- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: The Enemies List
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

Has the fact that a disaster occurred changed much? The US was always vulnerable, now the general population knows it. I'm expecting war in the Middle East and reprisals in the States. There is not a great deal anyone can do about it. As for the fallout of Tuesday's events, well...the heart of the crypto issue hasn't changed one iota. Those idiots who are advocating bans and back doors are off in the tall grass as they always have been. They are promising safety that they cannot now or ever deliver no matter what tools they are given. Like con artists soliciting donations that will never make it to the people who need it they are trying to leverage a tragedy as a means to further their own businesses, careers and power with no regard for the outcome. Are these advocates of the erosion of civil liberties enemies and criminals? Sure, and they'll be fought the same way they've been fought before - in the courts, in the press and in front of a monitor. As for the talk of violence, I have no way, need or desire to sort the rhetorical from the real so I won't even try. Yesterday I was behind any action our government wanted to take, today, after hearing calls to increase domestic surveillance capabilities and learning that my keychain Victorinox is a felonious weapon, I'm back to my usual pessimism. I think there are far too many clueless morons in positions of power for the job of governing to be done well. I hope that I'm wrong and that there are enough truly bright and dedicated people to do a good job. Mike

1 0

RE: A Brevital Moment (was..Ignore Aimee Farr)
by Trei, Peter 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

> Aimee Farr[SMTP:aimee.farr@pobox.com] wrote: > > I have never threatened a judicial official, or anybody else. I have > reason > to doubt my character in this regard could be placed into question. > > ~Aimee > I haven't paid enough attention to AF to be able to form an opinion as to whether she's threatened anyone. However, her second sentence is such a strange Clintonesque legalistic circumlocution that it raises questions as to just what she may be be tiptoeing around (possibly nothing). If her character could not be 'placed into question' ... 'in this regard', to just what exactly is she responding? Why can't she just make a clear, unambiguous statement, as in the first sentence? There seem to be at least 3 levels of ambiguity in the second sentence. A better followup would have been: "If you maintain otherwise, show the quote where I am threatening someone. Put up or shut up." Peter Trei

1 0

The Register - SSL toolkit flaw poses risk
by Jim Choate 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/21685.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

The Register - This is how we know Echelon exists
by Jim Choate 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/21680.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Ignore Aimee Farr (was RE: Cypherpunk Threat Analysis )
by citizenQ 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

Tim - Behavioral psychologists will tell you that the best way to extinguish an undesirable behavior is to IGNORE it. If Farr's posturings and baitings are truly to be made ineffective, the best course of action amongst the cpunks who care is to killfile the postings and refuse to engage on ANY level. Rising to the bait, debating whether such-and-such a purpose is behind Farr's postings, speculating on Farr's true intent, all this does is spur on the postings, the baiting, the provocation. Just say "no" to responding to ANY of Farr's postings, and I would almost put money that the behavior will extinguish within a week. On Thursday, September 13, 2001, at 08:39 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: > For the sick people in here that like to call for TNA's (target name and > address) for judicial officials etc. > > -- > NLECTC Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology News Summary > Thursday, September 13, 2001 > -- > "Technological Advances in Assessing Threats to Judicial > Officials" > Sheriff (08/01) Vol. 53, No. 4, P. 34; Calhoun, Frederick S. > > The majority of sheriff offices throughout the country > assign personnel to handle threats made to judges according > to which situations pose the greatest risks. Los Angeles I wonder why Agent Farr warns about our list "tolerating" bomb discussions, and then posts her own provocateur bomb discussions. I wonder why Agent Farr refers to the "sick people in here" who cite names of LEAs and then makes a point to cite LEA persons by _name_. Agent Farr arrived from _nowhere_ just after the election last year, with no previous detectable online interests, on half a dozen of the most "controversial" mailing lists and discussion groups. She began baiting and provoking, and when that failed, starting her own "Bomb Law Reporter" and attempting to entrap discussion group participants in what she has claimed are "dangerous" activities. She has recently claimed that our failure to support Big Brother-friendly networks makes us equivalent to the WTC actors. The witch hunt began a long time ago, but it has taken on new dimensions recently. Expect to see the real Agent Farr, who is very probably not named "Aimee" in real life, testifying before Congress on his "undercover" operations to shut down the Cypherpunks, PGP, and Extropians lists. --Tim May

3 3

Re: How to win the new war
by Howie Goodell 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

Tim May wrote: > > On Friday, September 14, 2001, at 08:53 AM, Howie Goodell wrote: <snip> > One example: the IDs for airplane crews, and eventually > everyone who travels or goes near an airliner, could be > "smart cards" containing their owners' biometric identifiers > -- like fingerprints, voice, picture, and retinal scan -- > cryptographically signed by the agency that collected them. > > You are not a friend of ours. This is such a leap into the Surveillance State Void that I am speechless that any member of our list, even Choate or Farr, could advocate it. Allow me to re-quote the end of my paragraph, and following paragraph which was the one I really cared about: > ... In fact the scanners could be designed without removable storage or communications links: after a few days they would erase their records unless they were read out after a hijacking. > This last point is crucial. Most of the debate about personal identification assumes there is a fundamental trade-off between being insecure and becoming a police state; therefore democracies have to settle for some compromise that is only halfway secure and only halfway free. This is not true today. Electronic and cryptographic technology like David Chaum's "blind signature" and "personal representative" lets us design systems with both strong security and strong protection of privacy and individual freedom. (See his August, 1992 _Scientific American_ article, "Achieving Electronic Privacy".) My point was that we should sell crypto as a way to achieve security. That's a product people are buying this week. Cryptographic protocols can square the circle; provide both privacy and security. So let's be imaginative and sell, sell, sell! These smart cards don't need to be connectable to your identity; just your body and a responsible party's signature. American Airlines and Lloyds put $1B behind my biometrics being one of an authorised class of pilots or plane cleaners. Who I am isn't necessary. Biometric scanners can be open source as well as unconnected. The signature on the card can be blind (albeit after a mind-boggling number of Chaumian challenges.) Databases of biometrics can be separated from identity and accessed through remailers. If we can get the bandwagon rolling our way, we have a chance to steer it. If not -- well, you're better at those metaphors. Take care! Howie Goodell -- Howie Goodell hgoodell(a)cs.uml.edu Pr SW Eng, WearLogic Sc.D. Cand HCI Res Grp CS Dept U Massachussets Lowell http://people.ne.mediaone.net/goodell/howie Dying is soooo 20th-century! http://www.cryonics.org

2 2

Queremos que estes comunicado...
by MisProductos.com 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

1 0

Queremos que estes comunicado...
by MisProductos.com 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

1 0

Light a Candle, Sept 14th 01 7:00 PM EST
by <> 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

I know the list has been receiving a lot of 'do this, do that' recently, however I felt this was appropriate. -X Friday Night at 7:00 p.m. EST step out of your door, stop your car, or step out of your establishment and light a candle. We will show the world that Americans are strong and united together against terrorism. Please pass this to everyone on your e-mail list. We need to reach everyone across the United States quickly. The message: WE STAND UNITED - WE WILL NOT TOLERATE TERRORISM! Thank you.

1 0

Re: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
by Meyer Wolfsheim 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

Too bad that the infrastructure to successfully implement AP isn't in place. That $5mil reward for Bin Laden's head could be used by an FBI AP scheme, payable anonymously over the net to enterprising Afghanis. -MW-

1 0