- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: SEY_use [NOISE]
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, David Lesher wrote: > > > > > > the concept is interesting... diplomatic immunity is not automatic in > > that it implies diplomatic recognition. does a rogue state enjoy the > > privilege of obviously bogus diplomatic passports? the diplomatic > > passport is a "gentleman's agreement" to facilitate trading intelligence > > officers --sarcastic maybe, truthful? been there, done that. > > A Dip Passport does nothing of the kind. > come on, David. stated and "real" use are often quite different. I meant what I said, literally: "...been there, done that." it's nice to believe that governments are above board --they never have been, and never will be --and Bubba is a prime example. I would buy a used car from Tricky Dick long before I would from Bubba! power is not only corruption, it is _deceit_! BTW, I do not disagree with your "protocol" in the slightest. PNG, and the trading of PNGs has been around ever since the French seemed to their language dominate foreign affairs --however, persona non gratis is rather explicit. and, I still wonder how the host country will treat "bogus" DPs from rogue states if they have more DPs than real citizens. uncle has been getting less suble these days.... > You are awarded stutus by your placement by the host country, on their > Diplomatic List. If you are there, fine; otherwise... Now, you'll never > get on that list without a Dip. Passport & recipricol agreement but it's > not enough... > > Your name can be removed by the host at any time (PNG'ed) but some kind > of warning is necessary so you can leave the host country prior to > expiration of the status. (Not much, however! I recall one case where it > was _literally_ "Be on the 4pm plane, or else.") If you are out of the > country already, you won't be back. (One person was, and his cat became > the ""PNG Pussy"" as she was shipped home the next day.) > > The Dip List being out-of-date caused considerable embarrassment to the > US during our invasion of Panama. Marines raided the Nicaraguan > Ambassador's Residence because the out-of-date copy at the US Mission > showed the _old_ address. > > -- > A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com > & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX > Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 > is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 >

1 0

Re: Canadian Cypherpunks [NOISE]
by markh＠wimsey.bc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Is there some interest in a meeting of Canadian Cypherpunks? If > you are a Canadian (or an American who is fortunate enough to live near > our sainted shores ;-)) send me a private E-mail message. > Because Canada is such a big country, I propose that we start > with a meeting in Toronto or area. If there is enough interest, I will > arrange for a meeting place. I don't think it is any more practical to have "Canadian Cypherpunks" meetings than "U.S. Cypherpunks" meetings. Call them what they are, i.e. regional meetings, (e.g. areas around Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Quebec, Calgary-Edmonton, etc.), but I suspect that most people are unlikely to travel in excess of 3000km for meetings which last a few hours. For example, I expect that Vancouverites are much more likely to travel to Seattle for a meeting than to Toronto. My point is, don't advertise what is really a Southern Ontario regional meeting as the meeting of "Canadian Cypherpunks". This would be like calling the S.F. Bay Area meetings the "U.S. Cypherpunks meetings". -- Mark Henderson -- markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca, henderso(a)netcom.com, mch(a)squirrel.com PGP 1024/C58015E3 fingerprint=21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 cryptography archive maintainer -- ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto/sun-stuff/change-sun-hostid-1.6.1.tar.gz

1 0

Re: Who sent me this message?
by andr0id＠midwest.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>:-) As I can see. How did you generate this key? Are you using a >special version of PGP? > Well I didn't send the message but I also use an undocumented larger key with PGP. Read it in the book a friend got. (andr0id(a)midwest.net callsign: N9XLM) ( Computer Consulting & Management ) (P.O. Box 421 Cambria, IL 62915-0421) -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzCsIi4AAAEH/1hb5+tO/n99Nbppf0ImLJ6AaVZ3NlZP0ZHwRQor00uA129i d4zWixNXxc8t2auaqN+asV99LpIip3/nQzBnjydiumeBdGLF2PR9+6X8X/RrqKa1 dVIukxM5Agg2eM6ih+0J38hgKJ3qzKXSz6sjYmpaxvbXZoHHOLUk/ZtHUKvvEyPw hnJEYnut8NUnIeK56lqeqRw86yoeRKymbfCdjdpgeY2aRwK2FJts8sbb7Fs10s4y jgxWIxIipBznbGUTh1hb2XrLGPENwk3E/qqXQJEsrySbtwdl6VgTVQjhDDEJMitL DYeiQ3W5EgxfcdbM1j2FwYu3P/dM6Y0I8xLMYT0ABRG0NmFuZHIwaWRAb2ljdTgx Mi5jb20gKG9pY3U4MTIuY29tIHN5c3RlbSBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yKYkBFQMFEDCs LO90C7R/GkJcSQEB01cH/0KC3sd+u4OxMku5378SJktoN6QIQYLJ7uVbuV4S51yK NAotCGf4Wl6wwjynzZvXKU0H87oDuMiq7FybgMNL2n+4bQIZi0iz0lIuzwoMDu63 NrHUW9Kz42pOnhrEhrdkHhHL9O5GgD1yc40fJ3qw5h7LQEjDxgypyw0IFILFc34u LeRLliNibxKp8JwAxXNHWSgxu28TQvmnkHi0AHP6tJ/uZYe+4dqJtrMMsYFjzZaz DPmxD+dzbTwlQKtJaP1ZkDI0Sr072wrZDv+G86GyGBMX2lpSafpRitnxuUttjU9o wsQ9Qo5xiH1nZRCs/bDzJe/gng+GHzevixDIITurtNA= =SgPT -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: CSPAN Currency Creation Hearings
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:04 1/1/96, Brad Dolan wrote: >I caught part of it. > >The general theme was,~"we're going to establish a `partnership' with >digicash / crypto firms to ensure that our `legitimate law-enforcement >needs' are designed into the products."~ I sincerely doubt that there will be any 'partnerships' between DigiCash and law enforcement. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

