- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

None
by hotbizop＠InfoGeneratorPRO.com 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

HAVE YOU EVER? . Been Over Charged For A Repair? ] Received a Speeding Ticket? ] Prepared A Will? Updated A Will? ] Bought or Sold a Home? ] Signed a Contract or Document you didnt fully know what you were signing? ] Had a Child Custody Case? ] Been Treated Unfairly? ] Been Audited? ] Been harassed by creditors? ] Needed help collecting money owed to you? ] Needed a Legal opionion? ] Wanted to speak to an attorney but thought it would cost to much? If the answer is YES to any of the above then You NEED Our Service- Our Company is A: Has Over 1 Million Happy Members and we can help you! We Provide You & Youre Family, small or home based business with legal peace of mind! Think about it You probably already Own: Auto, Health, Dental & Life Insurance. Its Not a matter of IF you will need access to an attorney its only a matter of WHEN! Now its Time to Protect Your Family, small or home business and your legal rights with our service. Are you ready to have an entire LAW FIRM in your state working for you for pennies a day!!? For More Info Send an email to: ineedlegal(a)yahoo.com Put the word legalinfo in the subject heading. We will get you all the info for you to review and sign up for this great service. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from THIS list: http://usub.net/boLBEFL _________________ OR _______________________ Remove yourself from ALL LISTS at InfoGeneratorPRO: http://usub.net/aoLBEFL Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1 0

Cypherpunks <> Crypto-Anarchist
by Jim Choate 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

-- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

I Love Tim May
by Anonymous 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Tim - I've been off the list for a long time but return to find that I actually agree with a bunch of your posts. What the fuck happened? Aimee you have done wonders for love. Feds here put my bits into the vacuumed up collection of the day for later style and word adjacency analysis and detect the level of threat and stress in my writing, correlate it with other postings to determine the level of sympathy with listcrime freedom mongers and tag it with the unique ID of my processor put it in a vault for seven years. Meanwhile overhead drone aircraft videotape my town, then downtown they perform automated object trajectory analysis which spits out the outliers of Bayesian determiners of normalcy, flagging them as possible threatening activities while identifying the gait, odors, and timesequence behaviors of individuals who thought or did something not sanctioned by the Corporate Masters. So my Big Brethren, hey - I'm thinking of just how one might devastate a regional economy with just a minor disruption in its transportation capabilities. I don't wear Nike Shoes. So sue me. Arrest me. Fuck me. Some day some time Tim May may have writ: "There seems to be a feeding frenzy of these "you're going to get in trouble!" posts. Several weeks ago, it was the "spoliation" thread, with Aimee assuring us that using certain technologies must be illegal. She could say why, in real terms (real as opposed to "maybe in the future"), but she implied we would be on thin ice. Oddly, Black Unicorn added a blizzard of cites he claimed showed that using some technologies, even long in advance of a any charges being filed or orders issued, would be "taunting Happy Fun Court." Apparently the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are made moot when Mr. Happy Fun Court decides he is ..."

1 0

SIG: NetSlaves (Hi-Tech Journalism)
by Jim Choate 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

http://www.netslaves.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=005&action=display&num=… -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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

ADV: #1 Search Engine Rankings
by search55＠arabia.com 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Removal instructions below I saw your listing on the internet. I work for a company that specializes in getting clients web sites listed as close to the top of the major search engines as possible. Our fee is only $29.95 per month to submit your site at least twice a month to over 350 search engines and directories. To get started and put your web site in the fast lane, call our toll free number below. Sincerely, Brian Taylor 888-892-7537 To be removed call: 888-800-6339 X1377

1 0

cypherpunks don't write code.
by Ray Dillinger 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Squawking on a mailing list is protected behavior, and I figure you can probably do that all you want. As someone else here pointed out, "You have to do something else" before they can arrest you. But now that certain types of code have been criminalized, writing code counts as "something else". So the lesson is, if you squawk on mailing lists, don't write code. If you write code, don't squawk on mailing lists, especially about the illegitimate uses to which criminals may put your code. So we each must come to our own decision; write code, or continue to squawk? Because cypherpunks, unless they want to join the canarypunks, don't write code anymore. My decision is made. Goodbye. This list wasn't a good coding resource anyway; maybe I'll check out perrypunks or something. Happy squawking. And in response to the inevitable "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out", here's my response in advance: Don't let them slam the jail doors on your dicks, I hear that hurts like a sonofabitch. Bear

