- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Former CIA Director and *Strategic Investment* Editor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:49 PM 4/30/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Looking for conspiracies in the almost certainly accidental drowning of >Colby is an even bigger waste of time than spending vast efforts trying to >show that Vince Foster was killed by the O.T.O. Why are you the second person to use the term "conspiracy" when I didn't mention such a thing? Got "conspiracies" on your brain, Tim? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by angels＠wavenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You will pardon my asking this, but, security from what? Who are the >evil Network Terrorists throwing Bit Bombs or whatever? The only >security you need on the internet is keeping your site from being >broken in to, which is mostly a matter of setting it up >properly. What, exactly, is the "Security" that you are offering us? > >Perry I am not offering "you" anything unless you have a problem and are looking for some assistance. Just because you feel safe / immune from becoming a victim of internet crime does not mean that there are no victims at all. Site security is not at all the only problem. Are you not aware of spams and scams going on all the time? Are you not aware that sexual predators operate in IRC? Or that child pornography is a world wide trading game? Have you never heard of email forgeries or impersonation? What about tthe victims of harassment and hatred who don't know how to deal with it? What about all the people who have never heard of killfiles? Who don't know how to report a problem nor who to report it to? Haven't you ever been mail bombed and wished you could find out who did it? Maybe you feel like a veterano and can afford to look condesendingly at all the thousands of fresh-faced netizens just arriving online and say "well if they can't take the heat they should stay out of the fire" - but if we are to call ourselves an emerging "community" then we must take responsibility for our city, and that means caring about other people's problems. The internet is not just a collection of bits and bytes - it's real people doing real things to each other. When your address is forged and you get flamed and bombed, or if you start receiving anonymous death threats, your freedom is under threat. It's not enough to say "Well I just turn off my monitor" The Internet is a city - it needs 911 services and it needs Neighborhood Watches. And neither professional law enforcement nor neighborhood watch are by definition a threat to anyone's freedom. Freedom within the context of Community does not and never has meant the freedom to kill your neighbor, or rob someone, or rape someone, or harm someone. In the context of the internet Community too, freedom is not the individual's right to do whatever he or she likes - because then the Community is no longer free. Freedom is under threat from two directions - from selfish individuals who care little for the Community, and from the over zealousness of governments who seek greater and greater control over individual thought and action. The first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem within the Internet Community - because if we don't address it responsibly then we have only ourselves to blame when the governments try to take it over. We can face our problems or we can deny that they exist. By asking me the question: "What crime?" you are indicating to me that you prefer denial. ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Two people may disagree, but that does not mean that one of them is evil" *********************************************************

5 4

Re: UPSs
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-19 18:48:51 EST, Shane.Pearson(a)tafensw.edu.au writes: << A simple low pass filter made of 2 large inductors and a few high voltage capacitors will do the trick nicely. >> Right. The filtering that's already in the power-supply (except that the switching transformer isn't as big as an inductor as a normal old-style power transformer. Stan

1 0

Re: A little Paranoid, William?
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-19 18:21:57 EST, mgraffam(a)mhv.net writes: << I've heard it said 'Paranoia is reality on a finer scale.' I believe it. If you think that signing messages is paranoia, you may be right.. I, for one, _am_ paranoid. I know the practical attacks that can be made, and I've seen them work and, and demonstrated how easy they are. Worse, I've experienced them. Maybe you haven't .. and thats good. I hope your good luck continues. >> Actually, my presence here amongst the cypherpunks is a direct RESULT of one of those attacks. But I can deal with it without getting paranoid. And you might be correct about paranoia and reality. Stan

1 0

Re: Chicken "anons" and "nobody's"
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-20 15:56:14 EST, nobody(a)REPLAY.COM writes: << Stan, whose mind is held hostage by the heathens at A(h)OL, >> You idiot, AOL is with YOU (AOL is part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy')! See my political page. Stan, http://members.aol.com/StanSquncr/

