December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Sadaam Burnore Strikes Again (was: Re: Keman the Klueless Strikes Again)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rfg(a)monkeys.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) wrote: > >Your looney maroon conspiracy theories that Ron Guilmette has been "stalking" > >you and is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened to you > >are simply more evidence of your paranoid mental state. > > I realize that you think that you are trying to do some good, but I'm > going to ask you nicely to please stop all of this baiting of Burnore. > Sure, he's basically kind of a dickhead, but what's the point? > > I want to be really really clear about this... What you are doing is > just making things worse. You aren't helping. In fact you are making > things worse by feeding his paranoia. (And it isn't entirely clear from > where I sit that he is entirely stable, so this is rather a dangerous > thing for you to do... not for you of course... posting anonymously... > but for me. It isn't you that's going to be signing hospital consent > forms when you finally push this guy over the edge and make him go postal. > I'd like you to consider that.) If you have evidence to support that conclusion, then do us all a favor and give it to the authorities so that Gary Burnore can receive the help he needs. I can apreciate your motivation to appease him. In the past, he's displayed a tendency to shift his abuse and attacks to someone else (like Scott Dentice) when you've done that. But shifting the focus of his attacks doesn't end them. I doubt that you're even the PRIMARY focus of his tirades anymore, even though that seems to be the impression he's trying to give. Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and the rest of the DataBasix wrecking crew seem to be on a power trip these days. The fact that he attempted to CONTROL you by posting embarassing information to the net and threatening to post more unless you stopped criticizing him gave us a glimpse of his real agenda. I doubt that discrediting Ron Guilmette forms more than a tiny fraction of his and Belinda's overall agenda. IMO, you and the fanciful charges he's made against you are only his excuse for doing what he's been doing. > P.P.S. If you have some beef about something that Burnore has done to > _you_ then alright. Talk about that and only that. If I have a beef > with Burnore please allow me the dignity of persuing that myself. I > don't need your help, and I don't need you to defend me. I can take > care of myself, thank you very much. Exactly. You've got to do what you've got to do, and I must do likewise. Perhaps I don't know the entire background of what's going on here, and if you'd care to enlighten us all, then by all means feel free to do so. My involvement in this controversy started when my account at Mailmasher suddenly stopped working and I learned that one of Gary Burnore's buddies, Billy McClatchie (who calls himself "Wotan"), was behind the attack that shut it down. I might never have connected that attack to Gary until he and Belinda Bryan tried something similar against another remailer also operated by Jeff Burchell and Jeff chose to go public with an expose (post-mortem, unfortunately) of the abusive tactics that DataBasix had employed (see URL at the bottom), including a situation where Belinda Bryan attempted to impersonate an attorney in demanding that Jeff turn over all of his user logs to DataBasix. As it turns out, Mr. Burchell wisely kept no such logs, but what use do you suppose Gary might found for the e-mail addresses contained in those logs, had he succeeded in obtaining them? When Gary uses you as an excuse to try and violate my privacy and that of other remailer users, then it becomes my business. > Am I making myself clear? Butt out. When I need you, I'll let you know. > In the meantime, fight your own fights. That's exactly what I'm doing. And I'd suggest that you do likewise. If you have reasonable cause to believe that Gary Burnore would resort to violence against you, then take any and all necessary steps to protect yourself. But don't expect everyone else to shut up in an attempt to appease Burnore. If and when he chooses another pretext to attack the right to speak freely on the net, then I'll challenge him on that. Don't flatter yourself in thinking that this is primarily about you. Gary is a CONTROL FREAK. He has some underlying need to control what's said on the net. When he can't refute the MESSAGE, he attempts to punish the MESSENGER. While you certainly saw that happen in your case, you're far from unique. And when the MESSENGER is beyond his reach (posting anonymously or whatever), he attacks the CHANNELS of communication instead. When one such attack affected me, then it became my business. (A later search in DejaNews confirmed that I was not the first anonymous poster to draw file from Gary Burnore.) Involving you in this is Gary's choice, not mine. When he makes claims such as "Ron Guilmette used an anonymous remailer to forge my name", or "rfg sent anonymous letters to harass a teenage girl with a web page at DataBasix" in order to attack remailers, then you've just become unwittingly involved in the debate. Ignoring Gary and his provocations doesn't work, because he goes out of his way to pick fights with other remailer users. For example, he recently butted into a thread over on alt.privacy.anon-server with an anti-remailer tirade. Someone merely posted a technical question about how to do something with a remailer interface software package and was treated to a "reply" about how remailers were being used by you to "spam bait" him. In fact, he did this with two different threads. If you haven't been following that saga, I'd invite you to read Jeff Burchell's account of Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and Billy McClatchie's attacks on his remailers at: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html If you come up with a way to prevent similar future attacks by Gary Burnore, then please share it.

