December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Subliminal Algebra-Seinfield Conspiracy
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri confessed: >Above Tom's restaurant, on 112th and Broadway. I worked for 7 years upstairs >from that restaurant in a very secret organization. I'm socked they even >show that building on TV. :-) You bet, that secret org is well-known among CU pick-up artists as a swell place to pick up socks ... well, more than that and sudden death's your next shock.

2 1

Fight CDA 2...?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems to me that the fundamental question that should be asked here is: Does the 10th require strict compliance with the wording of the Constitution per the first sentence of the 10th or explain specificaly what Constitutional sentences are being used to justify the 10th and by extension the entire Constitution itself being exempt of mandatory constitutional review at all stages of a laws life. This is perhaps the key question that needs to be asked in order to properly understand the language of the Constitution. Viewed in the light of strict compliance the wording of the Constitution becomes remarkably free of ambiguity. If the 10th is taken literaly it can only be interpreted as saying: - The federal government is required to justify all its rules, regulations, and offical actions within the explicit context of the text of the Constitution. - In situations where there is no clear ruling the issue is remanded to the states for resolution per their own individual constitutions. Or in cases where the state constitution would not apply to the people. - "to the people" needs to be interpreted as meaning to be left to individual discretion and therefore fundamentaly exempt from review at the state or federal level. - This is the level a behaviour or action becomes a Constitutionaly recognized right exempt from future regulation per the 9th. - The above interpretations are open to change per the methods described for Constitutional Amendments. - "Congress shall make no law..." & "shall not be infringed." become much clearer and less open to federal level inteference. Some of the results of this would be: - The entire 'Drug War' machine would grind to a halt - Many people in jail on solely drug possession and use charges with no other jailable charge would be released immediatly - NASA would require some sort of Constitutional amendment to continue to operate - The interaction and use between the US military and the state and local level regarding law enforcement would cease immediately - CDC would require Constitutional amendment funding - Issues of what is and what is not 'legal' speech would be resolved at the state level. - Confiscation of property without compensation would be completely abandoned. - The recognition that police have no fundamental rights under the Constitution because it in no way draws a distinction between polic & a non-police citizen. Laws can not draw distinction of this sort at the federal level. - Each and every search *must* be at the direct interaction of a magistrate *and* must explicity describe what is being searched for *and further* demonstrate probable cause within a much more precise environment. - The recognition that laws based on the distinction of 'victimless' and 'victim' crimes is a distinction that can't be drawn at the Constitutional level. - A action or behaviour is either protected or it isn't. This would create a set of states with quite a range of constitutional environments. I can just see the "Mormon State of Utah" where the official constitutional religion is Mormonism by amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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

about RC4
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are RC4 sourcecode in ftp.replay.com. but, Is it same RC4 developed RSADSI ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Meaning of course, when Patrick Henry... --- Oops, Thomas Paine, sorry, >transposed my patriots there -- first stood up to be counted, he did it with >a pseudonym. Think how difficult it must have been to publish a pseudonymous writing back in their day. And compare how easy it is now. With a basic Internet connection and some software I can post this message under the name Nerthus, and anyone who took the time to save my public key in their keyring can verify with almost complete certainty that "Nerthus" wrote this. But as we progress on some fronts, we digress on others. The tools which can empower the individual are readily available, but the individual is quickly becoming an automaton, a shell of the man he used to be. "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death." -- Patrick Henry What is life without liberty? Abject slavery. Any sane man would rather die than be a slave. But what is this slavery? It is the state in which we live our lives. More often than not, our oppressors are our own selves: our fears, our imaginings, our hatred. Everyone does this: the "right-wing-gun-nut" who detests the actions of the BATF, the Christian zealot who detests the pro-abortion crusaders/ Zoroastrians/creationists/NWO types, the IRS agent who detests the "tax protestors", the treehugger who detests the corporate greed/profit machine that is destroying the planet... I could go on but I think you get my point. Injustice happens everyday. The next time you find yourself at Burger King stuffing yourself with greasy slop, think of the millions of people in Africa who are slowly starving to death. Injustice, yes, but what are you going to do about it? Anything? The fact is you can't do anything, even if you wanted to. And because of that we all become reactionary, angered, resentful, violent. We perpetuate the disintegration of mankind, of ourselves. No people in their right mind should bow down and lick the boots of their oppressors. But neither should they kill them either. The intelligent action is to show the oppressors the errors in their ways. Every human being, even our "enemies" have a mind that is not completely devoid of reason. The sooner we show them a better way of living, the sooner we can move toward it. Then the possibility for an end to the injustices that surround us becomes more available. I leave you with a quote to ponder: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Any idea who the pinko-liberal, NWO cocksucker was that said this? It was Thomas Paine in his book "Rights of Man". Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNGpu6eFWwZe05jcJAQGd5Qf/bvcqrugd+FFqBiM89nZeWmUhgAkT0Blq 3IXIkxDNp3+rPYX8dsqp0cD+nHEf7fDrgmxS6+/oHFMnN+p2fC0m1UdD1bl3AgiD lbyjTXtg688ezf4km/MXRNFKtRxbqaOewdf4TVgReLnVkB3ITPzKZb81N4PQHnR8 W0esKslh6AQSDVPlR0r+UIdMawXzNKR75KVaLRhTw7GXV0GvoZh5Ckz1xd2ZDvz+ q/MjTXDTZI5u5Ta2EKcfh0Vcs8Yy7tYv8yRY0zKS0NhorsBhIGrXA5aF5aaxrDTX rWRHaZPRSd5Fm9rKKTJM+D/KVa2wxszP+bWrqusRryY0MN8AW/qZ3w== =NPUD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Cyclic codes
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. o_, o <\__, v|> Timothy May | < \

