- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re:
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> writes: > [cc list trimmed!] > > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > > > Yes. > > Rubbish. It is perfectly legal. See generally > http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm I remember teaching in my computer security class how in 1944 the congress passed an act making it illegal to send encrypted messages fro m the U.S. to abroad via snail mail, radio, etc; it covers the not yet invented communications too (like computer networks) and is on the books in U.S.Code somewhere. No further laws need to be passed for the fuckers to start enforcing it. > PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, > however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... Paul's sexist comments are very interesting - I hope to find more time to comment on them too. I don't know if they have the same kind of "affirmative action" in the U.K. that they have in the U.S. - here if you find a woman in the position of authority, there's a good chance that she was promoted ahead of more qualified men to meet some quota, and is therefore incompetent. Remember how Klintoris (spit, spit) was determined to have a female attorney general 4 years ago, and went through a slew of female candidates, rejecting the best qualified ones like Kimba Wood, because she did what every working mother in this country does - hired a babysitter for cash - and finally appointed the bull dyke murdreress? No wonder the most ignorant shysters on this forum, like Jim Ray (spit) come from Florida. Did he take classes with Froomkin? :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Cryptanalysis
by Scott Auge 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. Vague explanations are OK. Dont want long drawn out explainations on the implementation of an attack (source code, proofs, statistical analysis and the like), just a short explaination of the attack. Thanks all, Scott -- How has the government interfered in your life today?

1 0

Mirrors and replies-to
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, so far, I've got three cypherpunks mailboxes. One for sirius, one for algebra, and one for toad. It was interesting to me that I got stuff from the mirrors faster than toad until I remembered that the mirrors are wired to the unmoderated list at toad, and I'm still subscribed to the moderated list there. However, I would like it if the mirror operators would reinstantiate a feature of the original list for me. The reply-to field on the mirrors is currently set to cypherpunks(a)toad.com. On the original list, this was set to "sender", both to keep people from replying to the list unnecessarily (hah! :-)) but also to keep mail loops from forming. Mail loops could be a big problem, especially when you guys put together your neo-netnews mailring. (a little jyaism, that... :-)). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

2 1

Re: More on digital postage
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Bell wrote: > At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut > >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these > >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to > >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it > >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised > >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. > However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full > well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the > phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information > provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing > junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to a beer out of my fridge? Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it legal.

1 0

Cryptanalysis
by Scott Auge 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. Vague explanations are OK. Dont want long drawn out explainations on the implementation of an attack (source code, proofs, statistical analysis and the like), just a short explaination of the attack. Thanks all, Scott -- How has the government interfered in your life today?

2 1

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos wrote: > John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> writes: > [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] > Two small points. > 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly > of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first > demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy > would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards > clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the > archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not > to renew his EFF membership. > 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) I'm so disgusted by the other disinformation put out by John's loyal friends (i.e. "respected" cypherpunks) on the subject of "disrupters and sociopaths", etc. that I try not to reply to any of the crud I see posted by those clowns. But when someone tries to be reasonable, conversation is possible. So how about some points on "disrupters": 1. Disrupters don't like bullies. 2. Disrupters don't like mindless authorities. 3. Disrupters don't like control freaks. 4. Disrupters don't like liars and hypocrites. 5. Disrupters don't like NSA/CIA/DEA/FBI trolls. 6. Disrupters don't like Animal Farm policies and elitists. In short, if Gilmore had come down on the real problem people once in a while, they wouldn't have agitated the "disrupters" nearly as much as they did. But he wasn't about to do that, because he's one of the problem people himself. Fooey on you, Gilmore. May you never work in this business again.

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > I do not begin to believe this is correct. I happen to believe that > sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense > of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form > of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of interest. > I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in > any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, > a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a > number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did > not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were > subtle and well thought through. I thought Einstein's ideas on social matters (incl. religion) were naive and sentimental. There's a difference in saying "I believe there's a God" and "I believe in a God". Of course, either way one could be implying a hidden or unspecified set of agendas concomitant with such a belief. In the movie "Jesus Of Nazareth" is a classic example of why to believe or not believe in a religion, i.e. things unseen: At the end, the followers are in a small room, fearing for their safety and all, and they say to Jesus "how is anyone going to believe all this stuff" (or words to that effect), and Jesus replies "because you are my witnesses. Tell them and they will believe". See how simple that was?

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Against Moderation 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes: > > * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a > > good thing before it was ruined? If so, gay people at least > > deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't > > manage to run it well. > > Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all > happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom > had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it? Okay. Suppose for argument's sake that the people who are censoring Usenet all happen to be gay? Why, then, would all gay people deserve blame for these actions? Now suppose they aren't gay. Them whom are these homohpobic rants really attacking? Gay people or censors? If you say, for instance, "New cypherpunks list for heterosexuals only", who do you think is actually going to be affected by this? Certainly not Gilmore who is completely disillusioned with cypherpunks at this point and not likely to subscribe any mailing list a person like that runs anyway. Rather, you are attacking people who happen to be gay but would otherwise be interested in subscribing to the mailing list. Now suppose it's not instantly possible to discern a person's sexual orientation over the internet, as Dr. Grubor claims it is. Suppose further that some of the people who censor Usenet are gay, and others aren't. Some of the people in favor of free speech are gay, others are not. Many of those who are straight don't just come out and say, "I am not gay," for the simple reason that they oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation and don't believe one's sexual orientation should be relevant to a debate on censorship. In such a case, refocusing the debate on homosexuality rather than censorship hardly furthers your objectives. I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up and analyze the mess" phase. As a recent example illustrates well, Vulis did a nice job of inducing censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and -flames mailing list.

1 0

cypherpunks@toad.com
by sheldon＠sdsu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm a very long term lurker writing to thank you for hosting the mailing list. It was surprising that the list, if not the community, was as vulnerable to twits like Vulis as it appears. It's a valuable lesson. When cypherpunks rise from these ashes I hope that designers of alternatives will remember the Alamo so to speak. -- sheldon glass | Plauger's Dogma sglass(a)mail.sdsu.edu | No program may leave its sanity #include <std.disclaimer> | at the mercy of its input.

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Well, they will stop sending you money if they find out that you do not buy > their products. > > - Igor. As long as they stop sending the Ads.

1 0