- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: what fields to hash with hashcash (Re: A Trial Balloon to Ban Email?)
by Eric S. Johansson 17 May '03

17 May '03

R. A. Hettinga propagated: > --- begin forwarded text > > > Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:34:23 +0100 > From: Adam Back <adam(a)cypherspace.org> > To: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > Cc: Adam Back <adam(a)cypherspace.org> > Subject: Re: what fields to hash with hashcash (Re: A Trial Balloon to > Ban Email?) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com > >>Worse, even if there were a reliable mechanism, all it takes is one >>loose cannon with an open mass-mail list and as long as it doesn't >>delete whatever header (maybe delivered-to:, maybe something else) that >>indicates the list was an envelope to: address, one hashcash token works >>for one email to the entire list. actually, no it doesn't. The real, working code has a configuration file which contains a list of all known addresses associated with the account. That list of addresses is necessary because of people having virtual domain based addresses collecting all at 1 mailbox. The code uses that list of valid addresses in the stamp validation process. > I take it this comment is about mailing lists? Mailing lists have to > be treated separately. The sender probably can't afford to create a > token for each recipient. (Also he doesn't know the recipient's > addresses). Mailing lists deal with spam with filtered versions of > lists. mailing lists are your "friend". While I don't have the code in there yet, I expect I will need to pay attention to the -request form of addresses and white list both the -request form and the plain form for a while. Ideally, the mailing lists would sign each message with its own private key and use the white list by public key filtering method client side. while I know this is the cypherpunks list, but if you ever get tired of debating this to death and would like to write some real code, let me know. ;-) ---eric

1 0

NYC Pigs, Judge needing killing
by Major Variola (ret) 17 May '03

17 May '03

NYC Woman Dies in Botched Police Raid NEW YORK -- A 57-year-old woman died of an apparent heart attack Friday after police detonated a flash grenade and handcuffed her during a raid on the wrong apartment. [ Note that a Judge issued a warrant based solely on an informer ] An informant said that Spruill's sixth-floor Harlem apartment was being used by an armed drug dealer to stash cocaine and heroin, police officials said. After obtaining a search warrant, officers forced open the woman's door and tossed in a flash grenade, which creates a distraction by producing a loud noise and a blinding flash of light. Kelly said the grenade was used because it was believed there may have been guns and a dog in the apartment. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-police-raid-death,1,336…

2 1

How Soon We Forget Our Freedoms
by Eric Cordian 17 May '03

17 May '03

I was just looking at the official rules for Pepsi's latest sweepstakes and noticed the fine print about attending the prize drawing contains the following... Credit card required for hotel check in. Government issued photo-id required for air travel. It's amazing how rapidly the new way of doing things gets assimilated into the popular culture, as if these things are perfectly reasonable and it's always been that way. P.S. Whatever became of John Gilmore's lawsuit? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Another rabid ex-trot attacks our Noam.
by Professor Rat. 17 May '03

