- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Do you need some?
by lost＠18nhorny.com 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Hi this is Marilyn from 18nHorny.com. I sent you an e-mail a while back offering you a Free Password to my triple X teen site but I noticed that you did not take me up on it for some reason :( I thought it would be nice to let you know that the offer still stands:) Just click on the link below and get your FREE PASSWORD!!! http://www.18nhorny.com/live See You Inside! Marilyn If you wish to be removed from this list just reply and type REMOVE as the subject of the message.

1 0

Stego (really Markov chains) goes mainstream
by Steve Schear 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

A BETTER ENCRYPTOR: Forget high-end alphanumeric characters. The latest in encryption technology is deceptively simple - and familiar. A new technology called Spam Mimic enables users to encode short messages in adjective-riddled promotional language. Spam Mimic uses phrases like "become rich within 30 DAYS" and "We will help you SELL MORE and SELL MORE" to bury your real meaning. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2663573,00.html steve

1 0

Re: Question re diskette data security
by brflgnk＠cotse.com 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

2 1

RE: Perry's Paint Fable comes to mind...
by Carskadden, Rush 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Doesn't appear to defeat security envelopes either, which have been around for quite some time. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Honig [mailto:honig@sprynet.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:06 PM > To: R. A. Hettinga; cypherpunks(a)algebra.com; cryptography(a)c2.net > Subject: Re: Perry's Paint Fable comes to mind... > > > > At 03:50 AM 12/14/00 -0800, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > >> FOR ALL TO SEE > >> It's a spray which renders sealed envelopes transparent, making the > >> letters inside as easy to read as postcards. "It leaves an > odour for 10 > >> to 15 minutes," says the spray's inventor, but, apart from > that, "no > >> evidence at all" that it's been used. While the > manufacturer describes > >> "See-Through" as a "non-conductive, non-toxic, environmentally safe > >> liquid", human rights activists believe "it's an ethically > questionable > >> product" which could tempt security forces to bend laws. > >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns226930 > > > >[Lighter fluid and similar stuff works just fine. That's been known > > for over a hundred years... --Perry] > > Wouldn't this be detectable if you scrawled on the envelope with > an ink succeptible to paper chromatography in that solvent? > > You can make primitive (before cheap float glass) windows by > oiling paper... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Grants...Never Repay -xdgjeesmqx
by bob2＠eywhdc.intermediausa.com 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

