- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Best Computer School?
by Derek Atkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erp <erp(a)digiforest.com> writes: > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, SpyKing wrote: > > > This is a little off topic but maybe someone can help. I've got a teenage > > son (HS sophomore) who's interested in majoring in computer science in > > college with a particular interest in cryptography. He's leaning toward MIT. > > Any suggestions from list members as to colleges to investigate? > > Well in reference to MIT.. I hope he has a 4.0 in highschool, is an > allsport, has a 1600 on his SAT's, and a prefect on his ACT.. Just to > even think about going there.. Let alone to include how well he'll have > to do on his interviews etc.. Also you may wish to have him look again at This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and 1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. You can think of being admitted with even lower scores, if you stand out in some way. MIT admissions looks for well-rounded students. You're much better off being a writer/artist/musician than being on the science or math teams. > what he wants to be before he goes to some major college such as MIT, > because tuition at MIT costs approx 100,000$/4 years. Personally that is > a hell of a lot, but then again *shrug*... I recommend going to a local It may be alot, but then again MIT is one of the best schools in the world (I'm not going to be egotistical enough to say it *is* the best, even tho Consumer Reports rated it such for the last N years). > small college, get his associates, see if that is what he still wants to > do, then go on from there. I know many people that started in Computer > Science and died after the first year. > Now colleges that are good for Computer Sc ience.. I have heard that RIT > is good.. but I'm nto sure on that.. I know pretty well positive that > MIT is excellent, but when you get down to the basics MIT is more of an > engineering school than a science/philosophical school which Computer This is untrue. The computer science department at MIT is really good. As are the sciences, and even business! The MIT Sloan School (Management and Economics) was rated #1 last year. The EECS department (EE and CS are together) is top notch, too. Ciro Maria <cmaria(a)stevens-tech.edu> writes: > Yeah Stevens Institute in Hoboken. Its pretty good I got there. Also > Caltech is good, I don't really know which else. When I looked at Caltech, their Engineering (and computer science) really lacked. They were excellent for the Sciences (Math, Physics, Chemistry, etc.) but their engineering school wasn't as good as others I was looking at (both EE and CS). Things may have changed in the last 8 years, however. Spyking, my advise to you: Look around at many schools. Go visit them. Talk to the students there. Talk to the professors. Talk to graduates. The more information you and your son have, the better decisions you and he can make. Personally, I loved MIT -- it was the right place for me. It isn't the right place for everyone. Make sure it is the right place for your son before he applies. For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high school, too ;) Good Luck, -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) Home page: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/warlord/home_page.html warlord(a)MIT.EDU PP-ASEL N1NWH PGP key available

1 0

Internet companies demonstrate portable security
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Forward) Internet companies demonstrate portable security Six Internet companies have joined forces to develop a joint demonstration of smartcard technologies at the 1997 RSA Data Security Conference. Consensus Development Corporation, Gemplus, Hewlett-Packard, Litronic Inc., Netscape Communications Corporation and VeriSign, Inc., Monday announced "The Get Smartcard Demo." The interactive demo will allow each conference attendee to load X509v3 certificates on crypto-enabled smartcards. Participants will interact with the demo through mutually authenticated SSL connections and document signing. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1274540-213 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote in article <5c5891$ah(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > > this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? > > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. If Billy-Bob wants to shoot himself in the foot, > let him. Might be purty funny to watch. I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from calling itself a democracy. > > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > > speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. That was not all. We had a political Web site established during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people when we had fewer than 100 Web sites. I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool for confirming the present social order which is manifestly corrupt. Phill