17 May '03

Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the far more extreme terrorismof United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomskys own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today. Two books of interviews with him published since September 11, 2001 both went straight onto the bestseller lists.[1] One of them has since been turned into a film entitled Power and Terror, now doing brisk business in the art-house movie market. In March 2002 the films director, John Junkerman, accompanied his subject to the University of California, Berkeley, where in a five-day visit Chomsky gave five political talks to a total audience of no fewer than five thousand people. Meanwhile, the liberal news media around the world has sought him out for countless interviews as the most promi- nent intellectual opposed to the American response to the terrorist attacks. Newspaper articles routinely open by reminding readers of his awesome intellectual status. A profile headlined Conscience of a Nationin the English daily The Guardian declared: Chomsky ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanitiesand is the only writer among them still alive.The New York Times has called him arguably the most important intellectual alive. Chomsky has used his status, originally gained in the field of linguistics, to turn himself into the leading voice of the American left. He is not merely a spokesman. His own stance has done much to structure left-wing politics over the past forty years. Today, when actors, rock stars, and protesting students mouth anti-American slogans for the cameras, they are very often expressing sentiments they have gleaned from Chomskys voluminous output. Hence, to examine Chomskys views is to analyze the core mindset of contemporary radicalism, especially the variety that now holds so much sway in the academic and arts communities. Chomsky has been a celebrity radical since the mid-1960s when he made his name as an anti-Vietnam War activist. Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. At seventy-four years of age, he is today the doyen of the American and much of the worlds intellectual left. He is, however, an unconventional academic radical. Over the past thirty years, the left in the humanities has been smitten by high theory, especially neo-Marxist, feminist, and postmodernist philosophy out of Germany and France. Much of this material was arcane enough in its own language but in translation it elevated obscurantism to a badge of prestige. It inundated the humanities with relativism both in epistemology and moral philosophy. In contrast, Chomsky has produced no substantial body of political theory of his own. Nor is he a relativist. He advocates the pursuit of truth and knowledge about human affairs and promotes a simple, universal set of moral principles. Moreover, his political writings are very clear, pitched to a general rather than specialist audience. He supports his claims not by appeals to some esoteric conceptual apparatus but by presenting plain, apparently factual evidence. The explanation for his current appeal, therefore, needs to be sought not in recent intellectual fashions but in something with a longer history. Chomsky is the most prominent intellectual remnant of the New Left of the 1960s. In many ways he epitomized the New Left and its hatred of Amerika,a country he believed, through its policies both at home and abroad, had descended into fascism. In his most famous book of the Sixties, American Power and the New Mandarins, Chomsky said what America needed was a kind of denazification. Of all the major powers in the Sixties, according to Chomsky, America was the most reprehensible. Its principles of liberal democracy were a sham. Its democracy was a four-year dictatorshipand its economic commitment to free markets was merely a disguise for corporate power. Its foreign policy was positively evil. By any objective standard,he wrote at the time, the United States has become the most aggressive power in the world, the greatest threat to peace, to national self-determination, and to international cooperation. As an anti-war activist, Chomsky participated in some of the most publicized demonstrations, including the attempt, famously celebrated in Norman Mailers Armies of the Night, to form a human chain around the Pentagon. Chomsky described the event as tens of thousands of young people surrounding what they believe to beI must add that I agreethe most hideous institution on this earth. This kind of anti-Americanism was common on the left at the time but there were two things that made Chomsky stand out from the crowd. He was a scholar with a remarkable reputation and he was in tune with the anti-authoritarianism of the student-based New Left. At the time, the traditional left was still dominated by an older generation of Marxists, who were either supporters of the Communist Party or else Trotskyists opposed to Joseph Stalin and his heirs but who still endorsed Lenin and Bolshevism. Either way, the emerging generation of radical students saw both groups as compromised by their support for the Russian Revolution and the repressive regimes it had bequeathed to eastern Europe. Chomsky was not himself a member of the student generationin 1968 he was a forty-year-old tenured professorbut his lack of party membership or any other formal political commitment absolved him of any connection to the Old Left. Instead, his adherence to anarchism, or what he called libertarian socialism,did much to shape the outlook of the New Left. American Power and the New Mandarins approvingly quotes the nineteenth-century anarchist Mikhail Bakunin predicting that the version of socialism supported by Karl Marx would end up transferring state power not to the workers but to the elitist cadres of the Communist Party itself. Despite his anti-Bolshevism, Chomsky remained a supporter of socialist revolution. He urged that a true social revolutionwould transform the masses so they could take power into their own hands and run institutions themselves. His favorite real-life political model was the short-lived anarchist enclave formed in Barcelona in 19361937 during the Spanish Civil War. etc... http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm Windsock windshuttle joins James A.Donald,David Horowitz,Stephen Schwartz,Chris Hitchens,Michael Costa and no doubt many more loony ex-trotskyists over to the lunar right.