1 0

Re: "Good job NANAE. You really fucked up royally." -- DataBasix
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+spam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ^^^^^ Netcom is now requiring "truth in labelling", eh? > : Cat got his tongue? > > I was busy. Surely now you'll try to figure out what I was doing. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, since you seem to be so intent on taunting your readers with your latest mischief. If you're dying to tell us, then feel free to do so. Otherwise, drop it. Your call. > : Really? Then why are you hiding your own post from being archived by a neutral > : third party? Trying to maintain "plausible deniability" if you post something > : you later regret saying and want to claim it was "forged"? > > What does DejaNews have to be with this? You can save all of her/my posts on > your own if you want to. *No doubt, you've already done that* so why > complain? So you can claim that anything you posted that later proves to be too embarassing was "forged", right? That's a lot easier to do if you don't sign them with the PGP key which you keep advertising in your bloated .sig, and you make sure they aren't archived by any NEUTRAL third party. (Remember when you called someone else [who shall remain nameless at his request] a "coward" for hiding HIS posts behind an "X-No-Archive" header?) Many readers will remember that you were whining pitifully a few months ago about how remailers were allegedly being used to "forge" posts in your name. You were given several suggestions, one of which was to install PGP, generate a key, and use it to sign *ALL* of your genuine posts. Your huge .sig now contains the fingerprint of a PGP public key that YOU ARE STILL NOT USING. Still trying to maintain "plausible deniability" for your posts? And then a few weeks ago you butted into technical question posted to alt.privacy.anon-server about Private Idaho with the implication that the person asking the question wanted to know the answer so that he/she could commit "forgery". If you're so concerned about forgery, why have you not bothered to try what was already suggested the last time you launched into your "remailer users are abusive assholes" tirade? > : Posing as a > : "lawyer" for DataBasix, you demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over all of his > : user logs to you and Gary, just as the so-called "Church" of $cientology > : did with the anon.penet.fi remailer in Finland last year. > > She never posed as a lawyer. Yet another of your lies. 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? 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. > : The end > : result was the same in both cases, too. Both remailers shut down to avoid > : the continued harassment from people like you, Gary, and Helena. I hope > : you're proud of yourselves. > > Even the remailer operator proved you wrong. Nice try liar. It's not going > to work anymore. It's your abuse that's not going to work anymore. You've cried wolf once too often about "abuse", "forgery", and other imagined offenses. The remailer operator did not "prove me wrong". Reread his post when you're sober: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html 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! You can call remailer users "liars" and "anonymous assholes" to your heart's content, but your censorious actions and those of your associates at DataBasix speak for themselves. --

1 0

Re: Non Logging News Servers? Try #2
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lcs Remailer Administrator <mix-admin(a)nym.alias.net> wrote: > The unfortunate reality is that almost all news servers log, and there > is no way to tell if you don't actually have an account on the server. > There may be privacy conscious ISPs that actually promote the fact > that they don't log, but I don't know of any to recommend. > > The point of putting that in the help file was also to make people > realize there is a trade-off. Posting to news groups might not > actually be the safest solution. Basically, if you are more worried > about the remailer operators, alt.anonymous messages is probably the > best place to send messages. However, if you are more worried about > your employer/ISP than about the remailer operators, then it probably > makes more sense just to have an ordinary e-mail reply block. One solution to this problem is to run your own personal news server like "souper" that gathers ALL new news article in a certain NG and stores them locally for off-line reading. If you're consistently pulling news messages for the alt.anonymous.messages NG off of a certain server, it could be reasonably inferred that you are the intended recipient of at least SOME of those messages. But if you use a client that invariably grabs all the new messages each time, it would be rather difficult to determine which messages you are interested in. To avoid traffic analysis, use a software program to pull the messages for you. If you do it manually, even if you try to pull them all, you will undoubtedly read and save them in a certain order, or spend more time reading certain ones that will betray your interest in certain messages. As for employers, any of them that are sophistocated enough to be monitoring NNTP connections and creating a profile of your reading habits probably also have their own firewall and news server. IOW, if they run their own news server and carry a certain NG, then they'd have a hard time objecting to your reading it. It would probably be wise to assume a worst-case scenario and only deviate from it when you're sure it's safe to do so. For example, suppose you used a pseudonym to publish an article that was critical of the current Ayatollah in Iran, or perhaps deemed offensive to Islam in general, and you were sentenced to death in absentia ... if they can find and identify you. (Sort of an anonymous Salmon Rushdie.) Start out assuming you need that level of security and go from there. But if someone has gone to the trouble of setting up a 'nym, then he probably perceives a need for more than just a casual level of security. --

