March 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Sttop Spreading Hatred
by Tyler Durden 28 Mar '04

28 Mar '04

OK, I keep getting this shit. Right now, I can't tell if it's anti-agit-prop or simply a well-intentioned but idiotic muslim chick (something about the wording made me assume this was a female). Listen up. Cypherpunks is a cryptography list, and al-qaeda.net is a node. The subscribers to this list may or may not sympathize with the activites of the "Real" "al-qaeda". The name al-qaeda is, I suspect, more or less tongue-in-cheek, and at the least (or perhaps the most) a head-nod at some of the gripes that real organization has with the US government, and those that continue to support it's activites abroad. However, there does not appear to be any regular posters to this list that are involved with al-qaeda the "terror" network. (Actually, if there are, it would be interesting to hear from them via the remailers.) Cypherpunks is an extremely diverse group of indivduals, that do not appear to agree on a great many number of things. What binds us together (if anything) is the interest in cryptographic techniques that would appear to offer the capability of secure communications, with "communications" meaning any kind of transaction that can be transmitted by data over electronic or optoelectronic networks. Another thing that seems to bind us (and again "bind" is probably a poor choice of words) is an extreme tolerance to opinions very different from that of any one subscriber. Therefore please get a fuckin' clue. If you want to discuss the role of "Radical" Islam in contemporary world politics, I'm sure there are those that would be interested in doing so. Otherwise, please fuck off. Sincerely, Tyler S. Durden >From: "SSAR" <sar548(a)hotmail.com> >Reply-To: sar548(a)hotmail.com >To: camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com >Subject: Sttop Spreading Hatred >Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:01:59 +0500 > >Subject: Stop Spreading Hatred > > >I think being a Muslim you are not working for peace. You are misguided, >mistaken and spreading hatred through disinformation and false accusations, >which is resulting in death and miseries for number of innocent people >living around the world at the hands of merciless KILLER MUSLIMS and also >bringing bad name to MOHAMMED as Founder Of Islam. > >To save Islam from total extinction, please work for peace and >reconciliation and prove to the WORLD through your deeds that MOHAMMED >teaches "love & peace" and not Cruelty, Inhumanity and "Hatred & Killing" >of the innocent civilians. > >S.A.R > > _________________________________________________________________ All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn

3 2

RE: Mobile Wifi Backpack (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
by Tyler Durden 28 Mar '04

28 Mar '04

Well, we actually discussed a similar configuration in the context of mass demonstration. Such a configuration could prevent a Goonsquad shakedown of data/photos/videos, particularly when the WiFi device is acting like a router, and particularly when this router is one of many in a sea of routers, all forwarding the info-stuff. To my knowledge, Variola cleverly dubbed it eJazeera. -TD >From: Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> >To: transhumantech(a)yahoogroups.com, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Mobile Wifi Backpack (fwd from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org) >Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:28:35 +0100 > >----- Forwarded message from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org ----- > >From: brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org >Date: 26 Mar 2004 23:26:03 -0000 >To: slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org >Subject: Mobile Wifi Backpack >User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3 > >Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/26/1841245 >Posted by: michael, on 2004-03-26 20:20:00 >Topic: wireless, 222 comments > > from the share-the-love dept. > [1]ruzel writes "Julian Bleecker's web site [2]TechKwonDo describes > [3]a project that is a wifi base station in a backpack. 'WiFi.Bedouin > is a wearable, mobile 802.11b node disconnected from the global > Internet. It forms a WiFi "island Internet" challenging conventional > assumptions about WiFi and suggesting new architectures for digital > networks that are based on physical proximity rather than solely > connectivity.' The motivation is essentially subversive but what other > uses are there for a device like this?" > > [4]Click Here > >References > > 1. mailto:ruzel@yahoo.com > 2. http://www.techkwondo.com/ > 3. http://www.techkwondo.com/projects/bedouin/index.html > 4. >http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2683&alloc_id=6523&site_id=1&request_id=6363190&… > >----- End forwarded message ----- >-- >Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> >______________________________________________________________ >ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net ><< attach3 >> _________________________________________________________________ Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms all in one place at MSN Money! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/home.asp

