- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: DON'T Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:06 AM 9/2/96 +0800, James Seng wrote: >that). I have a long argument with this person, telling him that despite >what they have done, i could still access to those stuff which they ban. >his reasoning is "how many people can do it? 10%? 5%? That's fine with us. >If the people really wans it, they can get it". The flaw with this view is that it is no harder to deploy software that defeats Singapore's proxy than it is to establish a tcp/ip connection in the first place. For civilians (such as myself) establishing a tcp/ip connection is as hard or as easy as establishing an encrypted tcp/ip tunnel to defeat government control efforts. For both these tasks, I am dependent on software writers who know more than I do. Since the software of the Net is written by people not governments, the governments will find it hard to hold "free users" down to a 5% or 10% figure. The Net is nothing more than the software that it runs on and we (not governments) write the software. In addition, we are not imposing our ideology on Singapore. If Singapore changes, it will be because an encounter with the realities of the free flow of information changes it. DCF

3 2

Anonymity and free speech
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Instead of discussing whether or not Esther Dyson or other EFF board members are personally comfortable with anonymity, let's talk about whether or not the EFF and its board members believe that the First Amendment provides a right to speak and associate anonymously. (I believe that the First Amendment gives everyone the right to wear a t-shirt which says "I am an asshole." But I have no interest in wearing such a t-shirt. And so on.) I believe that it does, and that the Supreme Court has already made that clear. In cypherpunks(a)toad.comparticular, I'm thinking of _NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson_, _Talley_, and _McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission_. (Sorry for the lack of cites; 95% of my stuff is still in boxes and I'm sending this via laptop and a Ricochet modem.) If the right to speak/associate in "real life" is protected by the First Amendment, I don't see why it wouldn't be on computers and networks which are located inside the United States. And if that right is based upon the Constitution, it will take a constitutional amendment or a big sea change in the Supreme Court to take it away. (I wonder if the decision in _McIntrye_ would have gone the other way if Ms. McIntrye were selling drugs via anonymous message pools instead of discussing school funding via windshield flyers.) Discussions about the utility of anonymity would be more useful if we were designing a communication system or a constituion from scratch; but that's not our current situation. Is there serious debate about whether or not the Constitution and the Internet allow anonymous communication? (I'm not asking a rhetorical question. If someone's familiar with an argument to the contrary, please tell me about it.) Both the Constitution and the Internet are difficult to modify quickly; we probably have anonymity (like it or not) for at least a few more years. (I'm not trying to imply that US law is the only law, or that the rest of the world doesn't existy. But I don't know poo about the right to anonymity in other nations; and to a certain extent anonymity anywhere on the Internet is the same as anonymity everywhere on the Internet. Are other readers aware of other jurisdictions where anonymous speech is considered a right?) ---- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com http://www.io.com/~gbroiles

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >>At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >>> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position >>> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, >>> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. >> >>If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes >>of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. >> >>It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, >>Iran, or China. >> >>It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, >>but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people >>in the street. > >Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you >use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which >removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and >should be addressed, not evaded. "Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for. I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity. And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 4

Andrew "skippy" Mathis converts to Judaism - Film at 11
by shlomo＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I circumcized Andrew "Skippy" Mathis <qut(a)netcom.com> with my own hand, as the Right Reverend Colin James III pronounced the blessings. Igor Chudov, our understudy, sucked out the blood. Amen.

2 1

Anonymous Oddsman 2
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Current English U.S. Presidential betting odds are now offered on 2 services, but there's no Perot bet at Ladbroke House, and no Harry Browne on either. Ladbrokes customer service @ +44 181 8621820 is still at Clinton 1:7, Dole 4:1 As promised, this time our roving reporter inquired about Harry Browne. The Libertarian candidate, once offered at 50:1 by Ladbroke House earlier this year, is not now offered. H. Ross Perot, perhaps reflecting the decision of the debate commission not to invite him, is also not offered at Ladbroke House. The wonderful thing about a free gambling marketplace, though, is that you can always go elsewhere if you want to take a gamble on Ross. The William Hill customer helpline @ +44 990 181715 said Clinton 1:8, Dole 9:2 and for Perot they can give you a whopping 250:1! Also, no odds given on Browne at William Hill, so in summary: Ladbroke House William Hill ------------------------------------------------------------ Clinton 1:7 (no change) 1:8 Dole 4:1 (no change) 9:2 Perot (was 50:1 now 0) 250:1 Browne * * ------------------------------------------------------------ *Not currently offered. Next posting when we get around to it, or when the situation seems to have changed substantially. Many thanks to our roving reporter for these numbers. anonymous oddsman.

