- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

free SSL CAs?
by Sam Quigley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any free Certificate Authorities for SSL? I've got a Stronghold server running, and I don't particularly want to pay Verisign/Thawte's high prices, but I do want to be able to do real SSL. I've set up my own CA, and given myself my own cert., but having the same server you're interacting with being the one that's the CA for the transaction leaves the setup open to man-in-the-middle attacks (I'd think, at least...). So, who do I turn to for a cert.? I don't need amazingly trusted or trustworthy security -- maybe just some third party whose site is unlikely to have been compromised, etc... Please respond by email: I've moved to coderpunks, and so won't see replies on cypherpunks. thanks, -sq

4 3

[NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius
by Joe Robinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I regret that after lurking for so long my first post is related to this.... Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: > > The short answer is, No. More specifically, we constantly have > a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks. Some are > technically sophisticated; some are not. In either case, new > readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for > Dimitri's big lies. Nor do they have any way of know what an > abberation his sort of behavior is on this list. "So this is > what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable > misinterpretation of what we're all about. What John did was > appropriate. While it is true that Cypherpunks IS a much sampled list, it's my opinion that the distribution in the level of education among subscribers is rather skewed. I therefore believe that the "average" subscriber to this list would be intelligent and competent enough to form their own conclusions regarding the validity of the opinions expressed by anyone. I like to believe that the labels I assign to groups are based on a representative sampling of the given population, not by the sampling a select few. It's again my opinion that if others can't do that, and <cliche>judge books by their covers</cliche>, it's their loss. and Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> mentioned: > [relevant, well thought-out stuff snipped] > >Given that John Gilmore is the source of the oft-repeated "The net sees >censorship as damage and routes around it" quote, it strikes me as unlikely >that he took the steps he did without some reflection on their meaning, >consequences, and chances of success. I'm sure that the decision wasn't made hastily or lightly. It doesn't change anything though - the damage is done. If even one person doubts the credibility or integrity of either John or the list, then Dr. Vulius has won. and finally, Declan McGullagh <declan(a)eff.org> said: > >With the right to speak freely comes the right to decline to speak. John, >as the owner of the computer maintaining the cypherpunks list, has the >right to decline to speak and to kick off a user who violates the >covenant of the mailing list. > >The kicked-off user has the right to start his own mailing list with >different standards. If he likes, he can establish the rules as a type of >contract to which participants must agree. And observers can criticize >either or both of them. > >Is this censorship, double standards, and hypocrisy? I think not. The problem lies in determining who defines the protocols and punishments, especially on a list such as this. For someone who espouses freedom of speech to arbitrarily censor someone is indeed hypocritical. I'm not defending Dr. Vulius - for some time now, he and a number of others have been filtered into my Humour mailbox. I'm just spewing off about having the _choice_ to ignore him or not, as _I_ see fit, you know - "... and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out." JR

3 3

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:20:15 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> > I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell >> >people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that >> >functions in a completely open manner". No more. >> This has been taken far too seriously. Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list. >> There is no obligation to accept anyone. >Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want to differentiate >between your "rights" and your "privileges"? Can they reject one of your privileges >whenever they want to, at their discretion? No. >So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include >and who to reject? It's a big difference. Can you set up your own mailing list? Yes. Can you go elsewhere? Yes. Can Mr. Vulis send email directly to list-members anyway? Yes. Can you do the same if the government runs it? No. Can you set up your own list/printing press* if the state won't publish your ideas? No. One could apply a similar rationale to socialism - after all, it may seem like an extension of "love your neighbor" to take care of their needs, which is certainly a laudable goal. That's not the problem. The problem is when it becomes mandated *with no alternatives*. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri "Too Hot for Cypherpunks" Vulis writes: > Does saying "The list owner should not kick people off the list for speech" > violate the list owner's right to free speech? That depends on whether plug- > pulling (and mailbombing and ping-storming and other obnoxious behavior) > is speech. The entire, highly recursive question of free speech versus censorship relies almost entirely on the assumption that human beings can be controlled. The observation that certain behavior is obnoxious arises from an inability to control one's own environment at a basic level. Issues such as this have nothing to do with mailing lists or net.protocol, except as vehicles of expression for human conditioning which is already present. Until the fly can be tolerated, removing the shit will only serve to turn one's attention to a new annoyance. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet In a dark alley, a pickpocket tried to snatch Nasrudin's purse. There was a violent struggle, but eventually Nasrudin got the thief pinned on the ground. At this moment, a charitable woman passing called out: "You bully, let the little man up and give him a chance!" "Madam," panted Nasrudin, "you ignore the trouble which I have had getting him down."

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Well put! I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this > list. Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother > gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive > filtering capability of Eudora. > > I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me. > We have become what we fear the most. How prophetic and pathetic. Absolutely, John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done. This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

5 6

US Exit Tax Wrapup in Forbes
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The current Forbes has a good short article wrapping up the status of the "taxpatriate" control movement in Congress. The Health Care Bill that passed in August didn't include an Exit Tax as previously reported. What it did contain was a provision that states that taxpatriates with a net worth of more than $500K who renounce their citizenship will still be on the hook for ten years for income taxes on their US source income. This provision is easily dodged however by tax planning techniques that assure that the individual involved has no US source income. Borrowing and trusts can be substituted for an income stream. The second provision was in the immigration bill. It subjects all those who renounce their US citizenship (for any reason) to a visa requirement for entry to the US. State can then deny visas in cases where the expat is a taxpat. This applies to new citizens of those OECD countries that have visa-free entry to the US. How State will filter recent expats out of the flow for special treatment is unclear, however. Nation of birth is shown on passports, so that might be able to be used. This gimmick is also easily dodged by entry into Canada or Mexico with a low profile border crossing into the US. Gee, I wish I had enough assets to become a taxpatriate. DCF "Vote for the only Swiss Citizen in the Presidential race -- Harry Browne."

