December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Welcome to Builder buzz!
by buzzreg＠central.cnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome, cypherpunk. You have registered as a provisional user for Builder buzz. To become a full member, please email the following member code line back to us, so we can confirm your email address. With most email programs, you can simply reply to this message. (If your email program doesn't include the previous message in its replies, you may need to cut and paste the member code line into the reply message.) MEMBER CODE: 1c72 qCf0zipj Thank you for joining us, and we look forward to having you visit often and participate completely in the Builder buzz conversations! Regards, Dan Shafer master builder and Builder buzz host

1 0

RE: export restictions and investments
by Jack Oswald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe that is correct. It is not a 100% ownership. Jack -----Original Message----- From: sameer [SMTP:sameer@c2.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 10:10 AM To: Rich Salz Cc: jk(a)stallion.ee; whgiii(a)invweb.net; cryptography(a)c2.net; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: export restictions and investments > > Are you really sure that they bought it all? That would go against what I am pretty sure that they have only a 10% stake in Elvis+. -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 President FAX: 510-986-8777 C2Net http://www.c2.net/ sameer(a)c2.net

1 0

Re: export restictions and investments
by Joichi Ito 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:01 97/11/19 -0800, via RadioMail wrote: > when i left the program, years ago, it was 10%. > > i do not know if something else was done later. > > ----- Original Message > > Date: 20 Nov 97 07:50 +0900 > From: Joichi Ito <jito(a)eccosys.com> > Subject: ELVIS+ > To: Jeff Rulifson <jeffr(a)Eng.Sun.COM> > > Jeff, > > what % share of ELVIS+ does Sun own? > > - Joi -- PGP Key: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2D9461F1 PGP Fingerprint: 58F3 CA9A EFB8 EB9D DF18 6B16 E48D AF2A 2D94 61F1 Home Page: http://domino.garage.co.jp/jito/joihome.nsf To subscribe to my personal mailing list send mailto:friends-subscribe@ji.to

1 0

Finger Narcs
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While wandering in the Twilight Zone that lays between sleep and being awake, I caught vague details of the following non-reality substantiated news story: Ontario, in order to combat the Iron Chariotman, Road Rage, has/will institue/d some citizen/government entity named 'Highway Rangers' (?), whose purpose is to arrest/narc-out drivers who 'flip the bird' to their fellow drivers, etc. I find it interesting that, upon awakening, I had neither the desire nor a reason for confirming/not the details of this news story, since, if it is _not_ true, it _could_ be. In short, I doubt that it is now possible to create an inner dream, or nightmare, which is more bizarre than the ludicrousness which is currently serving as our alleged Silver Screen of Reality. Go figure... TruthMonger

1 0

Re: From the Files - Freeh and Flight 800
by Alex Peshevski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have a copy of the CIA (FBI) Video simulation?? >>> John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> 20/11/97 12:09:58 >>> Marc Rotenberg wrote: > >FWIW, Kallstrom spent much of his time at the press >conference this week debunking the missle theory. >The FBI's explanation for why so many eyewitnesses >appeared to see a missile approach the plane boils >down to this: observers, alerted by the explosion, >were actually observing a wing falling away from >the plane. To amplify this a bit: the explanation also included the speculation of cascading fuel being ignited from the bottom and flaming upward, which could be interpreted by the observers as a missile rising. An interesting view which I wonder if any of our scientists here find credible. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall the CIA video showing upward flaming fuel, rather it showed a billowing explosion centered on the main fuel tank of the upturning fuselage (as the front cabin plummeted). Is it feasible that the fuel would ignite and flame upward that way or would it be too broadly dispersed by speed and the atmosphere to cause a coherent, shaped flame such as that of a missile tail? For example, would an adept pilot be able to tell the difference? This is posed because of the way several theories of the OKC blomb blast got it wrong due to overly narrow initial interpretation as did misinterpretations of other controversial "terrorisms." Perhaps Tim May is correct in his assessment of Jim, but NTSC's upcoming hearing should produce more reliable technical information than Kallstrom appears to be comfortable handling -- given his bent for melodrama fine details of investigation seem to be an annoyance, although he appeared to like the assurance of the CIA's virtual reality. Kallstrom also said that the case will remain open, I guess in case Boeing or TWA or something needs to be zapped by blind justice.