1 0

Reichland Security Incident;St Louis.
by Professor Rat. 17 May '03

17 May '03

Biodevastation 7 Begins Today The Biodevastation 7 conference will begin May 16 in St. Louis. The Conference precedes and coincides with the World Agricultural Forum, an exclusive meeting of industry and private agriculture interests. Biodevastation will feature workshops, forums and speeches by conscientious scientists, farmers and other critics of agriculture-for-profit, genetically modified foods, and agriculture industrialists like Monsanto. The conference will be followed by a protest-convergence at the World Agricultural Forum. Read entire feature. [ St. Louis IMC | Biodevastation 7 Conference | People's Agricultural Resistance ] Breaking News: Police raid buildings, arrest and detain Biodev activists St. Louis Police have raided the Community Arts and Media Project (CAMP) and the Bolozone, a St. Louis housing collective. The raids target participants of the Biodevastation7 conference and activists converging at the World Agricultural Forum. Observers at CAMP have reported that the St. Louis Police have handcuffed about 20 people, and City Inspectors accompanied by police are inspecting the building for violations. Ten people have been arrested at Bolozone. A post to the St. Louis IMC newswire encourages everyone to call Chief of Police Joe Mokwa at (314) 444-5624 to demand their immediate release and a stop to the harassment of the movement against genetic engineering and corporate agribusiness. [ St. Louis IMC | "Call police now" ]

1 0

New cold war,same mistakes.
by Professor Rat. 17 May '03

17 May '03

Let's face it: we're in for a long war May 17, 2003 THE terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia and the renewed warnings of al-Qa'ida terrorist attacks in southeast Asia hold several lessons of fundamental importance for Australia. The historic bargains that underlie the old order in the Middle East are breaking down independently of US action. The Saudi Government has for decades turned a blind eye to hatred, extremism and terrorist organisations within its borders so long as the extremists did not attack Saudi Arabia. But terror chief Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa'ida group have shown that even the most cynical bargains with them buy only short-term comfort. The Saudis are now under the gun in a way they have never been. Their credit with Washington is shot after ignoring US pleas to upgrade security at the foreign residential compounds in Riyadh that were bombed by suspected al-Qai'da terrorists on Tuesday. Their domestic credibility is also shot. The population explosion, combined with the failure of the economy to produce anything but oil and the absence of political evolution, leave them with a patina of failure and illegitimacy. But from the ashes of this tragedy, the Saudi rulers have opportunity. The bombings have produced vast popular revulsion towards al-Qa'ida. And with US troops gone from the kingdom, there has never been a better time to begin evolution towards a more representative political structure as Saudi leader Crown Prince Abdullah has urged. The bombing starkly illustrates that al-Qa'ida is not dead. No one should underestimate the damage the US and its allies have inflicted on the terror group since the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. More than 3000 of its operatives, including many commanders, are in jail. Its training camps in Afghanistan have been eliminated. Pakistan has turned against the terrorists. All this is vast progress. But the Riyadh bombings, and the southeast Asian warnings, show us the war on terror is here for the long term. Defeating Saddam Hussein in Iraq was necessary, and a contribution to the war on terror, but it does not mean al-Qa'ida is defeated. The analogy is with the prolonged conflict of the Cold War. Intelligence analysts believe the centre of al-Qa'ida activity will swing to southeast Asia. Tragically, the region is almost designer-made for al-Qa'ida's purposes. It has porous borders, weak state capacity, large Muslim populations, pre-existing terrorist and separatist Muslim movements and proximity to south Asia, from where so many al-Qa'ida operatives have fled. Al-Qa'ida has transmuted into a more decentralised, hydra-headed beast. It is especially effective where it can link up with and provide strategic direction to existing separatist and religion-based violent movements, because it can co-opt existing capacities rather than building them up from scratch. Al-Qa'ida finds these circumstances in the southern Philippines and Indonesia. For Australia, this means a growing danger. We are a relatively easy Western target right next door. Australian interests in southeast Asia are at risk, as is the Australian mainland. Our response should be heightened intelligence and military co-operation with the governments in southeast Asia, heightened intelligence and other counter-terrorist efforts at home, and increased political engagement with mainstream moderate southeast Asia. There are insufficient resources for counter-terrorist intelligence at home, and Australia has not adequately pursued energetic and high-level political engagement with southeast Asia. We also need to change the orientation of our defence forces a path the Government is slowly moving along. There has been some misinterpretation of this week's defence budget. Critics see it as moving towards a greater emphasis on participating in distant coalition operations with the US rather than the traditional narrow defence of Australia doctrine. In truth, Defence Minister Robert Hill's speeches have emphasised mobility, flexibility and versatility. The point the commentators are missing is that the ability to deploy Australian forces at a distance gives the Government much greater options to deploy our forces in the region, as well as in coalition operations with the US. The debate over new tanks is emerging as a symbol for the wider argument. Tanks have no effective role in the defence of Australia doctrine because they would only come into play if an invading force landed in Australia and engaged our forces in a tank battle an extremely unlikely contingency. But tanks are classically of great use in coalition operations such as the war in Iraq. They are also of use in the region, in urban warfare, in peacekeeping operations and to assist regional governments in anti-terrorist operations. Reconfiguring our military to cope with potential regional and coalition requirements is one part of a huge emerging challenge arising out of this week's events. But the bottom line is: we're in for a long war. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6446194%255E2…