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Blanc wrote: >By jove, I think I've "got" it - there *is* something deeper going on >here: > >Tim is really an undercover 'narc' - through his provocative remarks >he's actually encouraging all the violent terrorists on the list to >come out of their lurking holes and reveal themselves. Then he's >going to turn them all in for a cash reward, which he'll use to buy >more high-tech stock. > >Yeah, that's it! While Blanc is only joking, I want to take this opportunity to comment on the Find The Mole game. Moles look just like everyone else. Speculation on who is actually a provocateur or an informant or a saboteur or whatever only has the purpose of creating unhappiness and undermining anything worthwhile that is going on. It is likely that there are informants lurking amongst the cypherpunks. The secret police watch and infiltrate far less interesting groups, and this one has received more than its share of publicity. (In a couple of decades we'll probably learn who they were. Hopefully things will work out in such a way that this will be worth a good laugh.) The right thing to do is to assume there are a certain number of moles around and engineer your activities accordingly. If you really think you can Find The Mole, then I would think your first step is to keep quiet about what you are doing. 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 iQEVAwUBNGoqdpaWtjSmRH/5AQHNhQf9Gc8d8gK/7tiYhMe9eo4BQt5QpW93xfR6 x1Ti+XIZcpQ4Y0YZvklghLHBHJcIywYrf0vM+fYtxfUrG+FWMzD8QPKE/w8x/SI9 eoHIr8GWAnuKEBKnv3aUpHnV9jqTKtcU5/0APQ/nGCAnxzl3Y9/ZAKDwoSVFS9vI gjw0YihR6FKg+Qv7J0lPBgrBWWvQla5sM8kkaWdv8lKIqMtbXu9XeXiIZd8/FlIC WNj8R5WEOXF333A10cWiRhPqRJP9YevXH7NMFSnv9BpUfyeTlD1dKklTfjumSqwq eY+RSmsTzM1OlBzw2NbxmXbahg3mFVYBu8QDPPcu8kwHcMldAsmx+Q== =Eoqh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Laws Controlling Speech
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >What I said was that the judge(s) in the Paladin case had committed a >capital crime. Saying, for example, that OJ committed a capital crime >is not uncommon, so why should judges be exempt from similar >opinions? Laws prohibiting speech are notoriously difficult to define and to enforce impartially. They quickly evolve into a blank check for the authorities. (Note that even if these laws didn't have this property, Monty Cantsin would oppose them.) OJ is fair game because the authorities would like to see him in prison. The judge is not fair game because he is a judge and this is a list with a bad attitude. The wonderful thing about language is that it is infinitely malleable. You could write a play in which a prominent character was a bear. Sounds harmless, right? In 1969 in Czechoslovakia, this is how people wrote unfriendly plays about the Russians. Child porn is notoriously difficult to define. A few years ago there was a case in which a convicted child pornographer or molester (my memory fails) was paroled.(1.) One of the conditions was that he was not to have any child pornography. Later, he was found with a videotape of children in bathing suits and his parole was revoked. The children were not involved with any sexual acts, however, the judge decided that the motion of the camera was overly suggestive. A few years ago I saw an ad for soap in which cute little girls were cast in the roles that lovely adult women usually play. To most people, this was an amusing and even charming advertisement. But, were similar footage found in the hands of a child molester there would be serious legal consequences. Pornography in general is not so hard to define. If the material in question is enjoyed by working class people and is inexpensive to purchase, then it is pornography. If the material is enjoyed by wealthy or "cultured" people, hangs in a museum, and would be expensive to purchase, then for the most part it is Art and not pornography. Let's take Michelangelo. Here is an artist who seldom portrays women. (I know of no instance, actually.) When the image of a woman was unavoidable to the work, he used male models anyway. (The Sibyls in the Sistine Chapel are a good example.) It is quite obvious that a large proportion of his work is, in fact, homoerotic in nature. Yet, it has been promoted for centuries because it was primarily enjoyed by ruling elites. For that matter, consider the centuries long fascination with images of Christ and the Saints undergoing various tortures. Clearly homoerotic in many cases and juxtaposing images of pain and death with sex. Remove the religious imagery, and anybody found painting or possessing such work will generally be relegated to the fringes of society. When speech is regulated, the meaning of the speech is defined by whether the speaker is in favor with the authorities. This is well understood by the people who propose and pass these laws. Their intention is not only to suppress bad ideas, but to liberate the government from the annoying inconvenience of obeying the law, most especially (but not exclusively) with regard to the government's political opponents. And, as we all know, this issue is particularly insidious when it comes to laws prohibiting free encrypted speech. The art of steganography has reached the point where anything can be "shown" to be a secret message of some kind. Should it be decided to truly enforce these laws, it will be done by letting the cops off the leash to do whatever they please to whomever they like. (1. Why we parole child molesters so we can imprison drug users is beyond me. It has every appearance of complete insanity on the part of the authorities. Or, I suppose, it could mean they don't really care about kids in spite of all their talk on the subject.) 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 iQEVAwUBNGqXXpaWtjSmRH/5AQFhMwf9FU/DU9+iMtflw+CZ0XW3enz+FdC14DzI GD+SIUPm3aBO+MJQHh1ScWNb2ShWVWxMCycHOcKyUhYpAvH2d/oqz6/2Feq2Aw8E 0Oxcg0djy5zri1nZtwTW7QQ2qGOfKyUq+2qJFX3aFFxAMjE2yT5uwvwBRNucPwYC zR40/b5oMJEndp47KUTjnCfbCFmwG2vHZe+3hM6vfm+07zcaRUOJsMgGjsAkTi4I /Rtg4Bxd7L+3AVs8k+ZpJoN7A9ipoOvWGUeXH+s+uwWhS62PtC9DY29sg5f4mG+j qxtCNg14TjfIEiaqjcW3/jm9rk/gFhBiT8f24Aseof2v+T+g0qI5Iw== =zihd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

