- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

stem cell speech
by Charles Platt 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science policy. His speech on stem cell research included a statement that he had decided to proceed cautiously. How does he have the right to make such a decision? Will there be an executive order? This in turn raises the question of how Congress has any right to tell parents what they may or may not do with their zygotes. Control of federal funding is one thing; but I sense a desire to go beyond that, and pass legislation similar to the anti-cloning act which seems destined to become law. Where's the constitutional excuse for this? In the tired old Interstate Commerce Clause? I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so I may have missed something here. But what troubles me the most is that I have seen no commentators or op/ed writers raising the basic issue of control. Maybe I just don't read the right news sources--or maybe everyone has become so accustomed to centralized authority, extending all the way down to our own genes, the spectacle of a president determining science policy rouses no surprise. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

Mixmaster Checksums
by Anonymous 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

The latest mixmaster sources are not signed. Are these checksums right? mix-libs-2.9b8.tar.gz Length: 1515625 bytes SHA1: c166dc0e 9aa6d492 54448332 1bf74724 0deb9b87 MD5: 72b4b9b9 b356017d d34a9eb0 36090075 mix-2.9b23.tar.gz Length: 376334 bytes SHA1: 492499a4 26e91444 ed8c4549 83f38ec6 a3f84854 MD5: ca4e402b ff488b90 93807939 14769220

1 0

RE: RE BOMB PLANS
by Blanc 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

I once created an explosive in the kitchen: I didn't tighten the lid securely on a pressure-cooker (I think I was cooking beans). The eventual burst and the slam of the lid against the ceiling was . . . startlingly surprising. No damage, but certainly loud and alarming. Good recipe for a dinner disaster. .. Blanc

1 0

Currently on alt.politics.org.cia there are some interesting discussions ...
by Mark Saarelainen 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

USENET: alt.politics.org.cia Basically, these are pertaining to brain wavelets and how electromagnetic beaming technologies with remote sensing capabilities can detect wavelets and how wavelets can be communicated to a subject's mind. Markku Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com

2 1

Re: RE BOMB PLANS
by Declan McCullagh 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 05:24:22PM +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: > IANAL, can this be used as a pretense to shut the list down? It would be difficult to shut down the list if it could resume as "cryptopunks" or something on someone else's server or a Usenet newsgroup. I see it (this is not a close analog, but I like it) as a bunch of people discussing stuff in a public park. Do you shut down the park, or the park's speaker corner, because of some alleged bad actors? Besides, discussions about bomb making, Feinstein's attempts notwithstanding, are presumptively legal in the U.S. -Declan

1 0

Re: It's DMCA, stupid (was Re: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft)
by Declan McCullagh 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 02:21:11AM -0500, Anonimo Arancio wrote: > > >This works very well. Most sheeple will automagically condemn "child porn" (that is recording visible-light illuminated genitals of humans of various ages below government-sanctioned limit and displaying them.) US Government owns the copyright to penises and vaginas of all its subjects and will diligently pursue all infringements. The phrase is "lascivious exhibition of the genitals." If I recall properly, courts have stretched that phrase to include as child pornography videotapes of clothed girls in leotards. -Declan

1 0

Re: RE BOMB PLANS
by jamesd＠echeque.com 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

-- On 10 Aug 2001, at 11:48, Eugene Leitl wrote: > Anhydrous hydrazine is toxic (and carcinogenic), and difficult > to get. If you want to assist evolution, point people towards > something which can be easily bought, made, and something so > sensitive no sensible person would use. Someone should set up a web page on that wonderful explosive made from red phosphorus and potassium chlorate. It is potent, and its extreme instability makes it very good in booby traps. It was used for this purpose in Word War I. Its remarkable instablity also makes applying it successfully an intelligence test that few would pass. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /X5G+7Pu8Mxoj4Sb6okOGetr7ktpTvtti4/NpTxq 4/HNaSVLlHG6ydxk8eIm9TV9XlFZM0S4Q84+XIA1x

5 5

Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
by jamesd＠echeque.com 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

-- Faustine: > > > I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to > > > dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security > > > as a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone > > > imbecile. > > > > > > Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did > > > you ever stop to think about who's really doing the > > > hardcore research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? James A. Donald: > > To judge by their most recent crypto ballsup, some donut > > chomping incompetents. Faustine > That's just as inaccurate as condeming everyone who ever worked > for Microsoft as clueless because of their corporate propensity > for security lapses. You wouldn't go that far, would you? Microsoft, as a whole, is incompetent at security. All supposedly secure software coming out of Microsoft varies from poor to worthless. Does anyone doubt it? They take standard well known methods and make well known bungles in applying it and customizing it. We do not get to see much of the spook output. What we have seen in recent years is not good. During world war II the government sucked up all the best people from the open sector, and put them to work in the secret sector. For example most of the words greatest scientists wound up hand making nuclear weapons. However, one would expect, with the passage of time, that people who work in secret would suffer from Parkinson's law, and this appears to be happening. > I know of an old-school NSA red teamer who's been teaching > programming and engineering since before either one of us was > born. An honest-to-god mathematical genius. Some of those old > wizards could teach us all a thing or two. But whether the > donut-chomping incompetents have the upper hand is anyone's > guess. I wouldn't bet on it in the long run. I would bet on it in the long run. It is inherent in the nature of government. Without the market weeding out the unfit and pressuring everyone for excellence, bureaucracies unavoidably decay for well known reasons. Microsoft produces crap security because most of their customers do not know any better. Therefore NSA will produce crap security because their customers are forbidden to know any better. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG FwLinDdmbEa6PhxFDMsPXCIlj97FlY1YpxKNR3KV 4FBpZ7okXglgl5/19J96vLLEaPc1wi1VxGVTGCRJf

3 2

RE BOMB PLANS
by Secret Squirrel 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

Why is everyone pussyfooting around the bomb plan thing all the time? Why doesn't one of the lawyers on the list, or somebody like Tim, who can afford a good lawyer, just start a daily posting of pages from one of those CIA manuals that Loompanics or whoever sells, with all the explosive and incendiary formulas? What possible charge could the trolling LEO's make?

2 1

Stressed with Debt???
by qcbusoso＠att.net 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

1 0