1 0

Health and Defence winners for Hillary in 04.
by Professor Rat. 17 May '03

17 May '03

Clinton mobilises the Republican base more effectively than an evangelical rally on an aircraft carrier. But she is also a canny politician, like her husband, and there is a slight chance she could prevail. Remember the rumours that floated around when Clinton was deciding whether to run for the Senate? Many thought she wouldn't chance it, but she did. And she ran a pretty flawless campaign, even winning over the conservative constituents in upper New York state. Clinton grew up a Republican, after all. And her most recent positioning has come about because of the war against Saddam Hussein. As conservative reporter Fred Barnes wrote: "A week after the start of the war in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld gave a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee. At the time, the advance of US troops towards Baghdad supposedly was bogged down it turned out they really weren't and the Bush administration was facing stiff criticism. But the Defence Secretary got strong support from an unexpected source the newest member of the committee, Hillary Clinton. Alluding to her own experience in an administration under fire, she indicated she understood Rumsfeld's situation. Then Clinton assured him the committee was behind him 100 per cent and would provide anything he needed. The key is to win the war, she said. The war effort should not be shortchanged in any way." Surprised? Don't be. Hillary's pro-war stand has a pedigree. Last September, she backed George W. Bush's campaign to overthrow Hussein. She was asked on a US television program if disarming Iraq was possible without removing Hussein, and replied: "I doubt it." Bush's policy was "exactly what should be done". Regardless of the UN, she said, Bush "has to do what he believes is in the best interest of the country". It is a perfect political pitch. The Clintons have always been chameleons, and although uncomfortable with the military, have never underestimated its importance in US society. Two weeks ago, Bill Clinton voiced strong support for Rumsfeld's plans for transforming the military into a more high-tech and agile force. And the military that prevailed in Iraq so decisively was, in many respects, Clinton's army. Reforms to military organisation, acquisitions and strategy take years to implement, and much of the weaponry and structure of the current force was bought, deployed and planned for under the Clinton administration. Similarly, the official policy of "regime change" in Iraq was innovated by Bill Clinton rather than Bush. When the Democrats realise they need to co-opt the successes in the war on terror, rather than whine about them, watch out for this point to be made again and again. And who better to make it than Hillary? The polls reflect some of this advantage. In almost every survey that measures the popularity of the Democratic candidates for president, Hillary comes out on top even though she isn't running. A poll in February put Hillary at 46 per cent, compared with her nearest rival, Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, at 15 per cent. And she has a book coming out soon one that will give her a national tour of the US just as the presidential campaign season heats up. And her political game insulate herself with some conservative positions, while firing up the Democratic base is classic Bill Clinton. Will Hillary run next year if all the other candidates strike out? Almost certainly not; she has just been elected to the Senate, and leaving so soon to run for president would revive every carpet-bagging criticism she has rebutted in the past two years through diligent constituency work. Besides, her focus is clearly on 2008. Cynics believe she and her husband are actually hoping for a Democratic loss in 2004. By 2008, Hillary will be ready for prime time. The last thing she would want is an incumbent Democratic president to mess up her plans. And if Bush is re-elected, she won't even have to beat an incumbent vice-president, because Dick Cheney won't run. The Clintons exercise strong control over the Democrats through their cheesy henchman Terry McAuliffe, who is party chairman. What better strategy than to stay above the fray, while a bunch of ragged and raw aspirants squabble into a loss? And so far the Democratic field looks forlorn. Between Massachusetts senator John Kerry's pious hauteur, former Vermont governor Howard Dean's mean streak, senator John Edwards's boyish callowness and Lieberman's lugubrious tedium, it's not looking great for the Dems. Perhaps their best hope is union darling Dick Gephardt, but he makes Cheney look like Ali G. Lively he ain't. So Hillary Clinton bides her time, waiting for the kill. She's probably hoping her capacity to polarise the country will abate, although such a hope is probably ill-founded. But she could win. And so far she has been playing her hand very, very smoothly.

