December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cast of Characters for Crypto Politics (Judiciary Hearing)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > At 8:06 PM -0700 7/9/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Here's a cast of characters from today's hearing... > > Except maybe for Ashcroft--and it may be too soon to tell about him--the > rest have just shown their expected colors. I say we just hang them all and > be done with it. Legislators should be made to vote with their dicks hanging out. Any legislator with fresh lipstick on his dick gets his vote thrown out. It may not be a perfect system, but I wouldn't bet against it being better than what we have now. > Many of us warned long ago that Leahy was no friend of liberty, despite his > soothing comments at the SAFE forum last summer. His support of other > statist policies makes him just another fool on the Hill. The "classified briefing" by LEA smells like a classic example of "Of course, if you vote against this bill then we will be forced to expose you as a champion of pedophiles and drug czars." > A law to ban domestic use of strong crypto is coming. All it will take is > some horrific incident--another bombing in a building, another Dahmer case, > etc., where crypto is involved in any way. This will be the catalyst for > the outlawing of unapproved crypto. So you're sitting there at the police computer, checking out Dahmer's floppies, which contain only letters to his mother, and you realize that if they are encrypted, then they are proof that he has something sinister to hide. Hmmm... Or you realize that the Judge will imprison Tim May for contempt of court until he provides his secret key, and you realize that if it is encrypted with a key Tim doesn't have, that the Judge will have to decide whether to believe the outrageous accusations of Tim May, Jim Bell's best friend (according to a reliable informant), against a champion of law enforcement. > ... > >SEN. JOHN KYL (R): Criticized Kerrey for being too > >moderate. "My own view is that the legislation does > >not go far enough," Sen. Kyl said of the McCain-Kerrey > ... > > The competition to outdo the others is beginning, signalling the usual > stampede toward the passage of a bill. There are times that I wish Tim was a little less perceptive. It would give me a little room for self-deception when I need to take a break from reality and try to tell myself that there is some slim ray of hope for freedom and liberty to prevail. Why is it that the "stampede" always seems to manage to head in the direction needed to trample the constitution underfoot (like tornados sniffing out trailer parks)? SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT (R): Emerged as a staunch crypto-defender. I originally thought that perhaps he was taking this stance as a matter of principle, but then I heard that he had purple lipstick on his dick. Does anyone know what color Blanc wears? (Just curious. I certainly wouldn't want to start any unfounded rumors. However, for the record, I would like to assure Blanc that if the bill happened to be defeated by a substantial margin, I wouldn't think any less of her.) I think I need to go spank myself. TruthMonger

