- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: Re: Mac created the modern Internet
by Ulf Möller 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

I'm sure that Mac users added to the momentum, but don't forget online services like AOL and CompuServe. They started offering Internet mail and Usenet access in 1993, and as people started sending URLs around, they inevitably had to offer online access as well.

6 7

None
by Alin Werner 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

Dear Sir, For the begineing please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Werner Alin. I am a graduate student who has started a small company along with four others.We are only four but with a very good organization we can keep a high standard. It all started with a simple observation: most of the computer system produceing companies didn't made personalised computers. They only sell already made systems. So we found out that a segment of the computer system market is almost uncovered. As you might know all the Romanian market is still under developement. Despite the fact that we have found a big buisness oportunity we have encontered a problem. Since almost all the resellers here produce computer systems the prices for computer hardware are very high. Our only solution is to look for resellers ousite Romania. We have established only a few contacts but with encoureging results. As you might know, in the past there have been some companies in Romania who had took advantage of the helping hand that foreign companies gave them, but I can asure you that all has ended in the past. A hard legislation and the strong hand of the authorties ended the fraud in the computer industry. The fact that we represent the new generation differentiates us from thouse companies. As I said earlier we have established a few contacts outside Romania but we think that there is room for better. Due to the fact we do not pay taxes for computer hardware imports all that interests us is the price of the components and the cost of shipping. We usualy chouse for shipping fast couriers like UPS, DHL, FedEx. The most used payment methos are wire transfer but we can use as a fast payment methoh credit cards. If you think that we can aquire from you computer hardware components please send us a catalog or a price list. We will compare your prices with the prices of our other distributioners and if your price is better we will choose to buy from you the computer hardware that we need for our systems. In our quest for best prices we are now looking on the internet. We haven't yet bought a domain becaouse we still are evaluating the opportunities that the internet gives us, but you can find a site about us, still under developent, at : romcomp.angelfire.com. If you have any sugestions, advises about our site or about haw to establishe conections with foreign trades please contact me. I hope my e-mail didn't bored you and I expect ypur answer. Werner Anlin Director Manager of RomComp P.S. Please forgive any spelling errors _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

1 0

CDR: Come back to pogo.com!
by comeback＠pogo.com 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

Dear cypherpunk0, We've missed you! You signed up for our FREE games and prizes, but we haven't seen you on the site in a while. We're inviting you to come back to pogo.com and see all the fun you've been missing. To show how much we care, we'll give you 250 tokens AND a chance to win $500.00 in CASH just for coming back. Account name: cypherpunk0 Password: password Your Token Balance: 1000 Check out some of our newest and most popular games: Bank Buster Lotto(tm) - crack the safe combination and you could take home ONE MILLION DOLLARS! What more do we need to say - it's a chance to win ONE MILLION DOLLARS! Ali Baba Slots(tm) - chat with friends while you win tokens. Get 3 Genies and win the jackpot! This is one of our most popular games; over 500,000 people played in the first month! Buckaroo Blackjack(tm) - blackjack with a twist! Win tokens while you play. Get the Gold Ace and Jack and win the jackpot! This is another of our most popular games; over 300,000 people played in the first month! Jump to the games! Go to: http://play.pogo.com/ten/misc/welcome-back.jsp?site=pogo AOL members, <a href="http://play.pogo.com/ten/misc/welcome-back.jsp?site=pogo">click here to jump to the games</a>! To unsubscribe from all future pogo.com mailings, go to: http://play.pogo.com/ten/unsubscribe/remove-e-mail.jsp?pid=18619444&site=po…

