December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Internet - Good & Bad [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > June 12, 1997: 4:28 p.m. ET > > Time NEW YORK (CNNfn) - New technologies for video transmission over > the Internet, such as digital video discs (DVDs), represent remarkable > potential but also pose an inherent threat to global intellectual > property rights, one of the most powerful media executives in the > nation said. > [INLINE] The Net represents "promise and penalty," Frank Biondi, > chairman and chief executive of MCA's Universal Studios, told the > audience of the third annual Price Waterhouse media conference here. > [INLINE] "At some time, we'll be able to transmit video real-time" > over the World Wide Web through the use of technology such as DVDs, > Biondi said. However, to succeed, media companies increasingly need to > address two principle challenges: protecting intellectual property and > promoting the "brand," he added. > [INLINE] "By and large, encryption can be broken. That's pretty > scary," Biondi said.

1 0

Crackdown on spam? [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > FEDS TO CRACK DOWN ON JUNK E-MAIL FRAUD > > > > June 12, 1997 > Web posted at: 8:16 p.m. EDT (2016 GMT) > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators put the junk e-mailindustry on > notice Thursday that businesses will be punished ifthey put false > information in unsolicited mail they send tomillions of Internet > users. > > The Federal Trade Commission also asked the industry to come upwith > ways to stem the flood of commercial mail clogging theInternet and > creating bottlenecks that make it difficult to getonline. > > The FTC said it would ask industry groups to supply lists > ofjunk-mail senders to help in the new drive to detect > fraud.Penalties a junk mailer might face for breaking the fraud law > couldinclude an injunction to stop the illegal practice up to tens > ofthousands of dollars in fines for a repeat offender.

1 0

Major Netscape Bug [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From Correspondent Steve Young > June 12, 1997: 6:58 p.m. ET > > Netscape unveils Netcaster - April 15, 1997 > > Princeton team finds third Netscape bug - May 20, 1996 > > Netscape NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A serious new flaw that affects all > versions of Netscape Communications Corp.'s popular Navigator Internet > browser software -- including the final test version of its > Communicator Suite released Wednesday -- has been uncovered by a > Danish software firm, CNNfn has learned. > > The bug was reported by Cabocomm, a software company located about 100 > miles west of Copenhagen, Denmark. The bug makes it possible for > Web-site operators to read anything stored on the hard drive of a PC > logged on to the Web site.

1 0

Quadratic residues
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. Maya's wee-wee is so tiny that only his mommy is allowed to touch it. __o _ \<_ Timmy C. Maya (_)/(_)

2 1

Netscape Bug :)))
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just over the wire: Seems that there is a bug in Netscape including the new Communicator that will allow a web site to read *ANY* file on your computer. I repeate *ANY*, yes Virginia, *ANY* file on your computer. WebEx user and loving it. :))))) - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~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://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM6DAn49Co1n+aLhhAQFdVwP+LQHkDPYPdqKDQyTxuYW23NgEHGotNyqB KJxk7uf93aGrbY6Zi+6+Y8JZeb7ce9usORYP6YWzRx1K/LhkEHn5un0aIRUlbHed rIxvt1S28bwuiXGrPOWNKTNXfEGb1x/YyBNshooclY1bz1YS1ZRk8t/vBl/aeTZy oWTpxeG/xjU= =Asb/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 7

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C. Maya likes to lick the semen-shit mixture that accumulates in the crack of his mother's ass. /_/\/\ \_\ / /_/ \ \_\/\ \ Tim C. Maya \_\/

