December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Webpage picketing?...
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei wrote: > Jim Choate wrote: > > I have been looking at how to impliment picketing on the web. To date I have > > been unable to come up with a way to force a connection to one machine to go > > through a third machine in order to express some view about the original > > target. > > > > It occured to me > > that since one could argue that the links between sites are public avenues a > > site could 'picket' another site. The question became at this point, how? > Jim: > You may dislike > one of the sites linking to yours, but you really can't hijack their > connections and force people to listen to you who don't want to. Wrong! It's done every day in every media from newspapers to TV and points in between, including the InterNet. > Imagine if you could! Anyone who dislikes any other page on the > web could block access Like CyberSitter, for instance. They can keep your child from using the local library computer to access Humane Society pages and animal rights groups because they have the word "bitch" on their websites. > There are two things you *can* do. (With Peter's approval, but many more things you can do with my approval.) > 1. You can put a disclaimer on your page "If you linked here from > XXX.XXX.XXX, please be aware that I object to that connection for > the following reasons..." "...and I have uploaded a virus to your machine. Have a nice day." > 2. If you or your webmaster have any kind of technical > sophistication, you can force links to your page to go to a CGI > script, which uses the HTTP-referrer: header to provide different > pages depending on the source of the connection. "You have linked to the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY Home Page." "Information regarding your sexual proclivities will be forwarded to the FBI, the local religious and law enforcement authorities in your home town, as well as to your employer and known associates." "Have a nice day." > But please, don't try to extend the 'information superhighway' > (blech!) metaphor to include virtual sidewalks with picketing > rights Please, do! There is not a day goes by where government and corporate entities do not promote legislation or software standards, etc., which are designed to influence what we may and may not see, as well as in what manner we perceive it. There is no reason that the individual cannot work in their own way to counter activities that they see as working against their own personal interests. It is possible to promote a wide range of "links" to web pages which are "spoofs" of another page or which link to the page but do so by opening them in a window which has surrounding windows revealing contradictory opinons, links, etc. Provide a link to the "Pretty Lousy Privacy" homepage, but add a window which mentions that your ten year old son cracked their cryptography program. Provide a pointer to a copy of the latest crypto legislation, which you have "translated" to include phrases such as, "despite its blantant unconstitutionality" and "in order to shear the sheeple." You are under no obligation to produce links or pointers, or to respond to links or pointers to your own site, in a manner that runs contrary to your own self-interest, or which allow those following those links to do so with blind faith that they will receive information slanted only toward a pre-conceived view of the world. Someone posted a URL to a web page "spoof" done by a number of cypherpunks (Hal Finney??,??) who had placed a number of options such as "Click here to destroy your hard-drive.", etc. on the site. It was a very Zen koan type of page which made one think about what they were doing and the possibilities of what the web page authors were/could-be doing. Click on a link that states, "Click here to see Hot, Teenage Sluts" and you are likely to end up at hotmail.com, adding to their list of spammees. To join the Dorthy Denning fan club, send email to majordomo(a)toad.com with a message body that says "subscribe cypherpunks." One can change the content of another's message when replying to an email: > Peter Trei > Disclaimer: The above represents the opinion of the people who > are holding my family hostage. or invent whatever "facts" suit their purpose: "Dr. Vulis is a murdering Armenian and Jim Choate sends the ASCII art spams to the list. These are well-known facts to which they have admitted in the past." I have a lot of respect for Peter's work, opinions and for his integrity, but my perception is that he fails to understand that the InterNet is a growing mosaic which can and should reflect *all* of life, and that his perception of what the InterNet is and should be somehow dictates what should and should not be done on the InterNet. I think that what should be done on the InterNet is exactly what people *want* to do. It is up to their own conscience as to whether their actions are done with integrity and up to the rest of us to interpret and respond to those actions. Tim May replied to someone on the list that a subject header he had used was "guilty(?)" of being inflammatory, and that he had used it for that very reason, to draw attention to his post. Is this manipulative? It is the way life works. I used Peter Trei and others' software for the DES Challenge, but I posted a suggestion to the list that perhaps their programs contained subterfuge designed to thwart others in their attempts to find the secret keys. Was I spreading FUD? The responses to my post gave me much more information about the processes behind the software than any direct inquiries I had made about their workings. (And they reinforced the fact that "blind trust" in their programs or anyone else's is foolish.) In short, I do not see Jim's concept of "picketing" web sites to be lacking in ethics, any more than Dr. Vulis' "rants" or John Gilmore's "unsubscribing" of the good Doctor or Tim May's "prodding" of our attention by his choice of subject headers. Each of us is responsible for interpreting and analyzing the information we access whether it says the king is wearing clothes or the king is naked. I could put a pointer to Peter's software which opens an adjoining window which warns that it may be compromised as a result of ulterior motives. The fact is, however, that Peter might himself put a disclaimer on his page saying, "If you can't read code, then you can't be certain of what my software is doing." (As a matter of fact, I believe his documentation mentions that there is no guarantee his logic is not in error.) And in the extreme case of anti-abortionists intercepting the email of pro-choice groups and inserting "Abortion is Murder!" messages--if the person receiving the message can't figure out that something is amiss, then maybe its not a good idea for them to be having children, anyway. (maybe) TruthMonger (maybe not) To view the contents of the whitehouse.gov hard drive: http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn/