1 0

TRUTHMONGER UNMASKED!!!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate, realizing that he finally had solid evidence as to the true identity of the coward hiding behind the TruthMonger persona, forwarded to the list: > OPEN MICROPHONE CATCHES CHRETIEN'S CRITICISM OF CLINTON > From Senior White House Correspondent Wolf Blitzer > > Apparently unaware the microphone in front of him was on, Chretien > bragged that his country does not let the United States dictate its > policy, and suggested American politicians make decisions solely for > reasons of expediency. > > "In your country, in my country, all the politicians would be in > prison because they sell their votes," Chretien said. Spoken like a TruthMonger! I always had my suspicions that the main person using the TruthMonger multi-user persona on the CypherPunks list was acting out of some kind of obsessive, guilt-driven psychosis as a form of repentance for great evils being commited under his true identity. Chretien, as Prime Minister of Canada, has to live with the knowledge that in order for his country to survive he needs to kowtow to a gang of criminals in a neighboring country who have the firepower to smoke the Canadians' butts in a heartbeat. The TruthMonger posts are more sporadic when Chretien is involved in international conferences, and it is now obvious that the pressure of living a lie builds up and spills out at these times when he cannot relieve himself of his guilt using his TruthMonger posts. I suspect that Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene is Rabid Wombat and Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker is masquerading on the list as Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM. The CypherPunks list is the one place where they can let their hair down and tell Big Brother Bill and the whole goddamn world what they really think. > He also said Clinton was in favor of inviting Poland, Hungary and > the Czech Republic to join NATO because it would woo voters. > > Speaking in French, the Canadian prime minister said: "It's not > reasons of state. It's all done for short-term political reasons, to > win elections. Take the quarrel over whether to admit the Baltic > states. That has noting to do with world security. It's because in > Chicago, Mayor (Richard M.) Daley controls lots of votes for the > nomination." Or, as Chretian would have put it, as TruthMonger, "Big Brother Bill is a lying, Nazi, sack of shit whose main concern in regard to world security is his ability to use it to suck Daley's big vote-cock." > The three leaders laughed as they waited for the Clinton and his > advisers to arrive for the meeting. True CypherPunks, they are laughing their asses off that "we the sheeple" let these charlatans and criminals rob and oppress us under the guise of democracy. > He (Chretien), he's used to not doing > what they want," Juncker said. > > "I make it my policy," Chretien said. "But it's popular. The Cuba > affair. I was the first to stand up" against it U.S. policy > tightening the economic embargo on Cuba. Unfortunately, he didn't have the political balls to testify for the defense in the Timothy McVeigh trial, so he had to express his support for McVeigh as TruthMonger. > The three leaders chuckled among themselves. What the fuck is wrong with the American people? Here are three world-leaders who openly acknowledge that the U.S. is in the hands of gangsters who would be imprisoned for crimes against the citizens and the country if justice truly prevailed in America. And a single conversation, accidentally(?) revealed such as this one, is no doubt just the smallest of samples of the stinking rot that lies at the heart of a gang of criminals who are actively working to subvert the constitution of the country in the interests of furthering their ever- tightening, fascist grip on the reins of power. The same government which trained Timothy McVeigh to kill (and then fucked over his Desert Storm compatriots when their service to their country cost them their health) used their trained, "it's all there in the press release" news dogs to turn their own penny-ante hired gun into a "monster" symbolizing patriotic paramilitarists whose concern lies with defending America at home rather than murdering foreigners for "votes." Slipping in the polls because you murdered and fucked over too many of your own citizens? Whack out a pile of worthless foreigners with high-tech weapons that allow us to slaughter them wholesale without losing any American lives. Watch your poll stats rise as Americans stand and cheer the murder of defeated, retreating troops by aircraft missles which weren't designed to take prisoners. Act surprised when 800 government law enforcement agents with the latest in technology claim to be unable to prevent men, women and children that were victims of a botched government assault from dying a horrible, burning death. Act outraged when the chickens come home to roost in Oklahoma City. > "In your country, in my country, all the politicians would be in > prison because they sell their votes," Chretien said. The reason they are not in prison here is because they are armed and dangerous and have managed to disarm and disenfranchise their citizens, making any resistance to government fascism a criminal offense. We get to vote for the criminal of our choice from among the group of criminals that the other criminals pre-select for us and whose campaigns they support with our stolen booty. If a "ringer" slips through, such as Kennedy, he is murdered and the criminals make a great show of patriotic mourning. If a no-name schill is foisted on the public as vice-president,like Agnew, and will take power because the "gang leader" is getting busted, remove him on the basis of what are "parking tickets" compared to the crimes of most of your cronies. World-leaders recognize that the American citizen is just a stupid 'mark' who is getting fucked in a sophisticated con by men who have no qualms about stealing senior citizen's life savings (Social Security) stealing votes and elections (bribery, sabotage and power mongering), and stealing the rights and freedoms of the citizens by lying about the need to stop illegal drugs (which remain freely available no matter how many of our rights and freedoms are stripped). I don't have a death-wish of any sort, but if I happen to get killed by someone striking back at the enemies of freedom who are usurping the constitution to tighten their criminal control over the citizens, then I can think of far worse reasons to die. We lose 169 people every time a bean-counter decides it's cheaper to pay off the families of the dead instead of spending an extra nickle on every seat-belt installation in an automobile. We lose 169 people every time some Senator decides we need a new weapons system instead of new hospitals or medical services. We lose 169 people every time the President decides to stomp on the citizen's rights instead of giving them enough freedom to feel like they can face life without numbing their senses to the stench around them with ever-increasing amounts of narcotics. Gambling is a government-regulated criminal enterprise, now, and Timothy McVeigh's ante was just to establish that the citizens are in the game. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some heavy betting taking place from all the players who choose to "sit in." American sheeple may regard McVeigh as a "monster," but world-leaders make a strong case for viewing him as a "crime-fighter." A. Cretin