2 1

Re: FUCK YOU: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it,
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ray Arachelian wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html Pretty good article. >> I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my >> civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no >> general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the >> right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't >> be able to stop someone else from passing along that >> information if you let it leave your computer. That's >> your responsibility. > >Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your >morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post >them all over the net, you'd feel differently! No need to go through them all. Just one record is guaranteed to set him and his friends off. >Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly >scum if you believe this. Ray, he was talking about *rights*, not *morals*. I don't believe anyone has an absolute *right* to privacy, but that doesn't mean I think it would be anything short of morally abhorrent to knowingly post, say, Declan's social security number. He has no legal or moral *right* to privacy, but it would be morally *wrong*, and I would truly be scum, if I knowingly posted it. Rights are negative; morals are positive. The burden of proof is entirely different. Journalists have a First Amendment right to be free from government-imposed restrictions on speech, including non-criminal invasions of privacy (some invasions of privacy can be criminal if the target is not a public figure -- but such prosecutions are extremely rare), but some journalists are truly scum. Others, like Declan in this case, get bashed over misinterpretations and ideological flamers. - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBM6Hjh5NcNyVVy0jxAQG+sAH/f0ZbXItOdKI/jOfcY9mDxU/0hBoHQVdM XUW9xIHgKIgVzYzUrXFdmRL81Ku9IR77aJ6MEYrN5HjMNCZXusGdLg== =u4We -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Netscape Security Flaw is a Feature
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many of us have been watching the CNN reports--headline reports at that--that all past and current versions of Netscape on all platforms have reportedly carried the bug that allows any Web site being hit by Netscape to examine files on the user's hard disk. (A demonstration by the Danish team was compelling. CNN-FN generated a text file, placed it on their hard disk, and accessed the Danish site. Moments later, the Danes read back the text file. Over and over for more examples. They _could have been_ the NSA Web site, and the files could have been history files, passphrase files, etc. History files are common, and give captured kestrokes, of course.) But how could such a massive, massive flaw have gone undiscovered for so long? The answer, "It's a feature, not a bug." According to Netscape spokesmen, this feature was added to the kernel of Mosaic, then Navigator, in 1993, as part of the Clipper Key Recovery Program. As James Clarke put it an interview tonight on MSNBC, "Dorothy Denning asked us to insert the "remote read" capabilities to ensure that the legitimate needs of law enforcement are met. No person cruising the Web has any expectation of privacy, as even Declan McCullagh has pointed out." Marc Rotenberg commented, "Privacy at the individual user level is unimportant, just so long as a Privacy Ombudsman can decide on the legitimate needs of law enforcement." Meanwhile, Microsoft has acknowledge that all lines to its Redmond site are clogged by people dumping Navigator and trying to download Explorer. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

5 6

Andrew Shapiro on privacy rights in The Nation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:08:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Andrew Shapiro on privacy rights in The Nation [Andrew is too modest perhaps to mention that his article is the cover story in the most recent issue of The Nation. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 02:52:22 -0500 From: Andrew Shapiro <ashapiro(a)interport.net> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: Mr. Gates goes to Washington, from The Netly News Declan: Interesting piece. I made a somewhat similar point about how the "siliconaires" (nice coinage) are manipuating the crypto debate at the expense of those making pure privacy arguments. This was in an article focusing mostly on a slightly different topic: this idea of the "market for privacy." Knowing your faith in markets, I doubt we'll agree on this one, but you may find my critique interesting -- and worth mentioning to the list. Given the news on P3 and OPS, the "market solution" will no doubt be discussed at the FTC hearing this week. See http://www.thenation.com/issue/970623/0623shap.htm Best, Andrew Andrew L. Shapiro Fellow, The Twentieth Century Fund Contributing Editor, The Nation 41 East 70th Street New York, NY 10021 ashapiro(a)interport.net work: +1 212 452 7725

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"RS" writes: I'm curious as to why you feel the need to conceal your identity. > When it comes down to flag burning, It really bothers me that we allow our > symbol of freedom to be burned. It's more than a flag and a right. It's a > symbol of the freedom we have. To allow someone to publicly burn a flag is > essentially displaying our freedom being burned. It's a symbol, not the thing symbolized. You are confusing the map with the country. Burning the flag is a statement by the burner that they feel that the symbol has become empty, and the freedom which the flag symbolizes is gone or has been compromised in some manner. It's clearly a form of political speech. True, It's a very strong statement, but strong political speech has been protected by the Constitution (at least up till now). > Bush was a veteran, and Clinton was not. I take it the ones who are > writing on this subject about how we should have the "freedom" to burn the > flag have never served in the military or for our country. You are mistaken - some of the people opposing your viewpoint have stated that they are veterans. > Being a veteran myself, I find it very distateful to allow anyone on our > soil to be allowed to "BURN" our symbol of freedom. Think about the flag > for a moment and what it really stands for. Does it not stand for freedom > and liberty? It does *stand* for freedom and liberty, but only as long those values really exist. It *is* *not* freedom and libery in it's own right. When what the flag symbolizes is gone, it becomes just a piece of cloth. Burning this cloth draws attention to the loss. It is a dramatic statement, but under certain circumstances an appropriate one. > Sorry, I just had to let this out. I stand behind Bush on this one. Don't > burn the flag unless you would like to live under another flag! Thank you for your opinion. You are of course free to express it. And I, and other thoughtful, freedom-loving Americans can oppose it. Think about this: Would you rather people did not burn the flag because: 1. They'll be thrown in the slammer if they do. 2. The revere the values for which it stands, and will not descrate a meaningful symbol of these values. In (2), we can look at the (very rare) individuals who *do* burn the flag, and determine for ourselves if they have a valid point to convey. In (1), we'll never know. For Congress to deny the freedom to burn the flag is a desecration of what the flag stands for - a descration of the flag by the government itself. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com Disclaimer: I represent only myself in this article.

3 2