- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

legal rqmt for FAX return phone #
by dat＠ebt.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought I heard somewhere that it was illegal to send anonymous faxes -- namely, that there was some regulation that you had to program your FAX machine with your phone number so it would get sent automagically whenever you faxed anything. Essentially it was ILLEGAL to fax without providing the recipient with a mechanism to find out where it came from. Of course, I suspect enforcement is lax, but still... :-) :-( Can someone please confirm this, or help with a reference? Private e-mail is fine... -- dat(a)ebt.com (David Taffs)

1 0

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, if any of you cypherpunks have MBone access, could you see if my session is showing up in sd? I also started a bisex channel. :) -lile

1 0

MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi folks, I just started a MBone cypherpunks session and the discription is: session: cypherpunks descript: We're here to stay... Just say *no* to the clipper... It'll just clip your wings so you can't fly... -lile :) -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 4

Clipper on Science Friday
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's NPR Science Friday show was on Clipper. Flatow's gFrom owner-cypherpunks Fri May 6 14:28:41 1994 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks> Received: by toad.com id AA13801; Fri, 6 May 94 14:28:41 PDT Received: from research.att.com (ninet.research.att.com) by toad.com id AA13790; Fri, 6 May 94 14:28:34 PDT Message-Id: <9405062128.AA13790(a)toad.com> From: smb(a)research.att.com Received: by gryphon; Fri May 6 17:27:20 EDT 1994 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: MBone cypherpunks session... Date: Fri, 06 May 94 17:27:19 EDT Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk I disagree with Perry, at least in the abstract. The mbone is not expensive, if no one is transmitting. First of all, there's no bandwidth reservation; if you're not sending anything, you don't consume anything. Second, the bits are sent only to the networks used by the recipients; a tree is constructed by the mbone routers based on IGMP (sic) packets emitted by the participants. So if IdiotS and IdiotD are having an mbone session, no one else is likely to see any impact... There are two exceptions: the IGMP packets themselves, and the sd announcements. But those are both sent once per minute or less, so they're not much of an issue. For technical information, see http://www.eit.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html; Rich Stevens' book ``TCP/IP Illustrated'' has a good discussion of IGMP, though I don't think he talks about mrouted, the mbone routing and tunneling protocol. Besides -- two of the important mbone tools, vat and wb, support encryption. What could be more ideal? That said, an open party line is probably a bad idea. The email load is bad enough on cypherpunks -- there's a *lot* of noise -- without having to listen to Cypherpunk Talk Radio (more likely Cypherpunk Shout Radio...) all day. But a semi-organized conference format, of a given duration, might work. It would be an interesting experiment to try. --Steve Bellovin

2 1

NYT Op-Ed piece...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NYT ran an op-ed piece by David Gelerntner arguing that the Digital Telephony and Clipper initiatives are a good idea. He is a professor of Computer Science at Yale University who is known for developing a parallel processing langauge known as Linda. He recently received a letter bomb that really hurt him and he mentions this in the piece. The FBI has been tracking this bomber for some time, but they haven't been able to catch him/her. It's in the edition of Sunday May 8th. -Peter Wayner D