1 0

Acclivity - A global web of change management
by Marc Fourny 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

acclivity Apologies for cross-posting Excuse me if this message does not concern you. web site: http://www.acclivity-consultants.com email:acclivity@interweb.be Dear , I am pleased to announce the formation of Acclivity, an international network of independent management consulting practices in fourteen countries in Europe, North America and Africa, specialising in all aspects of corporate transformation. For corporate executives managing change in the transformation of their business is an increasingly complex task. How can they manage risk ? How are they to control change and still keep the initiative ? How much creativity should be involved in new projects ? Will their staff fully participate and cooperate in the changes envisaged ? Acclivity has been set up to assist clients, many of whom are international companies and are transforming across national boundaries, to answer these and other questions: and at the same help them master all aspects of the transformation process so leading them towards a more competitive position and profitable future. Acclivity differentiates itself from its competitors in that all the consultants in the network are senior experienced people whose role is to provide advice and guide the clientUs staff through the various stages of the transformation process. There are no junior consultants and analysts as we believe all the detailed work should be carried out by clientUs staff. All the consultants are used to working in different countries and carrying out cross border assignments. Together, the Acclivity consultants provide the full range of methodologies used in change management and transformation. From their different backgrounds, they bring the full value of their professional and cultural skills as well as their competencies and creativity to help the client: 7 determine new value proposition for his target markets 7 reengineer his business 7 develop cross-functional organisations 7 transform his strategic and operational processes 7 open his operations to external partners - clients, suppliers and contractors 7 renew his innovation processes, awaken hidden talents, and enhance his creativity and knowhow 7 reshape the culture and values within his business 7 strengthen his human capital 7 restructure his support functions: human resources management, finance and accounting, and information systems and technology. The distinctive added-value offered by our network lies not only in the mastery of these particular methodologies. An effective transformation also requires that the consultant provides assistance in all areas where the organisation has to be mobilised. In order to secure long-lasting sustainable results each Acclivity assignment is composed of three modules: 7 we lead the executive team through the transformation journey. The use of organisational prototypes, for instance, minimises the business risks. We help management modify its modus operandi so as to provide the opportunity of involving the whole organisation in the change process 7 our own research, observation, and analysis of best practice cases are used as guidelines for the companies change efforts, from strategy definition to detailed implementation of the new organisation 7 finally, we train the change team to innovate, install and implement new structures and systems. In addition we develop a new project management capability which is particularly key to success when radical change is involved. I would welcome the opportunity therefore of discussing with you your own tranformation programme to see how we might be able to add value to your own resources. Yours sincerely, Marc Fourny President web site: http://www.acclivity-consultants.com email:acclivity@interweb.be

1 0

MEETING: July SF Bay Area Meeting Saturday at Stanford
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What: San Francisco Bay Aera Cypherpunks Phyical Meeting Where: Under the Oak Tree at Tressider Union, Stanford University When: Saturday July 12th, 1997 Agenda: HIP'97 Planing, Dave Del Torto Freeh's Statement before Congress, Group ECash update, Jeremey Barrett PGP Library 5 & PGP/MIME Updates, Dave Del Torto FreeS/WAN dryrun, Hugh Daniel What ever else comes to mind... We will be meeting under the Oak Tree that is inside the "U" shape of Tresidder Union, the weather report looks good. Bring your Ricochet... Tresidder Union is a little (peninsula) west of the Stanford main Quad, there is a parking lot just p-west of of the Union that you can park in on weekends. The best automotive access is from the west via Junipero Serra Blvd. (also somtimes called Foothill Expressway, Santa Cruz Ave & Alameda De Las Pulgus) into the 'back' of the Stanford Campus, look it up on a map folks. For some semi-useful maps try: http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/maps.html or for a zoomed in view to the right section of campus: http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?209,284

1 0

Re: Underground extract: System X
by proff＠iq.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Anyone read this book? Apparently the first in-depth investigation > > into the international computer underground to come out of the > > Southern-Hemisphere - or so I'm told ;) - J.A > > > > Extracts from Underground - The true nature of System X > > > > Extracted from Chapter 10 - "Anthrax - The Outsider" > > > > Note: System X's name has been changed for legal reasons. > > > > Do you know where I could get the full version of this book. > Thanks > Dale > E-Mail: humbles(a)new.co.za Try www.underground-book.org/order.html Cheers, Julian.

1 0

Jim Bell (FINALLY!) Charged
by Alan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oregonian Friday July 11, 1997 Page B3 Man whose home was raided by IRS agents is charged A man whose Vancouver home was raided by IRS agents in April has been charged with two felonies in Tacoma. James D. Bell was charged Wednesday with interfearing with a federal officer and using false Social Security numbers. He has been held without bail in the Pierce County Jail since his May 18 arrest. Bell, 38, is scheduled to be arrained July 18 before U.S. Magistrate J. Kelly Arnold. However, sources close to the case said Thursday that plea negotiations are under way and are likely to be concluded before then. Bell's home was raided and searched April 1 by an IRS task force of 20 agents. In an affidavit for the search warrant, IRS Special Investigator Jeff Gordon said that Bell was "directly soliciting others to set up a system to murder government officials" and that he had devised a plan to overthrow the government. At a detention hearing in Tacoma, Arnold ordered Bell held without bail on both allegations. alano(a)teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."