1 0

CDR: Re: Insurance: My Last Post
by Nathan Saper 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:24:35PM -0500, Kevin Elliott V wrote: > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Here is my last post in this thread, because I feel that it is going > > nowhere: > > > > My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this > > list. Here's the way I view the world: > > > > 1) Life has no inherent value. Our being here is random, and > > there is no purpose to our lives. > > > > 2) "Human progress" is bullshit. We are no further along as a > > species now than we were in Plato's time. Basically, we're > > going nowhere fast. > > > > 3) People have no essential "rights." Rights don't exist. > > This is a theme often found in the work of many modern > > philosophers, such as Foucault. > > > > 5) Taking all three premises above, the only way I can find to > > evaluate what is right and what is wrong is "do what causes the > > least pain." I guess this is basically pragmatism. For > > example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the > > world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate > > this, because this would lead to less pain in the world. (And > > I don't consider some people having to sell their Ferraris > > "pain." ;-) Someone here said that each time taxes are raised, > > we lose freedom. So what? First of all, what is "freedom"? > > Second of all, what is so great about it that it should be > > evaluated before everything else? > > The best answer I can give to this is to suggest you read "On Liberty" by > John Stuart Mill. The theory you espouse in five, by the way, is > utilitarianism though it is normally phrased in the positive "the greatest > happiness for the greatest number" rather than the negative as you have > expressed it. I am fairly familar with utilitarian thought. My specific form of utilitarianism is act utilitarianism, which means that each individual action is evaulated, instead of using utilitarian ideas to form a complete system of moral thought. The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Consider this example: There is going to be a Sado-Masachism (sp?) convention, which will be attended by 10,000 S&M-ers. They kidnap a poor person, bring him to their convention, and electrically shock him. This delights the crowd, but devastates the poor person. Under the common definition of utilitarianism, this act is justified because it pleasures 10,000, while hurting only 1. However, under my definition, this act is not justified because it creates a lot of pain, whereas not doing it does not create any pain. > It was originally formulated by a gentleman by the name of > Jeremy Bentham, but is most associated with Mill who studied under Bentham > and is responsible for a number of works on the subject. Mill is also > most responsible for clarifying and revising it counter the easy arguments > against it. Most interesting however for your interest, however, is "On > Liberty" which clearly and concisely explains why the greatest happiness > for the greatest number results from a society where government > intervention (and thievery) is minimized and people are left to there own > devices. > And I disagree with him. - -- Nathan Saper (natedog(a)well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/> iD8DBQE593Mq2FWyBZrQ84IRAvwkAKCaEAI8fHh+q3ZyWPqUe8UTFdd0YQCfR5nc MXVzyvMqF/YoUWtx+QyDbig= =4ChW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 5

CDR: RE: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael & Hitachi)
by Carskadden, Rush 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

Cool. I have to think about this some more and see if I can provide you with a proof either way, but for now you're right. I am operating entirely on conventional wisdom. That is not sound. My assumption here (offered for your opinion) is that provided a working knowledge of the actual ciphers and a copy of the key (compromised through a weakness in one of the ciphers), that I could use that same key, along with the respective decryption algorithms, to completely unravel all of the encryption. Granted, step-by-step analysis would almost definitely not include plaintext related attacks (as deciphered text from one algorithm simply results in unobfuscated text resulting from the previously implemented cipher), but my knee-jerk reaction here is to think that if one could compromise the last cipher applied and derive the key, then the entire scheme would be blown. If this is the case, then the strength of the entire cipher is only as strong as it's weakest link. On the other hand, I would think that some chain of ciphers that all used different keys (preferably not derivative) would seem stronger to me. At any rate, please keep me posted on your thoughts. ok, Rush Carskadden -----Original Message----- From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:reinhold@world.std.com] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:20 PM To: Carskadden, Rush; Damien Miller Cc: John Kelsey; Bram Cohen; cryptography(a)c2.net; cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Subject: RE: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael & Hitachi) At 1:00 PM -0500 10/27/2000, Carskadden, Rush wrote: >Are you guys still talking about the feasibility of a cipher that >implements each AES candidate in turn with the same key? I don't >really get this idea. Provided you were actually using the same key >with each stage of the encryption, then your system is only gong to >be as secure as the key of the first algorithm. In fact, it seems >that if the key is compromised at any one point, then the entire >system is shot, given that you know the algorithm (Kerckhoff's >principle IIRC). Maybe I am misunderstanding. > That is the theoretical question that I am asking. What you say appears to be the conventional wisdom, and I am claiming that it is wrong. As long as there is some way to make sure that none of the ciphers in a chain are inverses of the others, or close to an inverse, in some sense, then I claim as long as one of the ciphers is strong, there is no way to get any information out about the keys from the other ciphers, even if they are all designed to reveal that information. As a practical matter, you may as well derive the sub keys from the master key using a one-way hash, but I am questioning the theoretical justification for doing that. Massey and Maurer base their paper on oracles that give you the key for all component ciphers but one. I am saying such oracles cannot exist if one of the ciphers is strong and "inverses" of the strong cipher are excluded. Arnold Reinhold

1 0

CDR: Test
by Annette＠Hosting.Matters 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

Life is like a box of chocolates; except for spammers who should be killed.

