- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Fuck UseNet
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Absolutely, It is really, as far as I see it anyway, just a stop-gap measure. The caballers haven`t got enough room to do their censorship on the 18000 or so big 7 groups so they decide to fuck up the alt. heirachy as well ;-) Hopefully Igor and co.`s network of Majordomo's should be fully operational soon (as I understand it two are up and a third is on it's way) then we can move back there. Might even get it finished before the 20th????? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is > most understood by modern people. > > A "bigot" is a racist, period. I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is inappropriate. > > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance. > > > > You are a fool then. Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing > to do with bigotry. A bigot is a racist, period. That is TODAY'S > correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than > Webster. Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool. > The only god you will ever find is within yourself. I do not begin to believe this is correct. I happen to believe that sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of interest. I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools. > > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. > > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you > > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person. > > > > See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the > argument. You lose points for that. Sexism is GOOD and right and > justified. I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car, > and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities. Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc... > > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. > > Look sonny, I am not out to win any points. I have two Doctorates and > 22 years of experience. I speak with authority and only to those who > have the intelligence to understand. I was a perfect 4.00 in > College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in > the world. Now let's face it: Faggots are BAD news. They are most > always censors! And that is the truth you can never get around. I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight people. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

4 4

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's always interesting to see how another person, particularly a writer, filters and reshapes an experience you shared with them . Differences in the telling are inevitable -- but I perceived the recent experience of the C'punks List quite differently than what Declan described and implied in his column. My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) I, for one, was appreciative. I don't mind flames (and I expected to still be able to recieve them, from whatever POV -- and it seemed that I did!) but I also want a little meat somewhere amid the smoke. Who did the filtering (at the minimal level I expected) was almost irrelevant. If the filtering was on content, I'd be unhappy -- but I was eager to see some effort to cut out the empty hate messages. I even suggested to Dale, off-list, that he take it on for awhile. To me, the issue was whether this community could develop some mechanism to defend itself against a willful and intentional effort to destroy it. I think we failed to do so, despite the creative search for alternative venues -- and I think the triumphant cackling I read on what's left of the List is quite out of place. It may be that ideological purists were able to develop dynamic local filters on their PCs which satisfied them, but my filters just could't do enough. It was clear that the fecal-buckshot attacks on the List were designed to evade them. I'm still here, but it was more than a minor annoyance. (A year ago, I knew maybe five friends and acquaintances who subscribed to C'punks, but they all ran out of patience with the unchecked flow of sludge and unsubscribed... months before John tried to introduce his moderation experiment.) If 700 dropped off right after the moderation experiment was announced -- which I somehow doubt -- I wonder how many were battered into unsubscribing in the six or eight months prior? And, of the fleeing 700, how many became bored with the obsession of some (exhaustively prolific) writers with the "Moderation & Me" -- and went off to find some discussion of cryptography, politics, and ideas elsewhere? (Gawd knows, on the then-Moderated List I never found any lack of overwrought attacks on Sandy or John. I even read them for a week or two;-) From this whole experience, I carry away something different than those who gleefully celebrate Gilmore's surrender. I think something unusual and valuable is being killed. I'm now convinced that virtually all mailing lists will soon be forced to either limit posts to authenticated subscribers or introduce some sort of moderation -- just to deal with the spam threat and the problem of concerned attacks by those who decide they hate or dislike or simply want to destroy that particular List community . By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have destroyed the List at any time in the past. I'm glad they never realized how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current manifestation. I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite easy to manipulate. If I have any criticism of John et al, it is that our List-Owner (a statement of function, rather than property) never gave the List Community an overt option to vote for minimal moderation. A tactical error. That that allowed the anarchists, nihlists, and others pure of heart to focus their ire on toad.com and Sandy -- rather than on those of us who (when John finally acted) might have gladly re-subscribed to another version of the List in order to obtain minimal spam and slur filtration. So now we ourselves burn the village in order to save it. <nostalgic sigh> How American! Suerte, _Vin At 11:23 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu > >The Netly News Network >http://netlynews.com/ > >A List Goes Down In Flames >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) >February 12, 1997 >

