- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS]
by Aimee Farr 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Trei wrote: > Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards > an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the > contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as inviolate, > as the contents of our heads. > To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, > our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively > feel they should be just as intimately held. > > We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of > knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at the > time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of > accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' > rather than 'memories'. > > This disjuncture between how we feel about our private data, and > how the powers that be treat it, is one basis for a major thread of > discussion on cypherpunks and other lists - how one can store one's > own personal data in a way which makes it accessible to oneself, > and only to oneself. > > Being forced to turn over one's most intimate thoughts knownlege, > and plans, simply because they are outside of one' skull, is a rape > of the mind, and a violation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment. As to your first point, not exactly, I was trying to distinguish something THIS SNAKE said, and the entire basis of his law-oriented argument: "no difference/same data/no intercept" -- I think the moment is important because of the sense of security we have at THAT moment is an extreme interest. Is the interception requirement just a result the technology from our telephone wire past? It would seem the moment of genesis is even more sacred, not less. You went farther into the 5th/mental processes, and I don't know that anybody has put it so well. I replied to your points individually, but felt like I was being inconsiderate of your thoughts in breaking them up. Certainly words this most-high individual should hear. Cypherpunks should reply to Scarfo EN BLOC. I know it's "old news" to you old dogs, but it isn't to everybody else. Your words do travel. You are 10 ahead of the public agenda. Or, you used to be. "The agenda" appears to be catching up with you. ~Aimee

1 0

cypherpunks-unedited your a winner new site
by star＠hotmail.com 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

1 0

Membership data
by T_crow133＠hotmail.com 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

1 0

Re: Indict Saddam
by Secret Squirrel 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Steve Schear quoting Michael Rubin writes: > Tuesday's U.S.-British air strikes against Iraq once again raise the > question of why much of the international community continues to > treat Saddam Hussein with kid gloves.... > > While working as a visiting professor at the University of Sulaymani > in Western-defended northern Iraq this past year, I had occasion to > witness the growing involvement of Western executives in > Iraq. Mohammed Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, recently told a > reporter, "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about > morals. If the French and others will take a positive position in > the Security Council, certainly they will get a benefit." It's hard to take seriously any American calling for a trial of Saddam Hussein who does not first call for a trial of Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is guilty of a wide variety of serious crimes. Many are suitable for an international tribunal, others are clear cut violations of U.S. law. Kissinger is available, prosecutable, and guilty.

1 0

Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS]
by Trei, Peter 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

> Aimee Farr[SMTP:aimee.farr@pobox.com] writes [lots of good rant deleted] > The ability to compose one's thoughts through writing, in private, should > be > an inviolable sanctuary. The law enforcement interest in garnering a > passphrase to decrypt for the most heinous of criminal purposes pales in > comparison to the importance of forever precluding the government from > intruding on the genesis of human achievement at the sacred moment of its > inception: taking your thoughts to the written word. [even more good rant deleted] Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as inviolate, as the contents of our heads. To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively feel they should be just as intimately held. We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' rather than 'memories'. This disjuncture between how we feel about our private data, and how the powers that be treat it, is one basis for a major thread of discussion on cypherpunks and other lists - how one can store one's own personal data in a way which makes it accessible to oneself, and only to oneself. Being forced to turn over one's most intimate thoughts knownlege, and plans, simply because they are outside of one' skull, is a rape of the mind, and a violation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment. Peter Trei

1 0

Remailer Phases and Joseph Ashwood's criminal behavior
by Subcommander Bob 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

At 03:16 PM 8/8/01 -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote: >> Who of the current remops do you trust? Why? > >I don't trust any of them. I don't personally use remailers, I don't tend to >do things that are illegal, but if I did there are other methods that I'd >use. > Joe Joe, only a dipshit thinks anonymity (or confidentiality) is for criminals[1]. You don't always give your personal info out every time you speak in public, right? You use envelopes, not postcards, right? [1] stick with payphones and letters for your ransom notes and death threats, Joe, you'll find computers too complicated.

2 1

RE: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia
by Trei, Peter 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

> Harmon Seaver[SMTP:hseaver@ameritech.net] wrote: > Also it's highly recommended to use dual cpu motherboards for > building clusters, which doubles your processing power w/o adding much > at all to the electric bill. But you probably are over estimating the > power needs -- you don't need the drives or video or soundcards, so you > dump those. When I build mine, I'm going to also get rid of the > individual PS as well, use DC/DC converters and a central PS running it > all off a 12v battery bank hopefully solar powered. > Sure, for a university or business, clustering the already > available desktop boxes would be the way to go (at least if you had a > linux lab), but having even 4 dual 1ghz motherboards would be a fun toy. > > Harmon Seaver, MLIS > Also check out http://www.sciam.com/2001/0801issue/0801hargrove.html for a good article on Linux clusters. Peter Trei

1 0

re: Remailer Phases
by A. Melon 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > We need a good mixmaster net. > > working remailer: > 1. Average latency less than 5 min Bad. See the papers done on threats of traffic analysis/spam attacks against remailers. > 2. Operator probably trustworthy Impossible, and unnecessary. Don't assume any remops are trustworthy. > 3. Less than 1 message dropped per 100,000 handled This is the only goal that makes sense.

3 3

Making text difficult for OCR?
by Dr. Evil 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

I have a question for you c'punks. If you wanted to generate some bitmaps of text which would be difficult or impossible to OCR, but not too difficult for humans to read, how would you do that? Basically, I want to create GIFs of text which can't be OCRed in a reliable way. I've thought about some things: I can put in noise pixels, I can blur the text, I can rotate, shear, and otherwise distort it. Anything else I should do? Will these tricks work? Thanks

5 7

Re: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia
by Jim Windle 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 00:05:30 Faustine wrote: > > >The idea has been around, but not the free software from Sandia. > > The idea has been around and so has software and not just from Sandia. The Scyld cluster software costs $2 for non-commercial use and is widely used. The technology is advancing very quickly, for instance Avalon at LANL came in 113 on the Top500 in 11/98 at 48 gigaflops. Systems with say 64 Athlon processors and doing roughly 75-80 gigaflops are available pre-built or can be and are constructed by a wide variety of universities and corporations (check out the Beowulf list to get an idea of the range of applications and the number of large clusters out there). There are many application of cypherpunk-interest for this sort of cheap computing power. Unfortunately crypto probably isn't one of them. It is far easier to increase the size of the key than to scale up the processing power in a meaningful way. Until far more efficient factoring algorithms are found the math will insure this remains the case. > >Never said it was. 50? try 512. > >> You never know what might come from putting that kind of computational >> power in the hands of people here. Create, break, do whatever you want. > The technology is potentially revolutionary in many areas of interest to cypherpunks but factoring large numbers is so hard and it is so easy to increase the size of keys that crypto will easily stay ahead of the Beowulf technology. Now if someone had a working quantum computer that might be a different story. Jim Windle Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com

2 1