1 0

Re: Sliderules, Logs, and Prodigies
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A quick note, I consider myself to be a nerd. This is in part "reclaiming", as I found myself uninterested in sports, as my classmates were, and found computers fun.(good reason too, considering I had access to one of those, an old TI99/4a, longer than I had classmates). I didn't grow up un either log tables or slide rules, but I did learn how to do basic arithmetic on both the traditional slide rule, and a round one designed for engineers. At one time, nerds were the intellectuals, the only thing that has really changed is that now the nerds are in control, making intellectual arts a little more appealing. I'm only a 21 year old college student who is still somewhat ignorant, make that quite ignorant, about the world, but I do feel that just because it was an unpopular term to describe you, it isn't disrespectful to consider ourselves nerds. Relevance to Crypto, none. Just attempting to defend myself in the ether. >From ???@??? Sun Nov 03 22:49:13 1996 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> Subject: Re: Sliderules, Logs, and Prodigies Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A quick note, I consider myself to be a nerd. This is in part "reclaiming", as I found myself uninterested in sports, as my classmates were, and found computers fun.(good reason too, considering I had access to one of those, an old TI99/4, longer than I had classmates). I di

1 0

Kill Files
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been experimenting with a kill file. It is quite effective, takes very little time to set up, and imposes minimal overhead on my machine. In general people who have written worthwhile articles continue to do so. Those who have not in the past, tend not to in the future. So, I sort by poster into three categories: the A-list, the maybe-read list, and the killfile. My A-list has about 35 names and the resulting messages are, in my opinion, almost entirely signal. I use the maybe-read list to find people who should be on the A-list. The kill file I don't read. If people post on things that don't interest me, I killfile them. If they bore me, I killfile them. If they are rude, I killfile them. If they use obscenities I am likely to killfile them. If they make naive statements, I killfile them. If they whine too much, I killfile them. I now have a cypherpunks list which is worth reading. I was surprised that so many core cypherpunks allowed Dmitri Vulis to upset them so much. That was obviously his intention. Is it really so shocking to learn that somewhere out in the world there is one loser? Follow Tim May's fine example - killfile him and forget him. Killfiles are easy to set up. You don't need to write a line of code. I use the filters in Eudora. Eudora is available for Macs and PCs. If you are using a Unix box, procmail will do the trick. If you don't know much about these tools, you probably know somebody who does. If you don't, you can probably find people on the cypherpunks list who will be more than happy to help you. I will be happy to help you. It is wonderful that John Gilmore and Hugh Daniels have done so much to keep this list running. John can do anything he wants with his machines and with this list. But, I was disappointed to see him remove somebody from it. Why? I prefer to choose for myself who to killfile and who not to. Unfortunately, beggars can't be choosers. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Announcement-- Reward for Errors...
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At this moment, I'm preparing the second edition of my book _Digital Cash_. In order to reduce the errors and improve the book, I'm announcing rewards of $10.00 per technical error to the first person to report each particular error to me. They will also receive a personal mention in the thanks given at the front of the book if they don't want to remain anonymous. Naturally, I need to limit this offer. All awards are subject to my whims. Errors in grammar and spelling are not eligible. I will make the decision of which person is the first to make a bug report. If something seems more like a feature than a bug, I may not pay a reward. Also, I am free to decide upon the basic granularity of the errors. My decision is final, but I hope to be as inclusive as possible to reward people who take the time to write. I want to be as generous as my pocketbook allows. If this works out well, the second edition will sell more books which will allow me to offer even larger rewards when I prepare the third edition. I'm also asking that people forward any suggestions for additional topics to me. A copy of the table of contents can be found on my web page (http://www.access.digex.net/~pcw/pcwpage.html) If you're a company or a researcher with an interesting contribution to the world of digital transactions, please write. I want to be as inclusive as possible. My thanks to everyone who takes the time to consider this offer. The offer is in effect for a limited period of time and may be withdrawn at any time. See my web page for announcements. -Peter Wayner pcw(a)access.digex.com

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [VULIS]
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > I guess libertarian philosophy permits operating a private mailing > list and imposing whatever rules the host deems necessary to invent. Clearly. And contractural principles suggest that there should be transparency in those rules. > The question is, can this ist be called a free medium for exchange of > ideas, or not. My answer is no. I say you're wrong. Vulis has been denied nothing but the dignity of reading the list under his own name. He still has freedom to read under a pseudonym, and he still has freedom to post under his own name, or any other. > Moderated forums might create some utility (by saving the time of > their participants, for example), but they should identify themselves > as such. Such as by notifying the list that exactly one particularly obnoxious member has been kicked off, and allowing *unlimited* discussion on the list about the impact of doing so? I think this is working. - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn/BzSoZzwIn1bdtAQGk+wGAgv2SrJzetHEzgs9DxahGvB8ReGWi8mDB aEGj8o8aW2DNGrDSx4f8DBDS4a8605Tc =oQeM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0