A weakness in PGP signatures, and a suggested solution
by Clark Matthews 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a note to Dr. Dmitri Vulis -- your post by this name appears to have been forge-cancelled on mail. cypherpunks 1/1/96 at 4:13 EST. Two replies also forge-cancelled. Anybody running lazarus on mail.cypherpunks? Might be an interesting idea. Dr. Vulis, can you repost the item to this list? Best, Clark .---. .----------- * :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: / \ __ / ------ * clark.matthews(a)paranet.org / / \(..)/ ----- * :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ////// ' \/ ` ---- * //// / // : : --- * PERMISSION TO \\/ / * / /` '--* COPY / REPOST \*/ * //..\\ x-x-UU----UU-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- '//||\\` N E M O..M E..I M P U N E..L A C E S S I T x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers
by dmandl＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:44 PM 1/1/96, Lucky Green wrote: >At 15:32 1/1/96, Felix Lee wrote: >>Lucky Green: >>> Some site in physical space has to host the nntpd, the ftpd, and the httpd. >>> That site will be subject to search, seizure, and arrest and conviction of >>> owner. >> >>but if it turns out that 30% of home PCs have to be seized to prevent >>dissemination of dangerous-information-X? > >Wrong. Only 0.03% of the home PCs have to be seized and the owners >incarcerated. The remaining users will cease to carry controlled data on >their own. I agree. It's not a good idea to assume that there's going to be some kind of widespread opposition movement when the big Net Crackdown comes. Most people will either obey the law, be unaffected by it, or violate it in very insignificant ways ("net jaywalking"). There's strength in numbers, but I just don't think the numbers will be there. --Dave. -- Dave Mandl dmandl(a)panix.com http://www.wfmu.org/~davem <---Completely overhauled--tons of new stuff

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

m5(a)dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes: > Dimitri Vulis writes: > > > For how long ... ? > > > > For as long as they're able to provide information and services that > > customers want, which are not available via "generic" small ISP's. > > But don't you think it likely that AOL & Compuserve will soon see the > economic advantage of making their services available (for per-use > fees) to the Internet as a whole? If not AOL & Compuserve, then > certainly the actual content providers themselves. (The NSA may be a > different matter.) > > I don't see why content providers would not be willing to make stuff > available via the internet; they don't have to do it for free. OK, I'm sure we have the nice folks from the National Computer Security Association on this list. Why don't they set up their forum so it's not necessary to have a CompuServe account to access it? --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Guerilla ISP's... (fwd)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:20 1/1/96, sameer wrote: >> Prosecution followed by conviction is what will happen to the owner of the >> computer on which the OS was running. > It's hard to jail a corporation. Pretty hard. That's why the corporate officers will be jailed instead. Not that this would be necessary to stop the corporation from operating. The authorities can just confiscating all the equipment and thereby put the corporation out of business. Saves time and trial costs. They just haul off the computers and declare that they are now property of the government. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

COP_box
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1-2-96. WaPo: "Undercover on the Dark Side of Cyberspace. On-Line FBI Agents Troll for Those Who Prey on Children." The FBI unit now has more than $1 million worth of equipment, including high-speed modems and large data storage devices. In cases where suspects' computers have been seized, the agents have run up against password-protected and encrypted files, which sometimes have taken FBI technicians hundreds of hours to decode. 1-2-96. FiTi: "Pobox and the magic cookie." Which company will have the greatest effect on the development of the Internet this year? My answer is neither Microsoft nor Netscape. It is a tiny new company called Pobox.com. Its product consists of a simple forwarding service that is an electronic equivalent of a post office box. This service allows people to give out an e-mail address that is independent of where they work or where they choose to buy Internet access. COP_box

1 0

Unmuzzy Explained
by Laszlo Vecsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So is the idea beyond this that if file or a group of files were to be distributed over many computers (possibly hundreds or more) then none of the computers would be "responsible" for their content? I would think that any participant in the network would have to claim full responsibility for the content, assuming the file(s) could be accessed from any of the participating servers. I'd be interesting in joining the Unmuzzy (programmers) mailing list, does anyone know what the email is or where the home page is? A net search returned nothing.

1 0