1 0

CDR: AT LAST!!!! BULK-FRIENDLY WEB HOSTING
by nobody＠hotmail.com 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

I found this incredible service called HOSTING MATTERS. Hosting Matters is a fantastic way to host adult and bulk email-friendly sites with NO WORRIES about getting shut down as they are only out to try and make money. The service is VERY CHEAP and I reccomend it for the following types of sites: - Bulk emailing - Adult content & services - Controversial/Hate sites As far as I know, they have NEVER shut down above-mentioned types of sites! For more info contact them on the web site below. http://www.hostmatters.com or an alternative URL: http://www.hostingmatters.com Contact sales(a)hostmatters.com or call TOLL-FREE on 1-877-381-1083 if you have any questions.

1 0

CDR: Congratulations on your $25 USD win!
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

You are a winner !!! Your email was randomly selected from our opt-in lists and you won $25.00 USD in real casino chips from A1-Casino. Why are they giving away money you ask? Simple...they want you to discover what 1,000's of other people just like you already know...online gambling at A1-Casino is fast-paced, interactive and a whole lot of fun. But that's not all, they are also giving away fabulous instaprizes and bonuses during the download. So don't wait. Click on the link below to collect your $25.00 prize now. http://www.click-collect.com If the link above doesn't work please print, fill in and fax this form to the fax number below. First Name ____________________ Last Name ____________________ Street Address ________________________________________________ City ____________________ State/Province ______________________ Country _________________ ZIP/Postal Code _____________________ E-Mail _________________________________ ############## Send fax to: 1-775-766-2022 ############## ***************************************************************************** Delivered by Segasolution to referrals and opt-ins only. All remove requests are honored. All players must be 18 years and over. Bonus dollars are only available to credit card depositors. A1-Casino guarantees minimum wins. Good luck! ***************************************************************************** Remove mailto:unsubscribeit@softhome.net

1 0

CDR: RE: Congress proposes raiding census records.
by Lucky Green 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

I only answered the first question in the last census: how many people live at that address (or something to that effect). The rest I crossed out with fat black permanent marker. The result: no visits from the census taker. No inquiries from the Census Office. No fine. No repercussions of any kind. I am puzzled why anybody would have bothered to answer the remaining questions. --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> "Anytime you decrypt... its against the law". Jack Valenti, President, Motion Picture Association of America in a sworn deposition, 2000-06-06 > -----Original Message----- > From: cypherpunks(a)openpgp.net [mailto:cypherpunks@openpgp.net]On Behalf > Of Trei, Peter > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 14:07 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Congress proposes raiding census records. > > > Let us remember that the last time the privacy of > census records were violated on this scale, > they were used to imprison tens of thousands > of law abiding American citizens, whose only > crime was to have Japanese ancestry. > > Peter Trei > > ------------- > > http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/opinion/23MONK.html > (free registration required) > > New York Times, 23 October, 2000 > > My Data, Mine to Keep Private > > By LINDA R. MONK > > WASHINGTON -- I was one of those paranoid Americans > who chose not to answer all questions on the long form of > the 2000 census. My husband and I decided that the > government did not need to know, or had other ways of > finding out, what time we left for work, how much our > mortgage payment was or the amount of our income that came > from wages. We were willing to risk the $100 fine to take a > stand for individual privacy in an increasingly nosy and > automated age. > > Editorial writers across the nation chided people like us > for being so silly, insisting that only right-wing nuts with > delusions of jackbooted federal invaders could possibly > object to the census. Think of all the poor women who need > day care and disabled people who depend on public > transportation, we were told. And don't listen to the > warnings of Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader - > they're just another Republican ploy to get a low count on > the census. > > Now, however, my concerns don't appear quite so > ridiculous. The Congressional Budget Office, with the > surprising help of some Congressional Republicans, is > angling to get its hands on Census Bureau files. The budget > office wants to create a "linked data set" on individuals - > using information from the Internal Revenue Service, Social > Security Administration and Census Bureau surveys - to help > it evaluate proposed reforms in Medicare and Social > Security. > > Under current law, census data on individuals can be used > only to benefit the Census Bureau, which has balked at > turning over files to the budget office without greater > assurances of individual privacy. However, the Congressional > number crunchers are not taking no for an answer. > Republicans may tack an amendment allowing Congress access > to census data onto an appropriations bill before Congress > adjourns for the elections. > > The records the budget office wants are not themselves from > the 2000 Census; they are voluntary responses to monthly > surveys, with confidentiality promised. Forcing the bureau > to give them up would set a disturbing precedent. Commerce > Secretary Norman Mineta, who supervises the Census Bureau, > warned Congress this month that amending the census law > would "seriously compromise" the department's ability to > safeguard taxpayers' privacy and "to assure continued high > response rates of the American public to census surveys." > > Chip Walker, a spokesman for Representative Dan Miller, a > Florida Republican who chairs the House subcommittee on the > census, sees no problem with congressional access to census > data. "The Census Bureau is the government, and Congress is > the government," he said. > > Well, that's exactly what I'm afraid of. It's not surprising > that a federal agency that stockpiles information would be > raided by other federal agencies. If Congress changes the > census law, the government will be well on its way to > becoming another Amazon.com, which abruptly and > retroactively weakened its privacy policy this year. I > expected as much, because I don't believe either the > government or businesses when they promise me > privacy. That's why I routinely lie about personal > information when applying for shoppers' discount cards and > the like. And it's why I don't answer invasive questions on > census forms. Keep your hands off my data set. > > >