FREE CASH GRANTS, NEVER REPAY! You Can Receive The Money You Need... To Start Your own Home Business... To Consolidate all Your Debts... College...for you or your family members To Start Your Home Business and prosper... Almost ANY Worthwhile Reason or need... Every day millions of dollars are given away to people, just like you!! Your Government spends billions of tax dollars on government grants. Do you know that private foundations, trust and corporations are required to give away a portion of theirs assets. It doesn't matter, where you live, your employment status, or if you are broke, retired or living on a fixed income. There may be a grant for you! CASHING IN ON FREE GOVERNMENT GRANTS FOR PERSONAL NEEDS, BUSINESS, MEDICAL BILLS, EDUCATION, DEBTS AND MORE.... How would you like to get $100,000.00 to start your business? You can use the money to expand, finance equipment, pay salaries, rent and more. How about $7,000.00 spending money for your personal needs such as car payments, rent, clothing, credit card debts, home repair, groceries. Do you need $15,000.00 for education for yourself, or your children? You can get money for private, secondary and primary school. There are grants for undergraduate, graduate, professional and foreign studies and more. THE BEST PART IS THAT YOU NEVER HAVE TO PAY IT BACK! IT IS INTEREST FREE AND NON TAXABLE! NO CREDIT CHECKS, COSIGNERS, SECURITY DEPOSITS OR COLLATERAL REQUIRED. There are no strict requirements to meet. If you have a genuine need, the money can be yours. IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR COUNTRY'S BEST KEPT SECRET! We make the process easy. We researched and compiled a listing that will help you to find a grant. <<<<< As a subscriber...you will receive FREE Updates via e-mail Links to our download pages >>>>>>>>> Who Can Apply? ANYONE can apply for a Grant from 18 years old and up! We will Help You! We will show you HOW & WHERE to get Grants. This MONEY has to be given away, WHY not to YOU? Grants from $500.00 to $50,000.00 are possible! GRANTS don't have to be paid back, EVER! Grants can be ideal for people who are or were bankrupt or just have bad credit. Claim your slice of the FREE American Pie, Please Visit Our Web-site Below And Place Your Order TODAY! ********** if your e-mail viewer does not make the following a "click-link" just copy it then paste it into your Browser address bar and push your "Enter" button. Thank You http://cyberfreepages.net/sites/knuoop87 ********** QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Q: Is obtaining a cash grant legal? A: It is 100% legal and yours for The asking. The Government wants you to take advantage of their grant program and our manual will show you how. Q: How do I get paid? A: The Government agency will send you an acceptance letter with your award amount. Q: Will bad credit interfere with obtaining a free cash grant? A: NO, In fact grants are not based on your credit. It is not a loan, even the unemployed receive grants. Q: What is the average grant amount awarded? A: $1,000.00 to 10,000.00 is average, but it depends on what the grant will be used for. Businesses that benefit the communities have been awarded $100,000 to millions in grant money. Don't Delay, This Is A Limited Time Offer At This Amazing Low Price! Get That Grant Now, Before College Rush Time Comes! This mailing is done by an independent marketing co. We apologize if this message has reached you in error. Save the Planet, Save the Trees! Advertise via E mail. No wasted paper! Delete with one simple keystroke! Less refuse in our Dumps! This is the new way of the new millennium! To be removed, please visit site

1 0

test,ignore
by root 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

test

1 0

RE: Ranks Of Privacy 'Pragmatists' Are Growing
by Daniel Orr 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

This article is nothing more than a PR piece. Ronald Plesser, quoted at the end of the article, is an attorney for the Individual Reference Services group. You may remember the group as among the most vocal defenders of Lexis-Nexis when LN was going to sell social security numbers via it PTRAK service. Lexis is one of their members. Westin, the academic who ran the survey, is less than loved among many privacy advocates. I don't know the guy. He's probably on this listserv somewhere. This whole "broad support for commercial access to personal information from public records" thing is probably a response to the LAPD v. King and Condon v. Reno decisions issued by the Supreme Court last year. The former upheld a CA law which excluded access to public records for marketing purposes, the industry's primary source of such info. Further it said marketers and journalists are not the same (something I'm sure Declan was tremendously relieved to hear.) The latter (as most people on this group probably know) upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, ruling that the Federal goverment can restrict states from selling driver info and regulate the exchange of personal info within the commerce clause and without violating the tenth amendment. I suspect the Direct Marketing Association, IRSG, and friends are getting a little nervous Congress might actually act. Also, note the total absence of response from any actual privacy group such as EPIC or Junkbusters, something a balanced piece wouldn't omit. Did I say PR piece? Yeah, it's a piece all right... -----Original Message----- From: Anonymous To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Sent: 12/7/00 10:18 PM Subject: Ranks Of Privacy 'Pragmatists' Are Growing By Mary Mosquera, TechWeb News Dec 7, 2000 (6:02 AM) URL: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20001207S0002 WASHINGTON -- The issue of privacy is growing increasingly complex as Americans express concern over abuse of their personal data -- yet still support institutions that handle their information. In a new survey of privacy and protection, an inevitable paradox emerges: While most Americans support the free flow of information from public records, they are concerned about their privacy in some instances when personal information is extracted from those records, a recent survey showed. Consumers are accepting that commercial companies supply background information on them from public records. Still, they said, it must be for a valid social or legal purpose, such as for employment or law enforcement. And protections against misuse must be in place, according to the survey, Public Records and the Responsible Use of Information. More Americans are concerned about privacy than in the past, but they take a more balanced view now, said Alan Westin, president of Privacy and American Business, which conducted the survey with ORC International. "More of those now registering concern fall into 'privacy pragmatist' rather than the 'privacy fundamentalist' camp," Westin said. That more balanced outlook contributes to the broad support for commercial access to personal information from public records. And the focus on information gathering over the Internet by millions of Net users has fostered consumers accepting commercial access to their information, Westin said. How to balance good privacy policies and social values served by disseminating public-record information is an important issue in an era when abuse of that information, especially over the Internet, has led to fraud and identity theft. The 1,000 adults surveyed found it acceptable if companies provided personal information for law enforcement, such as past or present fraudulent conduct or criminal convictions, or for hiring. Using public records to locate a current residence or work address was the least acceptable service, unless it was for law enforcement, potential employers, or consumer credit companies. Those polled thought it acceptable, but less so, for private investigators and ordinary citizens to access public records for background and location information, the report said. Consumers strongly oppose the government posting personally identified public information on the Internet. "However, opposition fades when specific safeguards are introduced," the report said. Safeguards included the government requiring the consent of the individual before displaying a public record file on the Internet and demanding a specific, legitimate purpose from a user before allowing their access. "Sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical conditions, were removed prior to displaying the public record on the Internet," the report said. The sale of Social Security numbers over the Internet is a source of privacy abuse and identity theft. "Regulating the purchase and sale of Social Security numbers over the Internet won't come overnight," said Ron Plesser, a partner at Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, Washington. "It's a challenge for industry how to use Social Security numbers properly."