1 0

We Will Never Surrender.
by Professor Rat. 17 May '03

17 May '03

Aceh's history of no surrender By Sian Powell, Jakarta correspondent May 17, 2003 THE rebel leader's voice rose to a half-shout: "We never surrendered to the Dutch, never. And we will never surrender to the Javanese." Aceh's secessionist rebel movement will quote chunks of history at any sceptic who doubts the validity of their independence claims. The resource-rich northern tip of Indonesia's Sumatra island was once a wealthy and powerful independent sultanate, with its own navy and standing army and, in the early 17th century, ambassadors in Europe. It was not to last. The Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 under which the Dutch gave up all claims to India and Singapore and the British signed away Sumatra recognised Acehnese independence. In 1871, however, the agreement was amended to allow a Dutch invasion. In 1873, the Dutch set out to colonise Aceh. The first battle was written up in The New York Times as particularly bloody: "The attack was repulsed with great slaughter. The Dutch general was killed, and his army put to disastrous flight. It appears, indeed, to have been literally decimated." US president Ulysses S. Grant later issued a famous "Proclamation of Impartial Neutrality in the war between Holland and Aceh", much cited by the separatists. Yet the Dutch refused to give up and 30 years later, in 1903, Sultan Muhammed Daud Syah surrendered. He later initiated a guerilla insurgency and the Aceh-Dutch war dragged on intermittently until 1942, when the Japanese arrived in the Dutch East Indies. Indonesia declared independence in 1945 and, with some Acehnese help, began to beat back the Dutch, who had returned to reclaim their possessions after World War II ended. Yet, say the Acehnese, they were repaid with a betrayal. Despite never having been formally incorporated into Dutch colonial possession, Aceh was forced to become part of the new nation of Indonesia. Dutch colonialism was followed by Javanese colonialism, they say. In 1976 the Free Aceh Movement was founded Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, or GAM and the secessionist guerilla war has been fought sporadically ever since, costing thousands of lives. Independence is GAM's raison d'etre, which is why few hold out much hope for peace talks due to start in Tokyo today. A last-minute upset, in which five GAM negotiators were arrested at Banda Aceh airport yesterday on their way to Tokyo, threatened to derail the process. Indonesia has been extremely touchy about separatism since the East Timor disaster, and it will brook no rebellion. It continues to prepare for an all-out military crackdown in Aceh, saying GAM must renounce independence before talks can begin. Since the Geneva-based Henry Dunant Centre brokered a "cessation of hostilities" agreement last December, the Acehnese have enjoyed a brief respite from the daily run of shootings, death and assaults. But now the diametrically opposed aims of Indonesia and the rebel leaders have again ripped the peace into tatters, and the Acehnese are again braced for war http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6447603%255E2703,… t,

