of Newspaper Editors Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center Feminists for Free Expression Institute for Global Communications National Campaign for Freedom of Expression National Coalition Against Censorship Society of Professional Journalists CONTACT: David Sobel, EPIC: 202-544-9240 David Greene, NCFE: 202-393-2787 Emily Whitfield, ACLU: 212-549-2566 ..

1 0