- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Questions about Naughty Robot (fwd)
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Genocide <gen2600(a)aracnet.com> writes: > I got this message (on a system that I am webmaster on) regarding > something that sounded so stupid it made me chuckle...Naughty Robot...I > have enclosed the message below. If any of you have any idea what this > user is talking about, any info would be appreciated. <snip> > >> I had a customer in Tennesee who got an E-Mail saying that Naughty Robot > >> has infected your host computer and consider all your credit cards > >> stolen. > >> > >> I think it's a hoax, but the Admins at VR-NET Cafe say that they have > >> been hit with it and say that it's a script that does hack into the > >> IPS's server and sits back and watches the users browse the web and take > >> the info they see on there screen and dump to some remote server?? > >> > >> I was wondering if you have heard about it...and if so can you direct to > >> the right locations on the web to get the "Official" Scoop on it? It could theoretically be a JavaScript that makes a teeny tiny window and reports back stuff that it really shouldn't be able to see, I think Netscape fixed that bug, though. FWIW, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwd5rskz/YzIV3P5AQF+7wMAwPZp89E0JQkI9OOGbqMULKTfEfyE6Edf 2K+U0l3I86aM6AkS6SeFbj2Nc6AwD3yXbFHR+d3Opn3yJcwGaLrCDtqM3qfeg8vR V3D3KWXVNai4ptHwB5ldM2GT+IQP0VJg =veqx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:13 PM 2/16/97 -0800, Dave Hayes wrote: >I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if >that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. I think it would be more accurate to say that this is what it takes to get cypherpunks into the hands of different control interests. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMweY6P37pMWUJFlhAQGdewf/Rvli6pc1PId0xSK9hCII4exlWGetoU66 rGvQ7kJNh9O7zeWz8gVFIk7kXmDRKNBfkDDq4nuf64O4fWnhGP1xeuSoUQhqI5mw YupTErFN0uPlPRbOrTCPeVBdHbDiuKniMTlvHoZnB00sS+/q5rKCHILhRzDRjgxZ eglFvVZYttqk2s/YE/OCgWpYDAthLzmgK3GbKUh3ZuyJYWcLrsmHqwCZUgdIztWY rj1QuLcVcqyXsZjpC2nf75BU1l/WoAcq0MrEzSQeT6qXvJmvgMzrF8GtZ/mTheO6 U9E6kAmKd7xwfe4VE3KPKWrAppDi8vMTyUqSKTSi/Lz8ZYkYGUhUvw== =tT97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