1 0

Without Laws, There Are No Rights
by damaged justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1]SIDEBAR [2][LINK] No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation ****No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation 11/28/97 BANGKOK, THAILAND, 1997 NOV 28 (NB) -- By Sasiwimon Boonruang, Bangkok Post. Finding a consensus on how the Internet should be regulated in Thailand is proving to be a difficult task, experts say. Attorney General Office Prosecutor Shinnawat Thongpakdee said the law defines and protects human rights and duties and inevitably involves itself with human behavior. As the Internet is a phenomenon related with human behavior as well, it would "unavoidably" be involved with the law as well. There are several "rights" involved with Internet information: the right to control access to information, right of information use, right of copying information, and the right to publicize information. These rights cannot be separated, he said. The rights come from several laws - "without laws, there are no rights," the prosecutor said. [And a BIG, HEARTY RASPBERRY to this CLUELESS MORON!] In the Internet world, the producers of information own the copyright to their work, and consequently, any law regarding the Internet should also go hand in hand with copyright laws. There is no solution at the moment as to whether there should be compulsory laws regarding the Internet because it's difficult to use legal means to enforce such laws, and they would also vary greatly from one country to the next. One practical approach would be drawing up of a worldwide conventional agreement regarding Internet regulation, allowing each country to sign off of their own choosing. At the very least, he said, we should accumulate information concerning the Internet in order to consider what should be allowed or prohibited - this information would be useful in the future. Mr Shinnawat added that Internet technology is very new for the legal sector and other societies, and it was difficult to make any conclusions in legal term about the Internet at the moment. He said the Internet provided the opportunity for all - rich and poor alike - to access and make use of information, even though the reality would be that the gap between rich and poor would grow even wider. According to Internet Thailand Service Center (ITSC) President Trin Tantsetthi, infringement on the Internet has increased greatly during the last year, and laws regarding the Internet would be very hard to enforce. For example, there were already 30,000 documents on the Internet in Thailand already. Copyright infringements on the works of others was wrong in both moral and legal terms, he said, but using legal means to deal with it would prove difficult. Social pressures might be an alternative. Wanchai Kanti, of Thammasat University, said people should have freedom of speech and freedom to express opinions, and that the flow of information "should not be closed", especially to academic institutes. There should not be laws to control Internet content, although opinions expressed should be done in a responsible manner. Reported By Newsbytes News Network: [3]http://www.newsbytes.com (19971128) [4]Copyright ©Newsbytes News Network. All rightsreserved. For more Newsbytes see http://www.newsbytes.com. [5]Home | [6]Daily | [7]Weekly | [8]Publishers | [9]Search References 1. http://www.newsbytes.com/menus/navbar.map 2. http://ad.preferences.com/click.ng;spacedesc=CliqTech_Newsbytes_468x60_CTGe… 3. http://www.newsbytes.com/ 4. http://www.nbnn.com/copyrght.html 5. http://www.nbnn.com/home.html 6. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_daily.html 7. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_week.html 8. http://www.nbnn.com/publishers/publi_1.html 9. http://www.nbnn.com/html_p/search.html

1 0

Microsoft Rides Again
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Micro$oft fucked me up the ass. Please help. I'm bleeding to death.