3 2

Child Porn
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Forward) *** NY student charged with sending child sex photos over Internet Nathaniel Levy, a psychology major at New York State University, was charged Wednesday with using the Internet to transmit photos of infants having sex with adults, the New York state attorney general said. Levy, who wanted to be a kindergarten teacher, was arrested for promoting sexual performance of a child. If convicted he could receive seven years in prison. Levy, whose computer name was "NateTSnake," was released Wednesday on $20,000 bail. He allegedly transmitted 35 sexually explicit photos of children, some as young as 18 months. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1219452-9f3 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:36 -0500 > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is > relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. Try doing it without the hardware and software. There is a distinction, you apparently don't make, between the content and the methodology of distribution. Without the methodology there is no content. Ideas are cheap, distributing and trying them out (ie great social experiments) is expensive. This is why it is absolutely critical in a democratic society that those who own the means of distribution be left to their own means with minimal regulation based on the ideal 'if their actions do not harm another or their property without their prior consent' it isn't anyones business what they are doing with their distribution mechanisms. Whether you like it or not, each and every one of us have a responsibility to every other person on the planet. That responsibility is to ensure that our goals and desires don't infringe their goals and desires without their prior consent, this is a fundamenal responsibility of government. As hard as it is for many social scientist to accept privacy is a fundamental requirement for a equitable government. I express this simply by, "Democracy works not because of compromise but rather the refusal to compromise." > If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. > I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have > "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of > property you do. The 'state' is its subjects and the rules that are enacted to regulate their behaviour. In case it hasn't occured to you, even the regulators are subjects, and in the case of clearly oppressive societies victims as much as those they subjugate. It isn't some etherial entity. Only you, and those that proscribe to your views, are claiming that states are some homogenous (or should be) set of rules and actions. The way you speak of 'state' and 'citizen' implies some clearly observable demarcation, it don't exist. This is the problem with EVERY form of government except a democracy, it assumes that people are cogs in a machine. If it satisfies one it will satisfy all. A democracy recognizes this difference in what people value and the goals they desire as a fundamental distinction (ie. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) worth protecting. I would suggest you read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the US and consider long and hard the ramifications of the (currently unenforced) limitations of government authority. Even European governments might learn something. > Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the > controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" > from the previous rulers. Malarky. The origin of property is at least 300,000 years old, potentialy over a Million, and much older than China could ever hope to claim and most definitely NOT based on any concept of government. Property comes from small family clans of people who chose to move from a hunter-gather society to one of agriculture. To do that means that you have to lay out fields or other areas for cultivation. Initialy these groups moved around because the fields would go fallow. At some point some bright folks, either by accident or intentional experimentation (probably both), found that rotating crops would allow them to stay in one place. This allowed families to grow. In very fertile areas this caused population explosions as individual clans grew and began to interact with other local clans. At some critical size, undetermined as best as I can determine, this allows specialization of effort. This specialization of effort is what leads to governments as we recognize them. When property was 'invented' there were no rulers because there was no larger human organization than a familial tribe. I personaly believe that the concept of 'property' is a fundamental aspect of human psychology and not any structures they might impliment to express that need. I am as certain as it is possible to be that a Cro-magnon cave man felt that his throwing stick was 'his'. If not why did they bury their dead with flowers and other objects that apparently belonged to the person in life? It sounds like, by extrapolation, that your assertion is that they had government in the modern sense because of this. An assertion I find laughable at best. > I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is > a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model > you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every > philosopher since Locke. But I don't propose a slavish subject model, you keep trying to make it seem like that is what I am proposing. Let me make it clear, I utterly reject ANY model that makes distinctions between those who rule and those who are ruled. > It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but > the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. Nobodies. The state is a means to regulate resources and commerce, anything else is a misunderstanding of what a state is. > I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states > I'm not a 'subject" of. Then don't bitch when they meddle in your affairs. I am shure Saddam Hussein (who I personaly believe is a piece of shit) will find it reassuring that you won't raise a complaint next time he decides some place in Europe would be a nice place to hang out with his armies. > They are allowed Allowed, hell. They pay for the privilege just like everyone else. Despite what you might believe the Internet is not a right or something anyone has a right to. > to connect their machinery to the Internet so long > as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. There is no Internet ethic just as there is no community standard. It is a convenient concept for intellectuals to pass off utterly senseless theories and explanations, and in many cases justify subjugation and regulation for no other reason than their own emotional and economic comfort. > As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and > parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the > Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. Absolutely. The difference in our approaches is that you feel that you have found a solution that satisfies you and therefore it should satisfy everyone. With this I disagree completely. People are simply too diverse to lump into the categories that you would like. If the French have a model that won't work, let them figure it out on their own. > France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to > pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens > as a whole. I suspect most French people would have something contrary to say about that. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: c2 internet accounts
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > does c2net still offer internet accounts? I liked their > offer for internet accounts with a 5 mb web site via > telnet. does anyone else know of a place for cheap > telnet only accounts? C2Net no longer offers new shell accounts and we are phasing out pre-existing accounts. We still offer virtual web hosting. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > > jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > > any recognition of this fact. > > 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. But, if Jim writes the bot well, puts it in an unknown place (remember, all communications are done through remailers), he could die, but the assassination bot would still work. It may be an interesting problem: what steps are necessary to take to provide for the bot maintainers' sudden death in such a way that the bot would survive for a long time (at least 10 years) w/o any maintenance? Several things need to be done, such as running several versions of the bot so that they could all communicate and work as hot standbys in case one of the instances stops communicating; change their anonymous address from time to time to deal with shut down remailers; probably slowly propagate as virii, so that killing them all would be hard; what else? It could be done akin to Thompson's famous backdoor in /bin/login, as a perpetual trojan horse. How to prevent the bot's detection by sysadmins? - Igor.

1 0

CNN: Court ok's College control of Internet access
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Heavily edited. Forwarded message: > COURT SAYS COLLEGES CAN RESTRICT INTERNET ACCESS > > > January 28, 1997 > Web posted at: 1:35 p.m. EST > > NORMAN, Oklahoma (CNN) -- A U.S. District Court in Oklahoma has > ruled universities have the right to limit access to explicit > material on the Internet. > > A federal judge ruled University of Oklahoma president David Boren, > a former U.S. senator, has every right to determine what sites > students and faculty can view while on the campus Internet system. > > Boren was sued by University professor, Bill Loving, who claimed his > First Amendment rights were being infringed upon. > > The court ruled against Loving, also an attorney, saying his > constitutional rights were not violated and that he is not entitled > to injunctive relief. > > "I am certainly pleased by the judge's decision," Boren said. "The > university did its best to strike a careful balance in order to > protect legitimate academic and intellectual freedom while at the > same time assuring that the university not act as a distributor of > obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment." > rule

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into >the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool >for confirming the present social order which is manifestly >corrupt. I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore As R. J. Wagner once said, "Koo koo, baby." Hey, I hope that the above is construed as neither a flame nor as "off topic". May I additionally congratulate Nurdane on her birthday? Yo "Phill"! When's your cyber-revolutionary birthday? Maybe we can all chip in to buy you a biscuit. (See, in England, they say, "That certainly takes the biscuit". Eh, "Phill"?) BTW, "Phill", did you want to make good on your bet to Sandy at this time? Ain't C-punks fun nowadays?

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > > >jim bell wrote: > >> > >> At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >> >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >> >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >> >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >> >any recognition of this fact. > >> >........................................................ > >> > > >> >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > >> > >> Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > >> concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > >> encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > >> using encryption. > > > >Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there > >is a clear need for an AP bot. > > > >Do you feel like writing it? > > > > - Igor. > > Jim's all talk, I on the other hand am serious. Did you receive my Monday > e-mail? > yes, and found it interesting. - Igor.

1 0