1 0

Re: Anonymizer employees need killing
by Lance Cottrell 28 Mar '04

28 Mar '04

I hope at this point the retractions by the Register have been well circulated. Just to make it absolutely clear, we have never and never will sell out a customer. This is simply shoddy reporting at its worst. A blog first reported this months ago as "an anonymizer" which was then picked up as "The Anonymizer" in some articles, which then printed corrections. In fact the company involved was Surfola which is not connected to us in any way shape or form (and which I had never even heard of before this). Months later the Register picked up on an old uncorrected version of the story and printed it without any fact checking at all. This is a shocking breach of editorial responsibility. I would have hoped that my years of working on free open source privacy tools (such as Mixmaster) before founding Anonymizer would lend my reputation some weight, or at least give me the benefit of the doubt until the matter was clarified. I am deeply troubled to see death threats against my employees (and I would assume myself) without anyone taking the trouble to even ask us to comment. It has always been easy to contact me directly, next time I hope someone will do so before assuming the worst. -Lance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- Lance M. Cottrell President, Anonymizer Inc.

3 4

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
by R. A. Hettinga 28 Mar '04

28 Mar '04

<http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/print/2953483/detail.html?use=print> TheNewOrleansChannel.com Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants POSTED: 3:55 PM CST March 26, 2004 UPDATED: 4:36 PM CST March 26, 2004 NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business. Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused. The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell." The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000. New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused. "We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said. But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling. "I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition. Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled. "There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Interesting case?
by Dave Howe 28 Mar '04

28 Mar '04

Interesting looking case coming up soon - an employee (whose motives are probably dubious, but still :) installed a keyghost onto his boss' pc and was charged with unauthorised wire tapping. That isn't the interesting bit. the interesting bit is this is IIRC exactly how the FBI obtained Scarfo's PGP password, waybackwhen - *without* a wiretap warrant. http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=keystrokeloggerhit1080217420 be interesting if his lawyer decided to call an FBI expert to explain why this device isn't wiretapping, wouldn't it? :)

1 0

Dear Vin S...
by N. Landholt 27 Mar '04

27 Mar '04

...and all you other "libertarians" out there: "It's the vote count, Stupid!!" /s/ Nick ***************************************** Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:59:57 -0500 To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net From: "R. A. Hettinga" Subject: Repeal every law enacted since 1912 Sunday, March 14, 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Repeal every law enacted since 1912 Michael writes in, asking: "I am a junior in high school, a member of the Libertarian Party and I read your column every week. I am e-mailing you for two reasons: 1) Your last article in response to that woman's letter was great. ... 2) I'm not criticizing you, but I would like to know what alternative you propose when saying we should do away with prisons." I replied: Hi, Michael, The problem with proposing "pragmatic" solutions that might help the statists out of the hideous swamps in which they have bemired themselves is that we're surrounded by proud government-school graduates with little historical perspective, who therefore assume everything our government now does is historically "normal," and who are equally likely to denounce as either a failed comedian or a "nut" anyone who proposes anything radically different. Take Social Security. Point out that this Ponzi scheme is actuarially bankrupt, and the Peanut Gallery shrieks "It's easy to criticize; what do you suggest we do?!" In good faith, we might suggest they do a pro-rated division of any money the government wants to contend is actually in the "Social Security Trust Fund" among those aged 50 and older, based on how much they paid in, while telling workers under 50: "Sorry, you're out of luck. But at least you've got 15 years to save for your retirement, and you'd better get started." The screaming then begins: "But what about the starving oldsters who depend on those payments? They were promised!" And is the target of this outrage those who foisted this transparent socialist fraud on a befuddled nation? No, it's those of us who have bravely assumed the role of bank examiners, merely holding open the door to the empty vault and pointing out they've created an unsustainable system. The case is similar as we begin to examine why the United States has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. Take the case of Martha Stewart. They couldn't charge her with selling her stock when her broker told her it was going to fall in value, since that's not illegal. Instead, they convicted her of telling the FBI that's not the reason she sold her stock. This is the kind of thing for which Americans now go to prison. So if you find a sucker to buy your used car for twice the Blue Book value, you can't go to jail because it's not a crime. If a cop asks you whether you sold your car for twice its Blue Book Value and you say, "Sure I did. Whatcha gonna do about it?" you can't go to jail, because that's not a crime. But if you tell a federal cop, "No; I sold that car for exactly what's it's worth" ... you can go to jail for 20 years. (While, in the meantime, the cops can lie to you with impunity, and bribe other suspects to testify against you by promising them lesser punishments, with no penalty to the cops or prosecutors if that testimony turns out to be a pack of lies.) And this is the set-up that our critics will tell us is sane, while they can easily be predicted to tell us any radical changes we propose are "nuts." That said, a few modest proposals: Today's "penitentiaries" are a weird invention of the modern "hygienic" movement. Peaking in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this is the same movement that assured us society could be "cleaned up" by banning the legal commerce in alcohol and other plant extracts ("drugs"); aborting and sterilizing the retarded and those of "inferior races"; putting the government increasingly in charge of child-rearing; coming up with "modern, humane" methods of execution such as the electric chair, etc. In short, these people were dangerous nuts. For starters, we could reduce our prison populations by about two-thirds simply by retroactively repealing every law enacted since 1912. Was murder illegal by 1912? Of course. Rape? Of course. Kidnapping, armed robbery, bunko fraud? All serious criminal behaviors had been outlawed by 1912. So why have the number of lawbooks on the shelf multiplied tenfold in the past 92 years? Release everyone jailed on a drug law (unknown before 1916), for income tax evasion (impossible before 1913), for any kind of illegal possession of or commerce in firearms (laws unimagined a century ago), or for violating any kind of regulatory scheme or edict erected since 1912, and the federal prisons would be virtually empty, while even the state pens would probably see their populations cut in half. Now declare that -- instead of having their guns taken away and being considered for prosecution -- any law-abiding citizen who shoots and kills (or at least permanently cripples) a felon during his commission of a felony will be given a free Browning Automatic Rifle and a $30,000 government reward (the current cost of jailing the culprit for a year while he awaits trial), be declared immune from any civil lawsuit, and will additionally be given a tickertape parade and a medal. Add to any (substantially reduced) criminal sentence a realistic order that the felon must compensate the victim or his family with current assets or future earnings. (This would lend itself quite well to being enforced by private collection outfits, who could follow the "former" felon around, attaching the bulk of his wages.) These things would make real, violent crime far less attractive, with the added benefit of shifting a lot of the "punishment" to established private-sector institutions. It's also a method that worked for millennia in cultures that never even invented the soul-eroding job of "prison guard." Next time: Whoops! What did we do with our welfare state? It was here a minute ago. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." His Web site is www.privacyalert.us. --