"Son of CDA" Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, ACLU Says
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:40:23 -0500 (EST) From: Emilyaclu(a)aol.com To: Emilyaclu(a)aol.com Subject: "Son of CDA" Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, ACLU Says ACLU Says New Internet Censorship Statute Ignores Landmark Supreme Court Ruling FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, November 13, 1997 Contact: Emily Whitfield, (212) 549-2566 WASHINGTON--New legislation aimed at banning online material deemed "harmful to minors" would run roughshod over the landmark Supreme Court decision affirming free speech on the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. The ACLU, which led the successful battle to defeat the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act (CDA), said S. 1482, like the CDA, would restrict adults from accessing constitutionally protected speech. The bill was introduced earlier this week by Sen. Dan Coats, R-IN, an original sponsor of the ill-fated CDA. Under the statute, commercial online distributors of material deemed "harmful to minors" could be punished with up to six months in jail and a $50,000 fine. The definition could include the virtual bookstore amazon.com or a promotional site for a Hollywood movie, as well as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Microsoft and America Online, the ACLU said. And unlike the CDA, the statute applies only to web sites, not to chat rooms, e-mail or news groups. "By claiming that the bill addresses only web sites involved in commercial distribution, Senator Coats says he is hunting with a rifle,' but in fact, he has lobbed another virtual grenade into the heart of the Internet" said Ann Beeson, an ACLU National Staff Attorney and member of the legal team that defeated the CDA. Any business merely displaying material without first requiring a credit card or other proof of age could be found liable under the statute, which criminalizes commercial distribution of words or images that could be deemed "harmful to minors," even if no actual sale is involved, Beeson said. "This is the equivalent of having to pay a fee every time you want to browse in the bookstore or watch a trailer for an R-rated movie," Beeson said. "As the Supreme Court noted in its landmark decision, requiring a credit card or other age verification would impose a severe financial and logistical burden, even on commercial websites." The ACLU said there were serious constitutional problems as well with the bill's definition of "harmful to minors." In addition to using a vague definition of what constitutes "harmful material," the bill does not make any distinction between material that may be harmful to a six-year-old but valuable for a 16-year-old, such as safer-sex information, said Chris Hansen, an ACLU Senior Staff Attorney and member of the Reno v. ACLU legal team. Further, Hansen pointed out, unlike other "harmful to minors" statutes that have been upheld in the courts, the bill does not define whose community standard will be used to determine what material is harmful. "Invariably, those who decide what is harmful to a minor are going to be the least tolerant members of a given community -- such as the group in Oklahoma who sought to remove the award-winning film The Tin Drum' from local libraries and video stores," Hansen said. The Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the CDA was issued on June 26 of this year, 16 months after the law was enacted and the ACLU filed its challenge. In a ringing affirmation of online free speech, the Court said that the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.' "While we rejoiced in the Supreme Court's decision last June, we knew that the battle was not yet over," said Solange Bitol, legislative counsel on First Amendment issues for the ACLU's Washington National Office. "When Congress returns to session in the New Year, we will be ready for Round Two in the battle to protect our free speech rights." -endit-

