- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Extensis CyberViewer Registration
by webmaster＠extensis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Gringo, Thank you for registering your copy of CyberViewer with Extensis! Your CyberViewer serial number is: JME-100-001-936-690721 Please save this message for your records. Visit <http://www.extensis.com/products/CyberViewer/> for more information about CyberViewer news & updates! Thanks for using Extensis CyberViewer! Jeff Cheney Product Marketing Manager jcheney(a)extensis.com

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:41 AM 1/29/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >>Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility >>or consistency. >> >>If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out >>on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be >>dead as a doornail in a week. >> >So you're saying that the system would work. Mr. bell would be targeted, a >price on his head, for starting that very system. Mr. Bell would be a >martyr, his system being proven by his own death. It would be some varient >of his idea that would be used to kill him, a bounty. Exactly correct. I will be killed by AP, my own invention. (however, I will be killed for merely DESCRIBING it, not only if I started the first instance of it.) Before I'd published the first part of AP, I knew and accepted what was going to happen. See AP part 7, at the end, quoted here: "Awe, that a system could be produced by a handful of people that would rid the world of the scourge of war, nuclear weapons, governments, and taxes. Astonishment, at my realization that once started, it would cover the entire globe inexorably, erasing dictatorships both fascistic and communistic, monarchies, and even so-called "democracies," which as a general rule today are really just the facade of government by the special interests. Joy, that it would eliminate all war, and force the dismantling not only of all nuclear weapons, but also all militaries, making them not merely redundant but also considered universally dangerous, leaving their "owners" no choice but to dismantle them, and in fact no reason to KEEP them!" "Terror, too, because this system may just change almost EVERYTHING how we think about our current society, and even more for myself personally, the knowledge that there may some day be a large body of wealthy people who are thrown off their current positions of control of the world's governments, and the very-real possibility that they may look for a "villain" to blame for their downfall. They will find one, in me, and at that time they will have the money and (thanks to me, at least partially) the means to see their revenge. But I would not have published this essay if I had been unwilling to accept the risk." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

No Subject
by sales 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

RE: Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: P.J. Westerhof >Franconics... Or Lesbonics of course, ................................................................. le femme fatale .. Blanc

1 0

The Politics of Export Restrictions
by Rick Hornbeck 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible the unreasonable crypto export restrictions are simply being imposed at this time for the purpose of making Al Gore look good when he runs for President in 2000? In other words, his campaign could include promises to retract existing crypto export restrictions established by his predecessor. The campaign would be accompanied by slogans and rhetoric such as "export crypto, not jobs" and the crypto/high-tech community would support Gore and the Democratic party in droves.

1 0

Re: Passphrase security
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deadwood Vilest K"arcinogen"OfTheMonth is so vile because rancid semen is dripping from all of his orifices. ^ ^ (o o) Deadwood Vilest K"arcinogen"OfTheMonth ( ) \___/ !_!

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > Exactly correct. I will be killed by AP, my own invention. (however, I > will be killed for merely DESCRIBING it, not only if I started the first > instance of it.) Before I'd published the first part of AP, I knew and > accepted what was going to happen. See AP part 7, at the end, quoted here: > See, Phill, I was right. igor

1 0

A comment on the censorship policy
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the "New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing. (Oksas has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also, engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he longs to see Oksas naked.) This whole process is showing the worst of Sandfort's censorship policy. (If this is dumped into the "Not suitable for Cypherpunks to read" list, I urge those of you who see it to pass it on to the main list.) END --

4 4

The Politics of Export Restrictions
by Rick Hornbeck 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible the unreasonable crypto export restrictions are simply being imposed at this time for the purpose of making Al Gore look good when he runs for President in 2000? In other words, his campaign could include promises to retract existing crypto export restrictions established by his predecessor. The campaign would be accompanied by slogans and rhetoric such as "export crypto, not jobs" and the crypto/high-tech community would support Gore and the Democratic party in droves.

1 0

Re: Sovreign Right of Lawful Access
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 PM 1/28/97 -0600, Mike McNally wrote: >Somebody wrote: >> >> This morning at the RSA keynote, David Aaron, the US Crypto >> ambassador quoted the "Sovreign Right of Lawful Access" as >> something that goverments were determined to preserve. > >Speaking as a private indiwidual, and not as a drone in the employ >of IBM (don't get me started on the "but wait, key recovery *isn't* >the same as key escrow" hoo-ha), that dude scared the piss out of >me. I think that terminology is odd. They're getting desperate. "Soverign Right of Lawful Access" doesn't state HOW DIFFICULT that "access" is to be. Interpreted broadly, that would outlaw any encryption even if it only impeded that access a tiny bit! Or under an alternative interpretation, the mere fact that it is hypothetically possible to decrypt a message means that nothing (other than mathematical improbability) stands in the way of doing the decrypt. Also, it didn't say SECRET ACCESS, although experience tells us that they (the thugs) probably assume this. I've long pointed out that ordinary search warrants require informing people who are being searched, even if they're not home and assuming the thugs didn't trash the place the way they frequently like to. I see no reason to believe that the advent of telephone technology in the late 1800's should have retroactively re-written the US Constitution to make secret searches okay. Technically, the Bill of Rights prohibits "unreasonable searches and siezures," and doesn't specifically mention the secrecy issue, but since (am I correct in this, Real Lawyers <tm>?) the practice up until that time required people searched to be informed of searches, a change in policy that wiretaps could be secret sounds more like taking advantage of a technological windfall, not "discovering" that the Constitution allowed something that had always before been prohibited. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0