1 0

Mobile Wifi Backpack (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
by Eugen Leitl 27 Mar '04

27 Mar '04

----- Forwarded message from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org -----

1 0

Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
by Freematt357＠aol.com 27 Mar '04

27 Mar '04

In a message dated 3/24/2004 2:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, rah(a)shipwright.com writes: > So, the point is, as Duncan Frissell has always said on this list, when > confronted with cops of any kind, shut up, and lawyer up. > > Period. > > I don't say Jack to any government worker, even the Census poller...When it comes to Apparatchiks of the police state I'm unreachable. I do pay my taxes and participate in my state's driver license requirements...so the reality is that I do talk with government workers, albeit they do have a gun to my head. In general you have nothing to gain by speaking to the Police or assorted Fedgoons, so don't. Regards, Matt-

1 0

Re: Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards
by Major Variola (ret) 27 Mar '04

27 Mar '04

At 01:05 AM 3/27/04 -0500, baudmax23(a)earthlink.net wrote: >At 01:51 PM 3/26/2004, Thomas Shaddack <shaddack(a)ns.arachne.cz> wrote: > >>Suggested countermeasure: When true anonymity is requested, use the card >>ONLY ONCE, then destroy it. >Better yet, take another 10 minutes, get change from a laundromat, and use >coins! Or, give the card to some random homeless person, preferably while their ability to consolidate new memories is impaired. Keep them feds busy!

1 0

RE: Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards
by Major Variola (ret) 27 Mar '04

27 Mar '04

At 12:41 AM 3/27/04 -0500, baudmax23(a)earthlink.net wrote: >And yet one would've thought that a smart radical would have been able to >purchase a measly couple of 50 lb bags of (NH4NO3) without having to call >all over the place and brag about it, and for cash at that. You don't want >it known, don't say it on the phone.. All true except that the McVeigh Patriots used a few tons of the stuff. Still, they were in Ag country, should not have been too tough. Frankly, the militia's opsec sucked. At least they depleted the pool of Fed-employee offspring before they could reproduce. Bonus points for that. -------- 10 credits on Sharon before Mushareff. 20 credits on .iq .mil death toll < 750 when above is decided. Clark under oath: priceless

1 0