1 0

MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry, Actually I think that Steve (smb(a)research.att.com) described it best. Please note his post about the MBone structure. I am going to drop this debate with you as I don't want to use up needless bandwidth. :) cheers, -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn writes > >I took it upon myself to poke around a bit and this is what I came up with: > >The phone number and address are indeed belonging to one Jim Nalbandian >in Tempe, AZ. They are listed, published, and publicly available. I >guess the bottom line question is when is privacy the burden of the >user? Is it Mr. Nalbandian's obligation to take steps for privacy? How >much at fault can "nobody" be at for publishing information that Mr. >Nalbandian could have shielded for pennies? Would it be your position then, that, say, any woman who doesn't happen to have an unlisted phone number is fair game to have her name and number written in a toilet stall in Grand Central Station with the notation "For a Good Time, call..."? You wouldn't feel that to be an invasion of privacy? (If indeed it is the same >Jim Nalbandian) Mr. N's signature held his state and city of residence. >It is no great accomplishment for anyone to look up his published >information. Posting it to the net might have been "sleazy" in the eyes >of some, but no worse than circumventing copyright laws with the "Information >Liberation Front." In fact one could argue that "nobody"'s actions were above >this sort of criticism. (I should note that I do not express any >personal opinion on the ILF one way or the other). Sorry, but we clearly disagree here. I view it as a clear incitement to harassment, and, in my opinion, _that_ constitutes an invasion of privacy. >In short Lefty: Privacy comes to those who seek it. No. Privacy is, or should be, the right of all. I don't have to do anything special to enjoy my rights to free speech or free assembly. I should not have to take special measures to enjoy my right to privacy, either. If I don't lock my front door, that doesn't imply that anyone can walk into my house. To do so would _still_ be an invasion of privacy. >Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for: None. This misses the point entirely. Even the indigent have a right to privacy. >"nobody" saved us all the $0.75 a long distance information call costs. >Multiply that in the aggregate and you have some nice money. > >I think it worth noting that Mr. Nalbandian hasn't posted since "nobody"'s >letter. A considerable social gain in my view. Perhaps Mr. Nalbandian will >take an interest in privacy now, another considerable social gain. "Hey! The ends _do_ justify the means!" -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

2 1

Putting new PGP on company machines.
by Andrew Purshottam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone asked the company shysters about the legal status of MIT-PGP? I'd really like to have and use pgp at work, but have hesitated about putting it our machines here, as we are so prim and proper (in public) about intellectual property. Andy

3 3

Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I guess we do disagree. You seem to want to assert Mr. Nalbandian's >rights for him. He made no effort to conceal his identity or phone >number in any meaningful way. Your version of privacy would forbid you >from looking in the telephone directory to complain to the manager of >Domino's pizza. Not at all. It would, however, forbid me from posting his home address and phone number to the net with the notation "This son-of-a-bitch sold me a lousy pizza! Feel free to phone him at five a.m." >If he was harassed there is an appropriate remedy for that in Tort law. >File a harassment or stalking suit. Don't try to shield it with some far >reaching extension of privacy rights. Er, file a harassment or stalking suit against _whom_, precisely? >In fact it was Mr. Nalbandian who incited people (like "nobody") to >harass him. Case in point, the many harassing messages posted to the >list. "Hey! Two wrongs _do_ make a right!" >You never did answer my copyright coward question. I don't view it as being germane to the matter at hand. I do feel that posting copyrighted material via an anonymous ID is wrong. >It's hard to claim your right of free speech has been violated >when you haven't tried to speak. Do you claim that a person without an unlisted number has no right to privacy as far As the phone is concerned, then? >> "Hey! The ends _do_ justify the means!" > >And the means in this case were hardly offensive. Oh, well, that makes it just fine, then. >Once there is the slightest effort to >protect that information, any attempt to extract it is a violation of privacy >in my view. Here's where we differ. By failing to include his home phone number and address in his postings, I believe that Mr. Nalbandian _did_ make "the slightest effort". If he had included them in his sig, for instance, I would agree with you. >Had Mr. Nalbandian only signed his first name, I would >be on your side. As it is, I cannot see it your way. What if he had only signed his first name, but included his last name if you were to finger his account? >I only assert that Mr. Nalbandian >has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his name and phone number >when he all but hands them out. I think it's that "all but" that we're stuck on here. By your reasoning, anyone whose phone number can be derived by anything short of illegal means is "all but handing it out". >I think we both agree that Mr(s). Anonymous way crossed the line with the >penet.fi release however. Yes. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Putting new PGP on company machines.
by mch＠sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> For starters, does use by employees at work for routine email count > as "non-commercial"? > For the purposes of RSAREF 2.0, the answer is yes. But I don't know about the IDEA patent. Mark

1 0