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: (in quoting Reed Hundt) >"The investment to network our schools and libraries is so small and >the payoff so large. Look at the math... Can it be that we have a 700 >billion-dollar-a-year information technology industry and yet we can't >afford to give every teacher the tools we give every shipping clerk at >Wal Mart? Or that we could afford to network every classroom by the >beginning of the next century, but somehow we just neglected to do it? >At the FCC we will vote next year on a new universal service funding >mechanism... The challenge I'm talking about is to provide bandwidth >and access to all Americans, but especially in kids in classrooms... > >[Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a >private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the >government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the >difference. --Declan] Correct. And if "we" fund universal service, then "we" don't want to see anything on the Net about non-GAK crypto, the right to bear arms, freedom of association, chemistry, non-clothed persons, taxes, etc. etc. "We" feel that many if not "all American, but especially kids in classrooms" would be injured by these thoughts.

1 0

Re: Free RSA chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:04 PM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >I secured a 30 page data sheet for the new NTT (actually NLC, a subsidiary >of NTT) RSA accelerator chips. The NLC0048 LSI chip can handle keys up to >1024 bits. The secret key can be stored on-chip. If you want a copy of the >data sheet, email me your fax number. > >Furthermore, I have *one* sample chip that I am willing to loan to >somebody in the SF Bay Area with sufficient hardware knowledge to put the >chip to good use. If you think you qualify, let me know who you are and >why you think that you should get the chip. I apologize in advance to the >qualified candidates that do not get the chip. There is only one (that I >can loan out). I don't want the chip, but I'd like to know a few things. 1. How much of a secure telephone does it contain? a. voice A/D/A? b. modem A/D/A DSP? c. Keyboard multiplex? d. control microprocessor? e. Encryption section? 2. Is there any indication that NT+T has worked with any other manufacturers to design some sort of inter-telephone negotiation standard, one that would allow the kind of inter-compatibility that modems have today? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [Noise] anonymous bacon
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:28 AM 9/21/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >Jonathan Corbet wrote: [Government Access to Meat stuff from Risks deleted] > >Did you ever see one of those mattress tags which reads something like >"removal of this tag is a violation of ..... and is punishable by ..."? >They could tag the stuff, then make it a violation of law to cut the >meat before final consumption. The IRS is very concerned about barter, >and besides, how are you gonna go half way on legislating against >untraceable barter (other than to prohibit dividing the beef)? And meat tenderizers would be outlawed, because it would be viewed as an effort to obscure the markings. (You could be sent to jail for beating your meat!) Think of the legal liability for selling someone meat that is later involved with the drug trade! The way the laws are going, you could lose everything for selling a steak to a known drug user. Soon you would have meat market laws similar to the alcohol laws in Utah. You will have to eat the steak on the premises, in front of a government authorized and licensed vendor. (Until the cholesterol police make meat consumption a crime.) Soon we will have gangs fighting over the illegal meat trade. Meat will be murder! Instead of "drive-ins", we will have "drive-bys". Government will have an even bigger reason to put a steak through our civil rights. Our goose will be cooked! Then people will go to trading vegetables and grain. And all the "honest folks" will be left with nothing to eat but rocks. (Until, those too are banned because someone might throw one...) --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Tim May wrote: [...] >The Constitutional issues of free speech would remain mostly unchanged even ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >if "universal access" happens, but the government would definitely get more >of a foot in the door than it has now. I really hope that this is the case, and that some restraint would be exercised. But when the FCC has historically concerned itself with channels of communication, the 1st Am has typically been tossed out of the window. Recall the "seven dirty words" brouhaha. Perhaps they've lightened up. I can imagine Herr Hundt and his FCC fellows looking on fondly and indulgently as cute-as-a-button sitcom kids inform their network TV show parents more frequently than we've heard "fuckhead" on this list that they "suck." I seem to recall somewhere in the dim dark past that the expression "you suck" would have been subsumed under the "fighting words" statutes, implying, as it does, that the object of the utterer's scorn was either homosexual or a woman who casually performed fellation. If the FCC approves of "you suck" on network television, perhaps there is yet hope that the perverse topics daily discussed on c-punks would, at least temporarily, be allowed. Dave Rose drose(a)azstarnet.com ____________________________________ "Take this Uzi from a crack baby's hands, and put in a computer--that's our demands" -J. Jackson "Cover your mouth when you sneeze, that'll help the solution" -Mavis, Roebuck "Pops" Staples & the family

1 0

Music Boulevard Birthday Sale - 10% Off!
by mblvd＠telebase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Music Boulevard User: Come to the Music Boulevard Birthday Blowout Sale! All CDs are 10% off of our already discounted prices. The sale is going on now, but will only last for a limited time, so make sure you visit http://www.musicblvd.com soon! The World Wide Web's ultimate online music store, Music Boulevard allows music lovers around the world to quickly and easily purchase products and learn about their favorite artists in an exciting and entertaining multimedia environment. Users can browse through a massive catalog of more than 150,000 different music titles, read artist biographies and discographies, check out album reviews, view cover artwork and listen to the Internet's largest selection of audio samples. Thank you, Music Boulevard Staff p.s. If you don't want to receive messages like this in the future, please send us a note at service(a)musicblvd.com with the word 'remove' in the subject line.

1 0