1 0

CA dig sig
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:21:59 -0400 >From: Ben Wright <Ben_Wright(a)compuserve.com> >Subject: California signature regs >To: CA-DIGSIG <CA-DIGSIG(a)commerce.net> > >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >This message was addressed to: ca-digsig(a)lists.commerce.net >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >See <http://www.ss.ca.gov/digsig/digsig.htm>. The California Secretary of >State proposes regulations under California's digital signature act. The >regs allow for two types of technologies -- public key crypto and signature >dynamics (a method for securely binding measurements of a handwritten >autograph to an electronic document). > >--Ben Wright >Author, The Law of Electronic Commerce ><http://infohaus.com/access/by-seller/Benjamin_Wright> >Ben_Wright(a)compuserve.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBM5OjBrk2KqHYSFEtEQIZlgCg54ppki6gxo85Iz4jrGVWptpfDKgAoPHi YNkQ6Z+NMo/f7sieToDJje4Z =zH6K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Comments on the Macintosh
by Bill Frantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vinnie wrote: >Tim,.I am suprised to hear you whining with such a liberals voice.. I >always thought that demanding memory protection in an OS is a lot like >demanding that the government is responsible for protecting you from >anything that might go bad.. If applications are well written, then you >really dont need the memory partitions in a personal computer. Hi Vinnie. I'm with Tim on this one. While I have strong feelings about locking up people, I have no compunctions at all about locking up program-instances. If I can contain the instances, and especially keep them limited in their file access, I can do a bunch to control viruses and other nasties. (BTW - Linux, like all Unixes is piss poor at limiting file system access.) Best Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: McVeigh
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker, realizing he is a soft target, wrote: > Appologists for McVeigh should consider that his actions did not > advance the militia cause an iota, it destroyed it and along with > it much of the right wing fringe. Or perhaps just sent more people underground. Many remarked that the Jim Bell arrest chilled the free speech of many list members but there are now at least two active AP Bots on the internet. I haven't noticed anybody "apologizing" for McVeigh or Bell. There are merely those who act or who don't act. <The rest of Phill's post is just his usual knee-jerk, elitist slander of those he politically opposes, and not worth commenting on.> TruthMonger

5 5

[fwd] California digital-signature proposed regulations
by Jamie Lawrence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:40:30 -0800 To: [...] Subject: [fwd] California digital-signature proposed regulations >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:21:59 -0400 >From: Ben Wright <Ben_Wright(a)compuserve.com> >Subject: California signature regs >To: CA-DIGSIG <CA-DIGSIG(a)commerce.net> > >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >This message was addressed to: ca-digsig(a)lists.commerce.net >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >See <http://www.ss.ca.gov/digsig/digsig.htm>. The California Secretary of >State proposes regulations under California's digital signature act. The >regs allow for two types of technologies -- public key crypto and signature >dynamics (a method for securely binding measurements of a handwritten >autograph to an electronic document). > >--Ben Wright >Author, The Law of Electronic Commerce ><http://infohaus.com/access/by-seller/Benjamin_Wright> >Ben_Wright(a)compuserve.com > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This message was sent by a majordomo-based automatic list manager. >Subscriptions to and archives of this list are available to any person >or organization. For further information send a mail message to >'ca-digsig-request(a)lists.commerce.net' with 'help' (no quotations) >contained in the body of your message. > --- end forwarded text -- "This analogy is like lifting yourself by your own bootstraps." -Douglas R. Hofstadter _______________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence jal(a)acm.org

1 0

Re: May's Banal Rant
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:06 PM 6/2/97 -0500, Marc Rotenberg wrote: >Like I said, Tim May et al are behind the >curve. You guys preach cyber anarchy but >you're really armchair activists. Methinks Marc has no idea what many of us do in their day jobs, much less what we do in our spare time. But who cares. All that matters is that we get more tools out faster. On that note...back to work. --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Put a stake through the heart of DES! Join the quest at http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm

1 0

test1
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hello

1 0

[Noise] Internet makes niche markets possible
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[The following post has zero crypto relevance.] We all have heard much rhetoric concerning the Internet enabling the creation of niche markets. Markets that wouldn't exist otherwise, since potential sellers would not be able to reach a sufficient number of potential buyers to make production of a good profitable. But how many instances such newly created markets are you aware of? Well, I discovered a rather sweet example. You really like M&M's. You know: the round chocolate candy that melt in your mouth, not in your hand. The only problem is, you don't like the standard colors. You would much rather have all blue M&M's or, better yet, a bag containing only teal and light pink. Since the market for teal or light pink M&M's is marginal, the maker of M&M's does not include these colors in the bags one can purchase at nearest corner store. What to do? Voilà, the Internet to the rescue. Mars, the worldwide candy powerhouse and manufacturer of M&M's, decided to tap this newly possible business opportunity by offering custom colored M&M's through their webpage at http://www.m-ms.com/ A Shockwave applet allows you to combine your favorite colors and order the candy mix of your choice. Finally, teal M&M's are yours to indulge. Enjoy, --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Put a stake through the heart of DES! Join the quest at http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing?...
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Hi, > > I have been looking at how to impliment picketing on the web. To date I have > been unable to come up with a way to force a connection to one machine to go > through a third machine in order to express some view about the original > target. > > This idea came to me while watching some folks picket a local grocer over > something I couldn't make out (the signs were poorly done). It occured to me > that since one could argue that the links between sites are public avenues a > site could 'picket' another site. The question became at this point, how? > > So far I have been unable to figure a way out. Any ideas you might care to > share with us all? > | No people do so much harm as those who go about doing good. Jim: I know you've been on this list for quite some time, but this is not only impossible (as you would know if you understood the technology involved); it's also highly undesirable. You may dislike one of the sites linking to yours, but you really can't hijack their connections and force people to listen to you who don't want to. Imagine if you could! Anyone who dislikes any other page on the web could block access - 'right to life' groups could hijack connections to Planned Parenthood, a church site could block playboy.com for the entire world, any government could extend it's domestic censorship standards to the entire net. Pepsi could block links to Coke. There are two things you *can* do. 1. You can put a disclaimer on your page "If you linked here from XXX.XXX.XXX, please be aware that I object to that connection for the following reasons..." 2. If you or your webmaster have any kind of technical sophistication, you can force links to your page to go to a CGI script, which uses the HTTP-referrer: header to provide different pages depending on the source of the connection. I suspect that Ticketmaster is doing something like this in blocking links from MSN. But please, don't try to extend the 'information superhighway' (blech!) metaphor to include virtual sidewalks with picketing rights - this is silly. A better metaphor for what you want to do would have a church groups insist that all mailings from Planned Parenthood diverted to them, so that they can insert their own fliers into the envelopes. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com Disclaimer: The above represents my opinion only.

3 2

Why Privacy
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Here's one of my old essays that I found while doing disk cleanup: WHY PRIVACY? The last few years have been bad ones for privacy in America. As of June 1st, 1987 it became a crime to hire anyone, even your own child, who does not present identification cards. The "drug" laws passed in recent years require ever more detailed reporting of smaller and smaller cash transactions. Any children over the age of two who are to be claimed as dependents on their parent's tax returns now need Social Security numbers. I suppose that with all this new prying there will be less illegal drug use and everyone will pay their fair share of taxes although past restrictions on privacy did not seem to reduce these problems. We seem headed for a National Identity Card system. According to government officials promoting ID cards, the main argument in favor of this radical step is that the law-abiding would have nothing to fear from it. This seems a curious argument for the proponents of such a dramatic change in the relationship between the people of the U.S. and their government since it fails to state any benefit for the law-abiding either. The fact is that the argument is false. The law-abiding have a great deal to fear from all invasions of their privacy by the minions of the state. If the history of this century has proved anything, it has proved that the innocent have far more to fear from government than the guilty. Why guard the privacy of the innocent (the guilty can and will take care of themselves)? After all the enforcers say, "If you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy." The answer should be obvious, "The innocent won't know what they have to hide until it's too late." The reason to value privacy is simply that we know from the most casual reading of the history of Europe that every sort of person has at certain times and in certain places been killed because of what others knew about them. Over the last 400 years, within the confines of Europe, peasants, workers, aristocrats, bourgeois shopkeepers, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Communists, Nazis, anarchists, monarchists, and others have faced death simply because of what they were. These people may have gone about their business in seeming safety for years until a change in circumstance marked them for death. By then it was too late for them to hide their selves. This is why privacy must be valued. It may be that every single one of the millions of current employees of the international, national, state, and local governments who will make use of the information collected about us is a noble human being without a tyrannical bone in his (or her) body but we cannot guarantee the future. The average American has some forty years of life left and forty years is a long time in the life of today's nations. There may come a time within those forty years when innocent information surrendered to the state will mean death. No nation is immune to domestic or foreign tyrrany, given the fluid nature of modern politics. To make the abstract concrete, how was it that the Nazi government of Germany identified Jews for extermination? It proved to be a simple matter of consulting local records. Did the Jewish mother and father in 1880 or 1900 or 1920 realize when they listed their child's religion on birth records in full compliance with the law that they were condemning that child to death? Or what about the passport. Promoted at the beginning of this century as a means of easing international travel and safeguarding the passage rights of neutrals, it has become a major impediment to international travel and even a threat to life. If one is on board an airliner with armed Palestinian terrorists, would one rather be carrying an American, Israeli, British, Swiss, or Syrian passport? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM5QwKoVO4r4sgSPhAQHU0wQAurkb8o8xMiNV6urPikwmn7R57EFqx/nl SX48j+6PdihKT1c8oV9b+SmWlJMLjfCdEee0AZWhSlnrl2H6yt+JC5SrxD40dtSE C0tg4tbjXe5H5VI8HT1i6qobS7y5dI6moWyaHhxc4Zg4g7ztpNnYLTMKOxsLG2jk Pp0ZgLdS6Kc= =OtSv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0