1 0

Re: connecting Uni to the Web O Trust
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Look at the signators and judge for your self. When I look at the people I trust through one level of introducer, I find I have a very high degree of confidence in their identities. Two introducers out, it still looks fairly good. I have not looked farther than that. It is the limit of my trust. In many ways it is easier to establish the authenticity of a pseudonym than a verinym. The only question with a pseudonym is whether the nym who posts is the same nym who posted last time, and the time before that. If, over the course of a year or two, there are no attempts to spoof the pseudonym, then the key will have become well connected with the nym. That is all that matters. Even if a "Sameer" has posted for years, I still have to worry if the person's real name is Sameer (given the current understanding of the meaning of a signature on a key). I once refused to sign a key because I thought the driver's license was forged, but I would be likely to accept a better forgery at authentic. I am at least as confident of the identity of Uni as I am of many of the other keys I have signed. The only ones I have more confidence in are those of long time close friends, and family. -Lance Cottrell At 10:21 PM 4/28/96, sameer(a)c2.org wrote: >> (Sigh). I'll say it yet a third time. Get a current copy of my key which >> is signed by at least three people on the web of trust. > > As if this "web of trust" was actually worth something. > >-- >Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-601-9777x3 >Community ConneXion, Inc. FAX: 510-601-9734 >The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 >http://www.c2.net/ (or login as "guest") sameer(a)c2.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMYZOkPPzr81BVjMVAQGwOggA1xZguRBMxrjZisk/3Imf4VKLzTr7wNaO J5141lamYinHEnmvNZ9VTkq7kdkoTKw572RkC+tAeMI5PjAEOhxtbnRBMumVh7u6 wnxx1BD0Onka5r4M4avr8VFsPc2CYOicG5Yk33FJKuGT9JlSKgCOOeD8U5XQlbCD 8KGr6RPyYmEkKhEA3uhAE+vUjBN5ihCYglU+9U1wlRHX6bsS2gD3xjN2jaLCRcpv vlPPGLrxQbxi7jVKOjXM6flTpYmjnV5gDLtEKMtpF08LsvL+t51NleDGCBmV7aBp 5xIpFvFb/PRyZpZa21yESrZ13Dx+0qOgXpXEFB3A3SPGWKFQGILm0A== =sGly -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) wrote: >Mike McNally wrote > >>If.... (freedom and security) ....weren't antithetical, there'd be no need >>for a balance. > >If they were antithetical then as freedom increased security would >decrease, and as security increased freedom would decrease. There may be some word-definition problems here. I believe Mr. McNally refers to the words freedom and security as applied to individuals, and CyberAngels refers to them as applied to the whole of society. When all the flowery rhetoric is removed, society is made up of individuals, and individuals almost by definition disagree on the meanings and relative importance in their own lives of freedom and security. For example, I feel not-a-lot of freedom being Vince's munition exporter #17, but Louis Freeh doubtless feels more secure with a statist law like ITAR around. FBI Director Freeh and I are both part of society, and I can refer to the two of us as "we," but "we" clearly disagree on freedom and security. His side has more guns, along with the media, and my side has more people who tell the truth. He is free to open up all his private email to government snoops if he wants to, but he may not open mine, because I do not trust him. He also may not dictate the content of my webpage, which includes my possibly-indecent babypictures. >It is not IMHO inevitable that if we increase security we will jeopardize >freedom. My concern is that if we ignore security we will have no freedom >left to protect. I agree. Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace. That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws. _Parents_, NOT governments, ISPs, cops, villages, and so on, are responsible for raising children. Parents sometimes raise kids in ways that I disagree with, but I am unwilling to advocate laws that prevent it because such laws only breed more laws, which always lead to less freedom. >I don't believe the Internet community is split into two camps on this >issue - there appear to me to be many places where people draw their lines >at different points. I am unsure what this means. I want Jim Ray drawing my lines, because I think he does a better job of it than Director Freeh, even if his side has more/better guns than mine. I feel that his side is in a different, much better armed, and much more trigger- happy "camp" than mine. >I don't believe that security is the enemy of >freedom. I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all. Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will bloom (along with freedom). JMR Regards, Jim Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> "My cynical belief is that there is a lack of motivation in either party to fully and properly investigate [Mena] because the results will damage as many Republicans as Democrats." - former prosecutor Charles Black, in April 22, 1996's Wall Street Journal, p.A22 [NOTE TO MEDIA TYPES LURKING: Must the W$J and "High Times" magazine be the only journalists to cover the Mena, Arkansas story???]<sigh> _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 -- http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMYZ5Rm1lp8bpvW01AQEHCwQAgPyle05vnwDqeWJvWSjFLBm4w6JzZe/F dxYWsYTLmprySNO45Eu5UMfWiIyN0auW8vndS32Y67/HAgxvPFxfA1J95m//ty/l qoSDTeeKjuHi4NIMo1gHIVvsWI0cSL/4gJSUJEeI9Ck5xXnWiP1okZAgyLj2HtYS Wzag+PrHk0M= =hMTU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by angels＠wavenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Ray wrote > Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace. >That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like >me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws. Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. Freedom increases as respect and care for one another increases. Meanwhile, since we do not live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to protect citizens from predators. The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal social controls (peer pressure). It's now a major industrial city and will develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or not, not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying to protect itself. And the crime is already here. The idea that the Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around. It's like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural paradise. Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power across the Net? My point is that this is inevitable. The Internet is a mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case. >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to >less freedom. I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom (eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom. >>I don't believe that security is the enemy of >>freedom. I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all. > >Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will >bloom (along with freedom). Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can read the message, but security for the Community? Doesnt that depend what the message said? The technology itself is neutral. Child pornographers encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and so the Community becomes less free than before. And that's not the tyranny of government but the tryanny of criminals. I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because I can ensure that my messages are authenticated. CyberAngels PGP public key will be up on our new website opening very soon. I've had enough of people forging my email. ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Two people may disagree, but that does not mean that one of them is evil" *********************************************************

5 5

Re: Chicken "anons" and "nobody's"
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-19 16:58:32 EST, n9505834(a)garbo.nepean.uws.edu.au writes: << > << Well, Stan, all of the news you read ultimately comes from the one person > selected by Clinton to drive The Propoganda Machine up in Washington, DC. >> > > And what planet do you live on? Yar, everybody knows that it is Rupid Murdoc who runs all the news. >> Well, he runs a large part of the 'show' (Fox news (which has on all the Republican't favorites on sundays)). Stan

1 0

Hello from Hamburg,
by gina.lombartti＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Matchmaker, Agenzia di Matrimonio Biuro Matrymonialne Die Partnersuche I'm Gina from Milano, Italia and I help Singles from all over the world who are seeking for someone SPECIAL, a Romance, a new Friendship or Relationship. Just simply send me an e-mail and tell me little about yourself. Regards, Gina Lo'mbartti Ginna Agenzia di Matrimonio Via Galvani 12 20124 Milano Italia gina.lombartti(a)usa.net

1 0