2 1

RE: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bob Hettinga wrote: >Frankly, waving your Glock at the local sherriff and daring him to come >shoot you out of der MayBunker is not just free speech, it's, charitably, >grandstanding. Making a threat on the life of a judge, or even begging for >Washington to be nuked -- something you can't possibly do yourself -- is in >the same catagory of "will someone rid me of this priest", or "but that >would be wrong", or the Castro assination exhortations which inspired Oswald >to kill JFK. In this country, it's all free speech, but that doesn't keep >you from getting impaled, "accidentally" or otherwise, on the pointy end of >the state, or public opinion, when you piss it off. I think you are falling into the "map _is_ the territory" mistake here, Bob. Tim is just speaking his mind, lucidly and forcefully as usual. (The same way you do, which is why I enjoy reading both your posts so much, although your prose styles differ so greatly.) Tim isn't "waving your Glock at the local sherriff" -- he is talking about his actions if law enforcement decides to violate the Constitution personally upon him. Although it is certainly the case that all rights, at their boundaries, may be observed more in the breech, I don't think the situation is so bad _yet_ that Tim has to lay awake nights worrying about a no-knock. Tim, I guess I see you as someone who has spotted a bunch of thunderclouds on the horizon, so you have decided to stock up on raingear before the deluge. But, with a little luck and a lot of common sense on the part of the populace, neither Tim nor anyone else will have to go through that particular hell. As one additional datapoint, when our local "FAX Daily" (a daily FAXed paper) took a poll on GAK, 66% were against government access to keys (and "FAX Daily" is aimed at the general population). (I have this suspicion that California is more likely to develop "thunderclouds on the horizon" that don't turn into local storms, due to the greater concentration of Democratic Party members there -- Indiana, as a Republican state, certainly sees a lot of posturing about family values and such, but with Republican anti-government rhetoric, it is hard for Republicans to push too hard for the massive increases of government regulation that would be required to actually enforce family values by governmental fiat.) Tim, from what I understand of what he said, is just getting prepared if the worst comes. One of the functions of this list as I see it is just this sort of preparation, which can often stave off the actual worst. If those who would desire this sort of power over the population are made aware that the population won't stand for it, they are less likely to continue to seek that level of power. To close with a quote that I think (from my Midwest perception of the situation) describes best how the near-term will actually work out: "There's no way the federal government could oppress the citizens, because the populace is armed to the teeth, and the officials would just get their heads blown off." -- James Madison argues the pro-government position, Federalist Papers #46 ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

2 1

cypherpunks - passing mention [FYI] [sci-fi]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Informational/Entertainment content only: Minimal crypto relevance but in Allen Steele's book Tranquillity Alternative (ISBN 0-441-00433-4) which concerns a alternate-history of the space program there is mention of 'cypherpunks' made in reference to cracking double-key encrypted passwords on Le Matrix. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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