3 2

FBI wants domestic crypto keys
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,12317,00.html FBI wants domestic crypto keys By Alex Lash July 10, 1997, 12:45 p.m. PT After months on the fence, Federal Bureau of Investigation director Louis Freeh is making it clear that controlling the domestic use of encryption software is a greater priority than limiting its export. "Law enforcement is more concerned about the significant and growing threat to public safety and effective law enforcement that would be caused by the proliferation and use within the United States of a communications infrastructure that supports strong encryption products but cannot support timely law enforcement decryption," Freeh told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. The director's comments yesterday underline the conflict within the administration on encryption policy and the influence the security agencies have on that policy. Other voices in the administration, including Vice President Al Gore and an early draft of the White House's e-commerce white paper, have long insisted that domestic use would remain unregulated. In the hearing convened by committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Freeh also expressed concern that pending Senate legislation doesn't go far enough in giving law enforcement access to encrypted electronic data within U.S. borders. "These legislative proposals still do not contain adequate assurances that the impact on public safety and effective law enforcement of the widespread availability of encryption will be addressed," he told the committee. Freeh was referring specifically to Senate bill 909, which mandates domestic key recovery--a technology that gives access to a user's private keys--for all encryption products purchased with federal money and for all federally funded electronic networks. Security officials like Freeh argue that inaccessible encryption will let criminals communicate on the Internet without fear of being caught. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska) and John McCain (R-Arizona), would also require key recovery for anyone within the United States using a government-approved digital certificate. Digital certificates are ID tags that verify the sender of a communication or transaction as well as the integrity of the data within. "Registration and the use of registered agents and [digital certificate] authorities are entirely voluntary," Kerrey told the committee yesterday. Because digital certificates are considered necessary to spur Net-based commerce, critics of the McCain-Kerrey bill argue that a federal "stamp of approval" program for certificates creates an environment of mistrust for those who choose not to participate in the program. Such an environment is bad for business, critics say, and will make the federal program and the use of key recovery a de facto standard. The bill has already been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, and Judiciary might take it up for debate soon. The bill has not yet been referred to the committee, however, and no further hearings have been scheduled, according to the committee press secretary Jeanne Lopatto. Opponents of McCain-Kerrey are already taking unprecedented steps to state their case. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online rights organization, has gone beyond its usual Net-based advocacy to create a 60-second radio spot. The commercial urges listeners to contact McCain and complain about the bill. "We feel that if this bill passes it will have an extreme impact to privacy for the American public in the next 100 years, and the majority of people walking down the street will never know what even happened," EFF executive director Lori Fena told CNET's NEWS.COM. "We're preaching to the choir already on the Net; it's more effective to reach people in their cars." The radio ad is airing this week during rush-hour drive times in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C. The organization will gauge the volume of response to the ad before buying more air time, but Fena is encouraged by the response so far. The nonprofit group has spent "in the low thousands of dollars" on the advertisements, Fena added.