4 4

test
by root 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

test

1 0

U.S. Supreme Court vs. Voting Technology (fwd)
by Robert Guerra 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:42 AM -0800 From: Ed Gerck <egerck(a)NMA.COM> To: DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU Subject: U.S. Supreme Court vs. Voting Technology List: In its ruling on the Florida election, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively issued a challenge to today's technologists: Create uniform standards for casting ballots so there can be uniform standards for counting votes. However, Florida voting systems exemplify a mixture of technologies, with 40 percent using punch-cards, 55 percent using optical scans, 4 percent using mechanical voting machines and 1 percent using manually tabulated ballots [1]. Ballots in the U.S. are cast using widely different methods, machines, ballot designs, and maintenance procedures. How can one apply a uniform standard to a system that is not uniform? In my view, the justices struggled with the question of valid votes and decided that objectivity needs to be enforced even in a situation where there is no objective reference. This amounts to a technical contradiction. But law has the final word on technology and should set the requirements. It is now up to us technologists to design systems that comply with the law ? or turn it back to law and say that this is impossible, something like legislation that once was introduced [2] to define the value of pi as 3. The Supreme Court decision is thus either bogus or poses a need for strict voting standards. In this regard, a set of 16 strict standards for precinct-based Internet voting ? which are technology-independent and can also be applied to paper-based and electronic touch-screen systems ? was recently presented by Safevote [3] for public comments after some discussions at the IVTA [4] and other online groups, to the IVTA. The requirements include specifications for voter privacy, vote secrecy, election integrity, tamper-proof ballots, open protocol review, open source code, technology independence, physical recounts, multiple audit trails, and 100 percent vote accuracy. Anonymous digital signatures are one way to implement the requirements, as shown in [5]. The requirements and background can be downloaded at www.thebell.net/archives/thebell1.7.pdf -- besides their technical use in developing practical and yet better voting systems, the requirements may also be helpful to legal re-evaluations of what law can and should objectively define in order to help improve voting systems in the U.S. Cheers, Ed Gerck [1] The Bell, www.thebell.net, June 2000. [2] Indiana House Bill #246 was introduced on 18 January 1897, and declares: "the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four," which makes pi = 3.2. There are other values for pi quoted in the Bill. But the lore is pi = 3, and this is what the public perception has retained -- so, this is also what I chose as an example. More in http://www.acc.umu.se/~olletg/pi/indiana.html [3] www.safevote.com [4] www.ivta.org, tech WG archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/tech@ivta.org/ [5] www.safevote.com/demo2000/ ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

1 0

t3st
by root 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

hi

1 0