1 0

Re: The Illusion of Freedom
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Nerthus wrote: >>It makes nice rhetoric, but this is simply not true, you know. Most >>people correctly evaluate that you have no chance for freedom at all >>if you commit suicide, whereas a slave *does* have a chance. > >Assuming he recognizes that he *is* a slave. Most people are >oblivious to this fact. >>(By "irrational" here I am referring to behaviour clearly contrary >>to your own survival.) > >'Tis true. War is a perfect example of what happens when too many >people act irrationally. > >I'm interested in avoiding war without becoming a slave in the >process. Anyone else? Sounds like a good deal. However, most people who engage in war are not in any sense free and the single most apparent feature of life in a military organization is the elimination of freedom and privacy. It is most often the case that in order to wage war, one must first become enslaved. 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 iQEVAwUBNHEGF5aWtjSmRH/5AQFW2Qf/QoOWdyolTt1IxVUT5Nsa0qD4yog0JIK2 rPuBADWMCNtXh5ZilKdsCGz3Jmg7z5zgLQhvZS7vTLrLwEyPl/bNgai2el2ITUKX gH95qAEyHxZRqSuKEduhCK1sa6gCK+nXxKutpt2QhzGRhU7cSHMcyK/hPAX22jjC OWJib0w1pXKKpLQTHHI2Ec1HBJtzURc6HUU7GmDV7ntdAk37UvPUOQqA8470a8s3 TiGmjVKXljCXXfpA1udF8pPfloXOVn/ff4AxW8rjCJCUFqme3uPXDeaki2Ht5qn8 pnlAqA9A3dD4AotNWPnKGNl62FiJSjK3PrzzG3zxwYGqadgpt9d7Qw== =Pbt9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Overcoming War with Information
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty Cantsin writes: > What the Net and cypherpunkly tools create is a world in which there > are not easily identified disjoint sets because any particular net of > relationships that a person has tends to overlap the relationship nets > of other people who have a dissimilar set of relationships. > > This is a more reliable and robust world to live in because there is a > great deal of redundancy. That is, the elites of two countries cannot > conspire to use their respective sets of serfs as cannon fodder in > some ill advised adventure. It's hard to get excited about a war run > by people who are not your friends against people who happen to live > in another part of the world but with whom you have a relationship. Good point, but it's important to realize that these new attitudes are only available to people who have access to the tools. Much of the world is still trapped in a dark age, without access to the light brought by tools for communication. Powerful interests seek to keep them that way. Until that changes, the old mindset of us-against-them will continue to be a threat to peace. We as cypherpunks must be leaders in encouraging wider access to communications and the tools which manage information. It's not right to target our message narrowly to the militias and racists who gravitate towards anti-government causes. We must be inclusive, offering encouragement to other cultures, other races, other countries. Anti-Japanese, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, anti-Arab sentiments will only hinder our success, and likewise with our emphasis on violence, killing, and death as solutions to problems. The fact that other cultures are often repressive in their own right is no excuse. The tools we offer will help them become more open-minded and inclusive. But we must set an example ourselves. It is a tragedy that the message of hate is being propagated within a technological movement which should foster openness and enlightenment. We can do better than this.

1 0

export restictions and investments
by Jyri Kaljundi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How do the US export restrictions affect investments into non-US crypto companies? Is it legal for US private persons or companies to invest money into companies developing strong crypto applications for example in Europe? Since Sun bought the Russian Elvis+ company it seems to be Ok, just wanted to check if there are any other opinions. Does anyone know of any other non-US companies that have received US investments, or venture capital or whatever? Jyri Kaljundi jk(a)stallion.ee AS Stallion Ltd http://www.stallion.ee/

6 5

obPoliticalIncorrect
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- BTW, did you hear about the blonde who walked into a bar with a headset on? The bartender said, "Take them off, you can't wear those in here." She replied that she couldn't whereupon the bartender ripped them off her. She collapsed immediately and was dead by the time the Rescue Squad arrived. This happened three days in a row with different blonds. Finally, the bartender picked up the headphones and listened. He heard "Breathe In. Breathe Out. Breathe IN. Breath Out." - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNHGPGo9Co1n+aLhhAQHkgQP/dPm7AXSX6qT7NFBN4/CNkNfHjDwwmB6o FjWwYFlO42ZxhZmwAKqm3+hhYDSV9c7+JD23DV24+i3+VPKNU1ZMEcFI9XKqu3qk 51CrkCx/qw5J08zWdsdnuyDTFebjf0IMi+3kXC0Abu8kmGUWpDlTnMeiDYN2QOtG Vj70qyBm1zg= =kLk4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

ICC on E-Commerce
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jyri Kaljundi wrote: >There were some reports released lately by the International Chamber of >Commerce (http://www.iccwbo.org/) also. These were in connection with >World Business Agenda for Electronic Commerce conference some days ago in >Paris. Most of the materials seemed to be there on the web. Yes, and good reports they are. We've mirrored one of them: "Guide to International Digitally Ensured Commerce": http://jya.com/guidec2.htm (130K)

1 0