When and where?
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Friends: Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, argument, and gas. I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) c'punks. Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMwextiKJGkNBIH7lAQEF2gP+LiPlzbHaFKg6lpJZoKSf2RLiMfQAlOkf 7tDQB9M+gtyJLM/xN0GjmkbNQk6blVFyAHuCY4GW7MzoReHoca08FfZ7+tRyFniK AoBwbnqPv8ZQN9MbfaEzt1gjKGMDXHaUM8CCOk0Pt3aPxnd+SsuNVUfZCF7Hg7QS mE47juLt06M= =aqD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Moderation experiment and moderator liability (fwd)
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Adam has assembled a pretty good history of recent events. The following comments only cover some of the issues raised by Adam. It should not be assumed that I agree with all the statements upon which I do not comment. I have limited myself to commenting on only a few issues with which I am in dispute. On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > Events: > 9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be > moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included > Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as > moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's > suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. Moderation was my suggestion, but the moderation policy was not. My suggestion was quite different. In a nutshell I wanted to: a. Limit posts to list members only. b. Promote civility on the list by applying sanction to list members who repeatedly flamed or otherwise breached civil decorum. c. Provide for anonymous or non-member posts by having volunteers act as "gateways" who would forward anonymous--but civil--posts to the list. Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go figure. > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > a C2Net product that he would be sued! Absolutely false. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: More on digital postage
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:36 PM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: >My understanding is that the legislation restricts commercial >solicitations by phone to: > >- certain times of day (not after 9 PM? unsure) >- one initial call, and no follow-ups if the person explicitly asks >the caller to never phone this number again (again, unsure of legal >details) > >I don't consider this scenario overly restrictive, since it gives >_them_ a chance to sell their product, and _me_ a chance to have them >delete my name from their database. Unfortunately, without some >formal means of redress, very few telemarketers seem to remember that >they are unlikely to find new customers if they call at 7 AM Saturday >for the third time this month. I despise telemarketing calls as much as the next one, and I now let my answering machine do the answering whenever possible, only picking up if it's a call that sounds interesting. (And my cellular phone number I give to only a very few people, as I get charged for incoming calls before 7 p.m.) So, I'm sympathetic to the "problem." However, I try to always "deconstruct" governmental/regulatory "solutions" to see if statist encroachment is lurking in the bushes. In the case of the notion of "have them delete my name from their database," here are some of the issues: * The Armour Spam Company buys its data bases from direct marketing firms, so whose data base is one's name supposed to be removed from? The instance used by Armour in its February 17th contact, or the "parent index" (which is itself an instance) controlled by someone else? How does Armour insist that the data base company from which it bought the data base handle the removal? * If the argument is only that Armour Spam Company not repeat a call, this is generally not a problem, as few companies repeat their telemarketing pitches; counterexamples doubtless exist, but the general trend is not for repeat calls, but, rather, for the same data base to be bought by multiple telemarketing firms. * And there are "freedom of speech" (important in the U.S., though not perhaps in other countries lacking an explicit provision in their constitutions or charters) issues in forcing sellers of legally obtained data bases to reveal internals, to modify them, etc. (Again, it is Armour Spam Company that made the offending call, but they, for this example, only made the call _once_. The fact that N other companies make similar calls, based on the same data base, is a separable issue. Unless the collection and sale of legally-accumulated data bases is regulated, no real remedy exists. I am not, of course, a fan of regulating data bases, but that's a long and involved issue to discuss.) >What means of redress would you suggest, in the absence of >legislation / fines, to someone who has been called repeatedly by a >telemarketer? This person is not a current customer and so cannot >withdraw his/her business. As I said, I believe the case of repeated calls by the _same_ telemarketer is unusual. Perhaps others have had different experiences. And if a particular telemarketer is banned from calling twice, their solution will be obvious: they'll change their company name, farm out the calls to a subcontractor, etc. That is, they'll become a different "corporate instance." It'll be very tough for any law to keep up with such changes (without trampling severely on what most of us think of us as basic freedoms). --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The story about Stronghold security flaws reminds me of The Right Reverend Colin James III (puke). CJ3 also started his kook career when he was accused of being stupid and not knowing what he was talking about in his announcement about performance of BSAM, his "invention". He immediately reacted to the accusers and promised to sue them, their employers, their providers, the Inspector General, and more. He really went after his enemies, trying to get them fired, etc. As a result of his long struggles, most enlightened minds on USENET realized that he was an excellent candidate for Kook of the Month award. A nomination followed. When he was elected Kook of the Month last January with a record-breaking vote, he threatened to sue anyone who mentions his new Kook status. That only added fuel to the fire, as more and more posters "dared" to expose him as a lying forger and kook. - Igor.

1 0

Re: The EFF
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > Timothy C. May wrote: > > > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > > > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > > > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > > > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > > > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > > > during their cocktail parties. > > Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried > > those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want > > you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, > > whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit > > going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks > > meetings in the L.A. area. > Dale, so you are in mensa? Did you have to take a test? I joined in 1986 at the urging of my sort-of lawyer (not a real lawyer, but much better actually) from Beverly Hills. He liked the parties since he was trolling for babes; recent (1986) divorce and all. Anyway, Mensa was accepting U.S. Military GT scores prior to 1980, and I scored 153 in 1966, which was the highest at the several posts I did duty in (Ft. Benning GA, Ft. Ord CA, Ft. Lee VA, 4th A.D. Europe). I gave up on it after a few meetings, since I didn't care for the parties, and there didn't seem to be any really active/interesting people there. There was a "rational sig" I wanted to attend, but never got around to. Mensa did put on some good speakers every now and then, but you could do as well by checking in with the Masons or the other local civic groups.

1 0

test 527
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test 527 -- 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: Cypherpunks afraid of spam?
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Cynthia H. Brown" <cynthb(a)sonetis.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:02:02 -0500 So, if I put root(a)127.0.0.1 in the "From:" field of my news reader's configuration, all of my posts will give this as my e-mail address. More likely to be delivered is root(a)[127.0.0.1] or root(a)localhost.nceye.net or similar. The thing to the right has to be a name or a numeric address *in brackets*. Yes, this doesn't seem to make terribly much sense. Another approach if you can do it is to get an alias that looks like a message-ID. All my outgoing usenet posts lately have said From: Bryan Reece <23je8s$ksd(a)taz.nceye.net> at the top, and no spam has come to that address.

1 0

The Science Generations, II
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a short update to our discussions regarding the 'dumbing down' of America. Although Gilbert appears to have gone out of the business I did find a few chemistry sets at my local hobby store. They were certainly a far cry from the bunsen burner and lab glassware I grew up with, they all appear to use micro amounts of reagent in pipette tubes. I doubt they will generate the excitement we experienced. BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara <http://www.sb.net/wirehead>. It carries only a limited selection and prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume). Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. 173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. --Steve

1 0