1 0

RE: export restictions and investments
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:12 AM 11/20/1997 +0100, Lucky Green wrote: >At this point a brief overview of modexp accelerators might be in order: >o the Belgian chips I've seen are too slow. >o the Rainbow board is OK, but non-exportable. >o the Chrysalis PCMCIA card has the same performance as the Rainbow board >at half the price. Also non-exportable. >o the Ncipher SCSI based accelearator screams, but it a bit pricey. >UK product. Exportable (?) http://www.ncipher.com/ >o a high-end Alpha also performs rather nicely, according to some >benchmarks Eric Young once posted. All of the non-exportable ones sound like specialized cryptographic devices, which are of course evil threats to Yankee National Security, so of course they're not exportable. On the other hand, if they weren't crypto-specific, but just did modexps or other bignum stuff, as long as they weren't faster than a PentiumII-400, and didn't use the C-word in the product literature, they'd be exportable. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

RE: export restictions and investments
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:12 AM 11/20/1997 +0100, Lucky Green wrote: >At this point a brief overview of modexp accelerators might be in order: >o the Belgian chips I've seen are too slow. >o the Rainbow board is OK, but non-exportable. >o the Chrysalis PCMCIA card has the same performance as the Rainbow board >at half the price. Also non-exportable. >o the Ncipher SCSI based accelearator screams, but it a bit pricey. >UK product. Exportable (?) http://www.ncipher.com/ >o a high-end Alpha also performs rather nicely, according to some >benchmarks Eric Young once posted. All of the non-exportable ones sound like specialized cryptographic devices, which are of course evil threats to Yankee National Security, so of course they're not exportable. On the other hand, if they weren't crypto-specific, but just did modexps or other bignum stuff, as long as they weren't faster than a PentiumII-400, and didn't use the C-word in the product literature, they'd be exportable. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

NetNanny's Gordon Ross on "Censorship and the Internet"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

================= From: gordonr(a)netnanny.com (GordonR) Reply-To: "gordonR(a)netnanny.com" <gordonR(a)netnanny.com> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:46:19 -0800 Organization: Net Nanny Software International Inc. Censorship and the Internet Written by: Gordon A. Ross CEO/President Net nanny Software International Inc. The Internet today provides a total open communication facility for all societies on this planet to communicate with one another. Depending on your political and value judgments, this could be good, bad, allowed or disallowed. I am a firm believer in absolute freedom of speech. However, there are numerous organizations, societies, governments, and countries that determine what freedom of speech is according to their own rules. We are capable of developing technology to allow the individual to determine what information is appropriate or inappropriate according to their own value sets - not mine or those of any single government. But in order for this type of technology to work on a global basis, we must set standards, much like the way early telephone networks had to be set up. Back then, if there weren't certain "signaling" standards set within the telecommunication community, people had to go through time-consuming avenues in order to communicate with different foreign groups. It is logical that the Internet will also evolve with a set of standards, and some of them are already in place, such as TCP/IP, HTML, and PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection). Because each unique group has a different value set, we must develop a standard that all countries can accept and use that does not infringe on their right to govern according to their own constitutions or laws. PICS is such a standard. It allows for self-imposed ratings according to the standards of the individual, organization or country. If ratings are desired, PICS defines how and where a rating label should appear. Browsers and filtering software can read these standards and make decisions as defined by the owner of these software applications. Personally, I do not believe rating should be forced on any single individual or WEB site, much in the same way I do not believe that I should be told when I can use my telephone if it is my telephone. However, I do have concerns about third-party rating systems. There are so many important questions we have to ask: Who is doing the rating? What are their qualifications? Who determines the criteria? How does the system get implemented? With the Internet's massive daily changes, how is content validated? And, more importantly, who validates the content? How would rating work, if it could work at all? There are 60 million-plus pages on the WEB and it takes about one minute per page to rate. To rate every existing WEB page today, it would take about 60 million minutes - or one million hours - or over 114 years. Using 114 people working 24 hours a day, the job would take a full year. But the bad news is that as soon as everything was rated, the process would have to start all over again, because within a year the WEB would change drastically. Even day-to-day changes would be difficult to track. That's why a self-rating system would be the most cost-effective solution - as well as the most politically correct. I would be very concerned if mandatory rating is enforced. We are fortunate to live in a society that allows us the civil liberties that we currently enjoy. No single jurisdiction can - or should - govern the Internet. And technology will always evolve in order to get around this type of government control. There is simply too much content for any single entity to monitor at this time. Many people feel there should be no rating or controls legislated for the Internet. Legislation already exists to enforce proper conduct within a country's Internet access. Technology developed by industry will allow individuals the control they want according to their own personal values. The masses should be educated as to emerging technologies that will offer them choices - and how these technologies can be used safely. Once people understand how the technology can prevent problems, the divisive issues currently facing us will become moot. Today, we function in a global community, and we can no longer isolate ourselves thinking we can "go it alone." The Internet opens up worldwide communications channels. We can discover or share any information at any time from any source, if we so choose. We must strive to preserve the open communication and the free exchange of ideas, while at the same time protect our children when we as individuals feel it is necessary. Technology companies can and will provide the tools for us to accomplish both free speech on the Internet - and protection for our families. The Internet can be a truly wonderful resource for the entire world to share. Approximately 95% of it is, in fact, good. Up until now, we have done a great job of informing the general population of the negatives inherent in a tool like the WEB. But now it's time to educate people about the positive aspects of the Internet, especially as it becomes their major communication facility in the future. What it comes down to is, a simple matter of choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Gordon Ross CEO/President Net Nanny Software International Inc. Suite 108 - 525 Seymour Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3H7 Tel: (604) 662-8522 E-mail: gordonR(a)netnanny.com