2 1

Re: Legal Communication and Censorship....
by Nomen Nescio 29 Aug '01

29 Aug '01

"Jon Beets" (great nym!) writes: > what really gets me is the > part quoted below.. They are saying since "Scientology", "Dianetics", > "Hubbard" and "NOTs" are registered trademarks they cannot be used in > metatags in a webpage... The restriction in use of words in a web page > is just flat out censorship.. Absolutely ridiculous... It would be one > thing if someone used the words to represent a business.. But I would > think metatags at the very least would fall under the "Fair Use" clause. Take a look at http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ca/xml/01/04/23/010423calist.xml for an analysis of some of the cases involving metatags and trademarks. That article discusses Eli Lilly's lawsuit against a health food company that put Prozac in the metatags for their herbal antidepressant. In that case there was a possibility of confusion; a customer might have though that the product was somehow related to Prozac or officially sanctioned by Prozac's manufacturer. However: "Comparison advertising, whether in print or on a Web site, is one of the few permitted uses of another company's trademark," Bevilacqua says. If a company runs a legitimate comparison advertisement on its Web site, mention of a competitor's trademark in the metatags of the page with the comparison ad would be an acceptable use of the mark, Bevilacqua says. Your case would be a lot more similar to this. You are basically doing a comparison between scientology and, well, sanity. As long as it is clear that your site is ANTI scientology and is not endorsed in any way by the church, then there should be no possibility of confusion.

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Nomen Nescio 29 Aug '01

29 Aug '01

>Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled >country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting The naivety of poster is appaling. I hope that "freedom fighters" in a "communist-controlled country" is used as a placeholder for "something good as positive" but I wouldn't bet on it. Apparently ability to spell "crypto" does not imply political sapiense beyond that of inbred pigfucking redneck from Alabama (this is a place holder). You guys just want to do good things, like spreading crypto, right, without bothering much to figure out who's who on the planet. I have seen more intelligent dicourses on global politics and society on late night shopping channel shows than here. Fortunately crypto is good in itself. Any crypto anywhere is a good crypto.

2 1

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Nomen Nescio 29 Aug '01

29 Aug '01

Gil Hamilton (great nym!) wrote: > Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the > archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is > Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. > See, for example, > http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto Equally relevant is the companion Cypherpunk's Manifesto, http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cypherpunk.manifesto, by Eric Hughes. Hughes was co-founder of the cypherpunks, with Tim May, although May has maintained a larger presence on the list. Eric Hughes' document is largely forgotten other than "Cypherpunks write code." But let us look at one of its concluding points: For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals. List subscribers may be surprised to see such sentiments from a cypherpunks founder. Privacy as a social contract? Depending on the cooperation of one's fellows in society? Seeking engagement with those who disagree? Where is the hatred, the aggression? Where is the applause for shooting policemen in the face, or killing innocent children to make a political point? Where is the disdain and thin-skinned, spiteful resentment at criticism? None of these are inherent characteristics of the cypherpunk philosophy. It is often forgotten that the cypherpunks movement is not primarily political or legal or even technical. It is moral. Cypherpunks have a vision of a morally superior society, and they seek to achieve it through technology. The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation. It provides the shield of anonymity against those who would offer violence and aggression. As we move into the information age, control of information is control of the individual. Thus, privacy, control of information about one's self, is freedom. And as Eric Hughes points out, cypherpunk technologies are ultimately based on social cooperation. By definition, anonymity is meaningless unless it is attained as part of a group. "People must come together and deploy these systems for the common good." If it sounds ironic or paradoxical that cypherpunks are motivated for the common good and bound by a social contract, you've been mixing with the wrong cypherpunks. Learn to see the cooperative philosophy behind the movement and you will come to a better understanding of its potential and its problems. Cypherpunks don't have to be misanthropes and curmudgeons. There is need for idealists, for visionaries, for those who want to make the world a better place than they found it, who want to improve the lives of all classes of people. Only in this way will the full potential of the cypherpunks philosophy be reached. === "Any message posted to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer gets an automatic +2 on hit points, for it practices what it preaches." -- Anonymous

2 1

Re: FC: When anyone can publish, who's a journalist now?
by Michael Maynard 29 Aug '01

29 Aug '01

In response to Mr. Geer, first of all, he does a cute debating trick of confusing terms. The original question was "who is a writer?" which he changed to "who is a journalist?. There is a big difference. Anyone can write, but not everyone can be a journalist. There are rules and ethics associated with being a journalist, such as verifying facts, using direct quotes only when directly attributible from the source, and requiring at least two sources when verifying information provided from an unknown or questionable oringinal source. These rules and ethics have certainly been diminshed in recent years through the works of self-styled "journalists", like Matt Drudge. However, true journalism, passed down to us from our precedessors, such as H.L. Mencken, is a very honorable and necessary profession. Right now, the world needs more true journalists and less journlistic poseurs who have tried to confuse tabloid-level sensationalism to be real journalism. So, Mr. Geer, your press pass is definitely denied. **********

1 0