1 0

Re: Freeh's Testimony (FBI Seeks Domestic GAK)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Director, FBI, before the Senate Judiciary >Committee Hearing on Encryption, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. - >July 9, 1997 >Would we allow a car to be driven with features which would evade and >outrun police cars? But we do. Two hundred MPH cars remain street legal most places. With a good driver, these cars can even move fast enough to outrun radio communications (or rather the response time involved in radio communications). The search circle that contains them becomes too big too fast. >Would we build houses or >buildings which firefighters could not enter to save people? These remain legal as well. Heinlein's reinforced concrete house on Bonny Doone road in the Santa Cruz mountains. It is perfectly legal to build a reinforced concrete structure that could defeat entry for many days. More generally, it is legal not to speak and thus to deprive police and prosecutors of the contents of your mind. Crypto just extends this right. >Most importantly, we are not advocating that the privacy rights or personal >security of any person or enterprise be compromised >or threatened. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I don't think this has ever been tested in court. I'll bet their are many circumstances in which it is perfectly legal to shout fire in a(n unburning) crowded theater. >You can't with >impunity commit libel or slander. Unless you're judgement proof. These are usually civil not criminal matters in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. >In support of our position for a rational encryption policy which balances >public safety with the right to secure communications, >we rely on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. There the framers >established a delicate balance between "the right of the >people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects (today we >might add personal computers, modems, data >streams, discs, etc.) against unreasonable searches and seizures." Those >precious rights, however, were balanced against the >legitimate right and necessity of the police, acting through strict legal >process, to gain access by lawful search and seizure to the >conversations and stored evidence of criminals, spies and terrorists. Course you long ago dropped the bit about "reasonable cause to believe a *crime *has been* committed." Loads of preventive wiretaps and regulatory searches in the absence of even the accusation of a crime. Violating Regs is usually not a crime. >The precepts and balance of the Fourth Amendment have not changed or >altered. What has changed from the late eighteenth to >the late twentieth century is technology and telecommunications well beyond >the contemplation of the framers. Course the Framers didn't have wiretaps either since they had no wires. We're just trying to restore the balance to the way it was in those days. No wiretaps. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM8ZdwYVO4r4sgSPhAQFzuwQAsIaHDDZgqS7j2Fit59XgF/6dRMtVlMc8 cSdEZcJX+PgNPSfLMnJ3YzYZ0tchmtRseD3xpx/eSnFrs5mTk8EhwPoPjMec1ydc yzHKkQJ/Nv0aNDkGGv/ertjA9TsbLBnKYHMEmDLAq9EyQ6rnnbeedJx36GwTw9BM RYabw2seBxU= =HIgS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Recreational pharmaceuticals by genetic engineering (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:09:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eileen Tronolone (Pathfinder)" <eileent(a)pathfinder.com> To: Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)brainlink.com> Subject: Re: Recreational pharmaceuticals by genetic engineering (fwd) Also Sprach Ray Arachelian: > Psilocibe mushrooms usually cause vomiting. Most Amanita species > have an lethal dosage which is uncomfortably close to the > effective dosage, not a good thing in a drug. Amanita muscaria > however was used by the vikings to help induce their 'berserker' > state for battle. Actually - and you can forward this to relevant parties - woad, the infamous herb used by the Celtic warrior in the form of blue body paint, when mixed with urine (which is how they applied it to their bodies) causes a reaction very similar to cocaine and most amphetamines. The reduction in pain that is felt from wounds and the ecstacy brought on can easily be confused with a typical beserker reaction. The term beserk originates from "bare sark" - the beserkers wore little if no armor and the Celts are particularily famous for going into battle "in the altogether" except for the blue war-paint. The feeling of invulnerability that comes from the woad "high" led to this custom. Other semi-legal although dangerous "highs" can result from the ingestion of too much nutmeg or jasmine, both hallucenogens. -- Eileen Tronolone | eileent(a)pathfinder.com | Do not CD c System Administrator | redsonja(a)giti.com | taunt --------P===\==/ Commerce Team | gotagun(a)liii.com | happy fun /_\__ Time Inc. New Media | 212-522-9121 | fencer! _\ \

1 0

Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
by Peter Swire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the >constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors, >lawmakers, consumers, etc. > >Two recent example: > >1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of >$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping >of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!) >on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge >case.) So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously be far-reaching ramifications. For instance, an individual's right to sue in tort can be cut off. Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined class of suits, etc. If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the basis that it is unconstitutional. That's what happened with CDA -- the indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts. > >2. The "voluntary ratings" agreement being announced today by Al Gore and >some of the television networks. (Earlier "voluntary agreements" were >implemented, but, according to supporters of censorship, "failed." Hence >the new push for newer voluntary restrictions.) The big legal fight on ratings is whether any "state action" takes place. The First Amendment governs efforts by a federal or state government to restrict speech. If private companies "voluntarily" agree to do something, the First Amendment simply does not apply. But if the coercive power of the state forces them to do the same thing, then the courts can get involved under the First Amendment. Here, if the government is too explicit that it will ban certain speech unless the networks ban it, then a court might find that the government in fact is involved in an impermissible way. >The issue, it seems to me, is that ordinary concepts of illegality and >civil liability are being swept aside in favor of these huge "deals" to >reduce liability in exchange for various actions. Well, who is bound by >these deals? > >If "Tim's Tobacco Company" starts up next year, after this deal is >"signed," is his company bound by this deal? If Tim the Smoker develops >lung cancer, is he blocked from suing? > The basic concepts are pretty clear. A contract among various parties binds that group of parties. A statute of general applicability can regulate everyone in the jurisdiction. The existing tobacco companies can't bind "Tim's Tobacco Company" in their contract. However, if they support a bill in Congress, and the statute is enacted, then their actions might indeed play a role in restricting your actions later on. Peter Prof. Peter Swire Ohio State University College of Law mailto:swire.1@osu.edu web: http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (in early stages of construction)

9 14