5 4

Congressional subcommittee hearings on computer security
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Computer crimes rife, unreported By Reuters February 13, 1997, 9:45 a.m. PT WASHINGTON--Security experts say hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable. "If I want to steal money, a computer is a much better tool than a handgun," Daniel Geer, director of engineering for Open Market, told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. " Has anyone been following this debate more closely? Nothing in any of the articles I've seen on this story have mentioned the role of strong encryption. <rhetorical question mode on> Why can't banks better protect themselves? Why can't banks better authenticate electronic transactions to prevent theft & break-ins? Why is the such a dearth of protective measures available to the institutions? The public has a right to know! <rhetorical question mode off> Seriously, though, has anyone been following these hearings in more detail? me --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

e$
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy Maya has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. /_/\/\ \_\ / Timmy Maya /_/ \ \_\/\ \ \_\/

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Against Moderation writes: > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. On the contrary. John Grubor is Usenet's most effective probe as to the mindset of people who really want free speech. The precise litmus test of free speech is vehemently offensive things that are spoken. > Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will > eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it > wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of > not having to see your rants any more. Then they don't want free speech. They want the illusion of free speech, "free speech as long as you don't say THOSE things". > Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually > fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your > argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, > bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any > mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument > eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would > like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- > flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not > only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of > those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't teach the blind until you have practiced living with closed eyes

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok. I'll "put up". If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with "resend") of any messages to the list. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Advice is priceless; when it becomes interference it is preposterous.

4 7

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Against Moderation writes: > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. On the contrary. John Grubor is Usenet's most effective probe as to the mindset of people who really want free speech. The precise litmus test of free speech is vehemently offensive things that are spoken. > Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will > eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it > wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of > not having to see your rants any more. Then they don't want free speech. They want the illusion of free speech, "free speech as long as you don't say THOSE things". > Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually > fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your > argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, > bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any > mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument > eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would > like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- > flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not > only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of > those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't teach the blind until you have practiced living with closed eyes

5 5

Industry Blasts U.S. Encryption Policy
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-14-97. National Business Review, NZ (http://www.nbr.co.nz/) USA: Industry Groups Blast U.S. Encryption Policy. Washington, Feb 13 (Reuter) - An array of private-sector trade groups charged Thursday the Clinton administration's new export policy on computer encoding technology was a failure. Encryption products, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," are subject to strict export limits, although the administration recently relaxed the rules a bit. The new policy "does not adequately address the needs of either the American business community or the general public," the 13 groups said in a letter to Clinton dated Wednesday and released Thursday. Among the groups signing the letter were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, along with a host of high-tech industry groups such as the Business Software Alliance and the Information Technology Association of America. The Centre for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group for civil liberties in cyberspace, and the Association of Research Libraries also signed the letter. An administration spokeswoman said that, despite the complaints, the current policy would be maintained. "The administration is moving ahead with our encryption export liberalisation policy," spokeswoman Heidi Kukis said. The policy balances diverse interests by "allowing us to develop exports while protecting our national security," she said. The administration has repeatedly said it opposes allowing unfettered powerful encryption programmes out of the country where they could be used by international criminals and terrorists. Under current policy, U.S. companies cannot export products containing so-called strong encryption, used to protect everything from a business' electronic mail to a consumer's credit card number sent over the Internet, unless the products also allow the government to crack the code by recovering the software keys. Companies can get a license to export medium-strength encryption lacking so-called key recovery features if the companies agree to incorporate key recovery in future products within two years. The Commerce Department has issued three licenses so far under the two-year provision. Digital Equipment Corp., Trusted Information Systems Inc., and Cylink Corp. won approval by promising to offer key recovery products by 1999. International Business Machines Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co. have said they are also seeking licenses. But companies and privacy advocates rejected the administration's key recovery-based approach. "It fails to accommodate the competitiveness concerns of sellers of encryption products, the security concerns of the buyers of such products, or important privacy rights," the groups said in their letter. "We believe a fundamental rethinking of this policy is necessary," they added. "We remain interested in working with you to achieve a constructive solution to this very difficult problem." Congress is already considering proposals to dramatically relax the export restrictions without requiring key recovery. -----

1 0

Re: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X >who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk >about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I >didn't harp on that point. > >A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people >were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them >enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother >with listening in to the exact message? I think it would be appropriate to insist that these guys (the LEAs) document their need for decryption, by providing "us" (the public) with an encrypted version of the data that they have accessed but cannot understand, as well as its source and what case it's associated with. The LEAs would encrypt it and publicize it (not openly identifying the details) but with the promise that the key to unlock the information would be released within, say, a year or even earlier once a case is brought. Included within the encrypted identification would be references sufficient to identify the case involved. If they have any doubts as to why they should do this, we should point out that we see no reason to believe their claims, but we want to give them the maximum opportunity to prove them without requiring that they spill the beans, completely, now. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0