- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Congressional subcommittee hearings on computer security
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Computer crimes rife, unreported By Reuters February 13, 1997, 9:45 a.m. PT WASHINGTON--Security experts say hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable. "If I want to steal money, a computer is a much better tool than a handgun," Daniel Geer, director of engineering for Open Market, told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. " Has anyone been following this debate more closely? Nothing in any of the articles I've seen on this story have mentioned the role of strong encryption. <rhetorical question mode on> Why can't banks better protect themselves? Why can't banks better authenticate electronic transactions to prevent theft & break-ins? Why is the such a dearth of protective measures available to the institutions? The public has a right to know! <rhetorical question mode off> Seriously, though, has anyone been following these hearings in more detail? me --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re:
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > Yes. > > No it's not. Where do you get this? It would be illegal to send them a copy of the PGP program. But sending encrypted messages is not illegal. Please, cite your source --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Feds OK 128-bit crypto amid protests
by Timothy N. Hill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:14 -0500 97-02-13, Bradley Dunn wrote: >See: >http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7925,00.html >for details. Thanks for the pointer. Note that, unlike the previous three recipients of crypto export licenses, Open Market did not enable government access to keys. Instead they went through the "expensive ... exercise" of convincing "government officials that the product could not be used to encrypt anything but specific financial numbers." - Tim Timothy N. Hill <tnh(a)acm.org> "We all love to instruct, Wellesley, Massachusetts though we can teach only <http://www.ma.ultranet.com/~tnh/> what is not worth knowing." PGP F058F75D 99C5122F 21C5BEF5 620C1D3C - Elizabeth Bennet

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:08:21 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > > Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > [...] > > What I really find interesting is that in the 3 years SSZ has been up and > the 8 mailing lists (with about 300 subscribers total) nobody has ever > complained about the public domain policy and nobody has ever put a > copyright header on their messages. All these lists are technical and > several of them are directly involved with technical development of > projects, some for commercial apps. > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com > > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? In general, I rather like your policy. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- > but not limit what members might write. The notion that there are "members" in some kind of formal fashion is inherently un-cypherpunk in my book and would most likely be rejected. > Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in > both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the > only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm > sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this > experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. In your 15 years on-line you should KNOW that it's an inevitable cycle inherent to anarchic forums like cypherpunks. But the notion that cypherpunks is dead and destroyed is silly. Cypherpunks will (and already are) reform and renew as is, I believe, necessary. Whether or not the name cypherpunks is used and embraced is irrelevant. Those interested in cryptography as a tool of personal privacy and freedom will inevitable congregate in the self-organizing fashion that "cypherpunks" have always recognized. The "human judgement" you are referring to is leadership. Leadership is not necessarily anathema to cypherpunks. Leadership is provided by those who try to post signal and ignore the noise. Those who continue to push the discussion forward. People inevitably tire of robust forums such as this. The sociopaths and the leaders come and go in waves. Let the forum mutate in whatever way it chooses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > ><Some deleted> > >> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >> person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >> the public for no explicit charge. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > [...] > By the way, I can forward to those who are interested these four or five > posts which got "Meta-Censored." (Unless too many people request > them...I'll promise to forward them to the first five people who request > them...then some of you can repost them to the list and see if they make it > through.) I'd like to see them. In fact I'd like to collect the posts which slipped through the crack and didn't make it to either cp-flames or cp, on the assumption that these are the posts which tell the story. In particular I'd like to see the post that John Gilmore refered to as `Mr Nemesis' post, wherein someone allegedly slanders/libels C2, to the extent that Sandy dropped it from both lists, if anyone who was subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited at the time has it still. Unfortunately I was subscribed to only cypherpuks-flames and cypherpunks (the edited list) at the time, so didn't get to see it. I'm on Lance Cottrell's cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net now, which is subscribed to the cypherpunks-unedited list. At the moment Lance is setting Reply-To: to cypherpunks(a)toad.com, but I presume he'll drop that when John Gilmore drops cypherpunks(a)toad.com. The moderation decisions that I saw prior to moving to cypherpunks-unedited after Sandy's return, and change of policy, were even more arbitrary. I figured I wasn't even interested to see what they were any more, given that the cypherpunks(a)toad.com was shortly being closed anyway, so just subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

A "Default Faggot"/ was:Dale disses gays.
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Anonymous wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:45:07 -0700 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)wazoo.com> > Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: Dale disses gays. > > aga <aga(a)dhp.com> writes: > > > Now just who is thisa guy? -- who keeps posting under > > "nobody" at the cajones remailer? Anybody have him/her > > tagged yet for the real person? > > Probably multiple people. It's just an anonymous remailer. > > > ... > > I don't know. It has always been easy for me to spot a faggot. I > > mean, I can even tell by their voice if they are queer. > > Well, those of us who happen to know Gilmore is straight are not very > impressed with your accuracy. > Well, I never talked to Gilmore, but I will tell you this: I have never seen him come outright and say "I am straight and not gay." So until he says that, he is a default faggot. The default faggots are the worst kind. If a guy would just say "o.k., I am gay," I can respect him and drop the subject. It is the ones who refuse to admit they are gay that bug me the most.

2 1

Re: Fuck UseNet (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting > solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the > same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no > doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom > to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, > and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have > the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we might consider adding, X-distrib-policy: foo Where foo might be, Public Domain All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted Refer to authors header Copyleft etc. or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would significantly aid folks in their shopping around. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 5