- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]
by Carskadden, Rush 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

I believe it is still illegal in Ulster, though, right? -----Original Message----- From: Ken Brown [mailto:k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 4:43 AM To: Ray Dillinger Cc: Mark Allyn; Jim Choate; cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com Subject: Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention] Ray Dillinger wrote: > > It is illegal in Georgia, and a number of other Southern states of the US, > to appear in public wearing a mask. > > Not that it's usually enforced on anybody but the Ku Klux Klan. > > Dunno about other countries and other states. Not at all illegal over here in UK. Banks & some other offices have signs up requesting visitors to remove masks & especially motorbike helmets. Lots of cyclists wear little filter masks or bandanas round their mouths - I suspect it is a style statement more than anything else. In London & some northern cities it isn't at all rare to see Muslim women going completely veiled (though the vast majority don't - it seems to be cultural - some Arabs & East Africans go completely covered, a lot of south Asians & also European Muslims wear headscarves, but don't actually hide their faces. Turks almost never seem to wear veils but then Turks seem to dress more or less the same as Western Europeans these days, at least the ones from Istanbul & Cyprus do, who of course are the vast majority of Turks we see in London (perhaps 5% of the population of the area I live in), maybe things are differnt in Anatolia) I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a law that says the police can tell you to take a mask off. Ken

1 0

RE: Personal Firewalls Fail the Leak Test
by Carskadden, Rush 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Whatever. Comments below. -----Original Message----- From: Nomen Nescio [mailto:nobody@dizum.com] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 12:00 AM To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Subject: Personal Firewalls Fail the Leak Test > problem of hacker attacks. Most people don't have any > vulnerabilities; there's nothing a hacker can do to you. So I argue > against the necessity of any kind of inbound blocking tool," said > Gibson. This man is clearly a security genius. > "They do a cryptographic signature of the programs you're allowing. > That's not hard to do, but they're the only ones who do it," he > said. Is it the responsibility of firewall software to do integrity checking? Isn't host-based intrusion detection a different thing altogether? I'm not defending software that is pretty obviously crap, but at least make an intelligent argument on it's weakness.

1 0

Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]
by Trei, Peter 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

> Tom Vogt[SMTP:tom@ricardo.de] > > the muslim veil, on the other hand, IS a sharp boundary. as I understand > it, it is NOT permisable to lift it in public under ANY circumstances. > > rounding that up, I'd guess that if we were religious about our privacy, > things may be different (possibly just more ugly, but who knows). > Be careful about making sweeping generalizations about Islamic cultures; they vary almost as much as Christian and Jewish ones. While female modesty is a widely practiced virtue, it's implementation covers a wide range, from all-encompassing covering to a simple head scarf. Jim claims it has to do with 'property rights' the husband has in the wife. This really applies more to purdah, the practice of isolating women from society as a whole, or allowing them to contact non-family males only under carefully chaperoned situations. While veiling has some application to this, it is more done to prevent inciting male lust. If you grew up in a place where the only women you saw were either relatives, or completely veiled, a bare face or a 'glimpse of stocking' would be quite exciting. I've read articles written by Western women who have lived in countries where women were required to veil completely. Some of them actually came to rather like it - under the veil they had privacy - no one could mark them as a foreigner, they could come and go anywhere as easily as a native. Underneath they could dress for comfort, not style or appearance. They felt safer. Peter Trei

9 8

RE: Hettinga does *nothing* but hand-waving, folks...
by Carskadden, Rush 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Agreed. My understanding of Hettinga's (and this list's, for the most part) use of the term "geodesic" is to indicate the accomplishment of a shortest path between two elemnts via increased individual capabilities and reduced reliance on low-efficiency centralized control, as opposed to the concept of eliminating or reducing centralized control in general just for the sake of itself. I am only part of the way through the geodesic economy texts, myself, but I like to think of the particular form of geodesic architecture implied therein as incorporating some distributed infrastructure as a means to an efficiency gain end. But then, I know fuck all. Am I mistaken? -----Original Message----- From: Jim Choate [mailto:ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 10:49 AM To: cypherpunks(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com Subject: Re: Hettinga does *nothing* but hand-waving, folks... On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > dropped packets, or time or something, and the network certainly *looks* > like a geodesic one, with multiple nodes plugged into lots of lines > routing packets in arbitrary directions instead of up and down a > hierarchy. That's not geodesic, that's a distributed systems with stochastic management algorithms. The epitomy of 'free market' thinking applied to communications engineering. It's certainly non-hierarchical but it isn't 'minimum distance'.