1 0

Why I hate the Gold Coast.
by Professor Rat. 17 May '03

17 May '03

Say no to Golf Coast hell Comment by Germaine Greer May 17, 2003 MOST people would assume that I bought land in southeast Queensland because I want to retire there, close to the "Golf Coast", where ageing Australians can invest in properties that promise "a perfect blending of golf course, residential estate and resort", with resident professionals, pro shops and motorised carts. The Gold Coast skyline. (pic) Typically such estates are built on reclaimed land where mangrove swamp has been turned into boring, palm-fringed water frontage. Such "modern resort lifestyle living" is my idea of hell. The high-rise holiday apartment blocks of Surfers Paradise are visible from some parts of my property in the hinterland. But they might as well be a mirage for all the continuity there is between the hedonistic coast lifestyle and that of my neighbours. The people around me are battlers, struggling to make a living out of dairying, growing avocados, macadamias, bamboo shoots or renting out cabins. There's no money in any of it, but they hang on until the banks foreclose. Some fell young trees to sell as fenceposts; others sell the very rocks out of the ground to builders of the causeways and marinas of the coastal resorts. I bought my land because it was pleading for an owner who would have no need to make a living out of it. What it needed was protection from any further damage to its biodiversity. What it promised was a chance to reverse the damage already done. Though my rainforest is relatively healthy, it is not undisturbed. As soon as the Numinbah Valley was opened for settlement at the end of the 19th century, the rainforest was plundered; all its huge rosewoods and red cedars were felled, leaving great gaps in the canopy. The balance of vines and emergent trees was altered, so the vines became dominant and dragged down trees. Exotic vines joined in, so where we are encouraging regrowth, we will have to control all vine growth for the first few years at least, and perhaps forever. So why me? Why now? In 2002, at the Rio Plus 10 earth summit, Australia was declared a renegade state, defaulting in five of the six key environmental areas, including preservation of biodiversity. This year's audit of biodiversity in Australia found the rate of decline is accelerating: 2900 ecosystems are threatened; about 1600 plant and animal species are nearly extinct. The chief culprit is land-clearing, which Australia continues to do at about the same rate as Bolivia, giving it joint third position in the world vandalism ratings. And most of the land-clearing in Australia is in Queensland. Paul Sattler, senior author of the audit report commissioned by the Federal Government, has pointed out that it would be cheaper to pay landholders to keep their vegetation than try to revegetate land once it is cleared. If the landowner was only to grow nuts, it would be relatively cheap to buy him out. But if he planned a retirement village, he would be justified demanding millions for not clearing his site. The Biodiversity Australia website says this country is a "diverse and often unique environment that should be a source of pride to all Australians". You'd think white Australians had created, rather than dismantled, the astonishing biodiversity of the ancient continent in a mere 200 years. Germaine Greer is a writer and feminist, and professor of English and comparative studies at the University of Warwick in the UK. http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6449495%255E421,00.html

1 0

The Dickheads Like Queensland.
by Professor Rat. 17 May '03

17 May '03

FBI delegates gather for Gold Coast conference Concerns about increased terrorist activity in south-east Asia are not expected to deter delegates from an FBI conference, which opens on Queensland's Gold Coast this weekend. Four-hundred delegates from throughout Australia, south-east Asia, the United States and the United Kingdom are expected to attend the five-day conference to discuss the latest strategies in dealing with terrorism and international crime. The Department of Foreign Affairs has has issued reviewed travel advice for Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Brunei, East Timor and Indonesia. However, Superintendent Paul Stewart of the conference organising committee says that is not expected to impact on delegate numbers. "We still have delegates from south-east Asia that are attending the conference," he said. "Certainly no one has pulled out of the conference or anything like that ... it's still going ahead." http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-17may2003-22.htm

1 0