1 0

Re: Fairy Gold
by Magus Mixmaster Anonymous Remailer Service 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty Cantsin wrote: >Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If this were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. Of course, concepts are valid >regardless of their source. It would be unwise to take the statements >even of established identities on faith. > >The advantage of persistent identity is that it allows the exploration >of more complicated ideas. Use of the persistent identity places a >particular post in a greater context. > >There is only so much that can be done in a single post. It is the >mailing list equivalent of a sound bite. We should remember that -- at least here in America and the rest of the so-called first world -- we live in the age of the sound bite where the "medium is the message." Public opinion is manipulated by the puppetmasters who pull the emotional strings of John and Jane Q. Public sitting in front of the TV each night. Witness how anyone who has watched a video on Waco is quickly being lumped into the category of an anti-government extremist (Terry Nichols had two copies of "Waco Under Siege" in his house). The underlying message is, "don't consider any of the facts that the video viewer presents to you, just realize he/she is an extremist." Frankly, I wasn't there at Waco so I don't know what happened. However, as Monty pointed out in another post, the fact that the FBI/BATF/etc. administered the gas into the Davidian home (notice how I fail to use the media-sanctioned term "compound") is clearly an aggressive act on the part of the U.S. gov't. Regardless of what the spinmeisters say (both on the left and the right) no human being with a conscience can take note of this fact and say that the feds were justified in their actions. Gassing children? Come on. A single sound bite on its own will do nothing, but a persistent group of sound bites presented over time with a recurring message can create a great amount of influence. This is how public opinion is formed through mass media channels. But think about this: who is the author of these mass media sound bites? Can you name the person? It's easy to say that it's the feds, the ZOG, the NWO crew...but you can't name an individual can you? Why is that? Seriously, think about this question. It has a lot to do with a major cypherpunk theme: anonymity. But in this case, with hardly any conscious responsibility. Nerthus P.S. Notice how my response becomes "negated" by Monty's previous response when you read the first 6 lines of text in order: " >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If that were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. " Think how easily Monty's "response" could be used against me if the quoted text marks (>) were removed. Truths are easily twisted into lies by those who seek advantage from such actions. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNHJoHOFWwZe05jcJAQG60gf9Gkn96xtwHQ6CP3gcXGTTjgb42GMWXG6G YvlDlu+MehW61hR+i8NeqM6Y/z1nFJuFZhOJmAVlps2ud6r6PoGBqFF0HOiNQjyz 3pwuB5v2y31rxHKJDLloWjv+fLrX8sapQbOwELbmR3DxwiYxiZJfhNHz8T+gQOw5 4Ri550IzqMpGCHLeU03GdnZOiCu17QRUOHuP2qnNHSUAcTp28fQbUBUdivVPsr+1 PZ1XfwCLKhSdQjDCIhRNukM9+ep675+l5FtEZGjx6UOsBRlpZmXz/6I2Z/S9c0Tr nrmOhPBSS1MQDDe2vCkOhiNmcBT2LbAa5cSEL07sswLU0/lFMRj6Jw== =uO0B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:20:27 -0700 > From: Magus Mixmaster Anonymous Remailer Service <mix(a)magusnet.com> > Subject: Re: Fairy Gold > Monty Cantsin wrote: > >Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: > >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. > >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. > > If this were really true, you would have posted your message under your real > name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make > your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. No, it only proves Monty doesn't believe what he says. > Frankly, I wasn't there at Waco so I don't know what happened. However, as > Monty pointed out in another post, the fact that the FBI/BATF/etc. > administered the gas into the Davidian home (notice how I fail to use the > media-sanctioned term "compound") is clearly an aggressive act on the part of > the U.S. gov't. Regardless of what the spinmeisters say (both on the left > and the right) no human being with a conscience can take note of this fact > and say that the feds were justified in their actions. Gassing children? > Come on. To hell with gassing them, the issue is the bar-b-que that occurred after. Something like 18 children were murdered and the US government and the then Texas (bitch) govenor Ann Richards were complicent in the nefarious deed. Someday she and every agent that participated will stand before a jury, unfortunately the odds are it will be the jury of history and not their peers. Why were those kids deprived of the modern conveniences? Clearly the answer "David and his followers wouldn't surrender" doesn't hold water. Those kids deserve NO punishment for actions others *may* have committed, they were a victim - whether of David or the actions of the gov. reps. is irrellevant. Those people were given a public trust, they not only abused it but failed miserably in its resolution. They must pay the price. Saying "I was following orders" has no place in a democratic society anywhere; the individual MUST be held accountable for their actions and they should not be able to shirk that responsibility nor pass it off to some 3rd party. Further, irrispective of their job or position in society or the government the responsibilities AND rights of the individual must not be infringed AND must take predidence over all other duties or responsibilties. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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