1 0

RE:
by Carskadden, Rush 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

An even simpler answer is that, for the most part, biometric devices look cool and get investors and potential customers all moist, but really aren't very good security solutions at all. But yes, I have implemented or seen implemented a few different biometric devices that verify animation of the identifying anatomy. However, as I'm sure you can imagine, that doesn't really make things any better. And after standing in a chilly mantrap for a while with one needle in your arm, another in your hand, and a band around your wrist, you start to think that passwords are pretty neat technology. -----Original Message----- From: R. A. Hettinga [mailto:rah@shipwright.com] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 9:10 AM To: Jonathan Wienke; cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Subject: RE: At 3:00 AM -0800 on 12/9/00, Jonathan Wienke wrote: > Hasn't any seen the movie 6th Day? Who needs a password when you can borrow > the necessary biometric token from its owner if you have a hatchet or decent > knife? The simple answer is that most decent fingerprint readers require a living thumb, either through simple body-heat or, if I remember correctly, bioelectrical measurement. Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Exclusive Invitation
by Multex Investor 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Dear Multex Investor Member: Youre invited to an exclusive preview of Multex Investors NEW Personal Finance Channel at http://www.multexpf.com?mktg=mitxie. Use this new resource of timely, reliable information and tools to help you make more informed decisions about your personal finances on such topics as mortgages, insurance, and retirement. As a Multex Investor member, you can take advantage of this great new content before its made available to the public. Simply visit http://www.multexpf.com?mktg=mitxie to: Ask an expert for advice on mortgages, insurance, or retirement planning; read informative educational articles and case studies; use the Broker Centers objective tool to find out which brokerage firm best fits your needs, and more. At the Personal Finance Channel, you can also learn from the strategies other investors have tried. The channel presents real-life case studies that examine important life events like planning for retirement distributions, deciding whether to take a home equity loan or a home equity line of credit, and planning for long-term care. Were excited to bring you this new Personal Finance Channel, and we hope that it enhances your experience on Multex Investor. Click here: http://www.multexpf.com?mktg=mitxie Sincerely, Robin Spindel Director of Marketing Multex.com P.S. As always, we greatly appreciate your feedback and input. Feel free to contact us anytime at mail to: pfinvestor.feedback(a)multex.com.

1 0

Re: Signatures and MIME Attachments Getting Out of Hand
by Riad S. Wahby 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

"Sean R. Lynch" <seanl(a)literati.org> wrote: > Ummm, Mutt *does* sent the message body as text/plain, and the content-type > of the entire message is multipart/signed. Not sure what you're talking > about here. The content-type of the signature is > application/pgp-signature, which should just be ignored by MUAs that don't > understand RFC2015. That's assuming they recognize multipart/signed as containing parts that can be displayed. The entire problem is that Eudora et al. do not---multipart/signed is unrecognized, so the entire message is treated as unopenable and displayed as an attachment. > And I hope they never add your patch, because people who use broken MUAs > need to suffer, because they're not playing nice with the rest of us. I hope you don't mean this. I don't think there is a Windows MUA that supports RFC2015 at all---are you saying that all Windows users need to suffer? I don't like Windows, but lots of people just can't or don't want to handle anything else. And speaking of not playing nicely, what do you call "...people who use broken MUAs need to suffer..." ? > Thanks, but no thanks, I will *not* break my own MUA to help other people > continue using their own broken MUAs. The Internet is based on standards, > and it's been too long that we've been suffering for those who break the > standards. Witness, for instance, all the pipes that are clogged with > traffic from Windows boxes because they fast start too fast due to their > broken implementations of PGP. I am *sick* and *tired* of people telling > me that I'm somehow sending my messages as attachments when their > content-disposition is inline making them *not* attachments and the > accusors obviously don't have the first clue about MIME works. > > Sorry, I'm just tired, and I want this crap to end. Tim May seems to think > you "acknowledged that we were sending our messages as attachments" and now > considers that carte blanche to filter out RFC2015 messages. He can do > what he likes, but I am upset that he somehow now feels morally justified > doing that due to your harmless little hack. The Internet is based on _suggested_ standards such as RFC2015 (note its disposition---it's not an official standard). No one is forced to comply with them, and those who wish to communicate effectively do their best to use their software in such a way as to be able to do so. It is obvious that you have no wish for the majority of people to be able to read your mail, as you refuse to acknowledge that your messages are not in a format that people support. You hide behind RFC2015, saying "look, I'm following the standard. I must be right." The fact is, there's no "right." It comes down to what you're trying to accomplish. If you're interested in pissing people off and being ignored, then you're doing OK. Otherwise, you might consider backing down on this one. The only thing you're going to acheive is an inability to communicate with the majority of internet users. -- Riad Wahby rsw(a)mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105

1 0

Datamarc- We Buy Surplus
by BuySellHardware＠netscape.net 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

1 0

Re: Hettinga does *nothing* but hand-waving, folks...
by R. A. Hettinga 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

Homeworker
by Mona Singhal 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Dear Sir, I am quite serious in working for you. please send me the details of your work. Thanks. Mona Singhal. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/

1 0