11 12

CDR: Net Privacy Bill Called 'Trojan Horse'
by auto87114＠hushmail.com 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

Net Privacy Bill Called 'Trojan Horse' By Robert O'Harrow Jr, Washington Post WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 25 Oct 2000, 6:14 AM CST The legislation began as an effort to protect people like Amy Boyer, a New Hampshire woman who was slain by a man who tracked her down after buying her Social Security number on the Internet. In May, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., proposed a law to sharply limit the sale of the identifying numbers, which often serve as hooks for electronic dossiers about the whereabouts, credit histories and lifestyles of millions of Americans. Then the information industry got involved. Now privacy advocates say Gregg's modified measure, part of an appropriations bill set to pass in the final days of Congress, is a "Trojan horse" that does more harm than good, because loopholes allow giant data brokers, banks, marketers and even private detectives to exchange or sell the numbers among themselves. That means such companies will be free to use the numbers to track down debtors or deadbeat parents, collect personal data, conduct fraud investigations, and build profiles about what people buy and do. The debate is the latest flare-up over one of the staples of the information age, a number that enables government agencies, marketers and information brokers to keep close tabs on a proliferation of data about individual Americans. Some privacy activists believe that Social Security numbers should be used only with individuals' permission. At the same time, information industries that rely on unfettered access to personal information fear losing control over a key to their business. "It is just the worst kind of legislation," said Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer advocate at the US Public Interest Research Group, who has worked with Consumers Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Clinton administration to oppose Gregg's proposal. "It is supposed to do something good, but it actually makes things worse." Tim Remsburg, Amy Boyer's stepfather, who originally asked Gregg to introduce the bill, is angry about how it evolved. "It sure isn't as effective as what I asked for at the beginning," he said in an interview. "They want to put Amy's name on this." A Gregg spokesman defended the legislation, saying it will make it illegal to sell Social Security numbers to individuals. But he acknowledged that the current legislation was crafted with help from the Individual Reference Services Group (IRSG), an industry association that includes some of the nation's largest data marketers. Members include such companies as Acxiom Corp., Equifax Inc. and Trans Union LLC, which have strongly opposed any efforts to curb access to personal data. IRSG representative Ronald Plesser, who worked with Gregg's office on the legislation, did not return repeated telephone calls. In a Sept. 28 letter to Gregg's office, Plesser blasted more stringent restrictions proposed by the Clinton administration. A letter from IRSG said, "Your bill strikes the right balance by providing strong privacy protections without undermining the range of important and socially beneficial activities by business and government that have developed based upon the use of SSNs." One exception also would permit state and local governments to continue selling records containing Social Security numbers. The provision is worded in such a way that, critics say, it would allow businesses buying those records to use Social Security numbers with no legal restraints. Remsburg's stepdaughter, Amy Boyer, 20, was fatally shot last year by a man who had been stalking her for some time. The man, who killed himself after killing Boyer, acknowledged at a Web site that he obtained details about Boyer from brokers on the Internet. "It's a significant restriction on the ability of individuals to get Social Security numbers," said Gregg spokesman Edmund M. Amarosi. "We feel it will have a significant impact on preventing a recurrence of what happened to Amy Boyer." In a statement, Gregg's office said that "the exceptions that are outlined in the Amy Boyer Law were the result of thoughtful consideration of the impact that a complete ban on the use of Social Security numbers would have on our nation's economy." Until recently, at the request of industry, the law also prohibited states from enacting tougher legislation. But Amarosi said that exception would be dropped because of objections from the administration and others. Copyright (C) 2000, The Washington Post. Reprinted with permission. Reported By The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com .

1 0