- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Fuck UseNet
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Delivered-To: reece-cpunks(a)taz.nceye.net Delivered-To: reece(a)taz.nceye.net Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:02:19 +0000 From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, alt.cypherpunks(a)news.demon.net Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk > 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????? Why not a network of news servers with mail<->news gateways on some of them? It should even be possible to use the news spool as the queue, so that only info on who needs what messages need lie around rather than 42 copies of the message (something like nntpsend, just using smtp). I actually have some spare time this weekend to try implementing this.

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > ><Some deleted> > >> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >> person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >> the public for no explicit charge. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re:
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[cc list trimmed!] On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > Yes. > Rubbish. It is perfectly legal. See generally http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

2 1

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor said: > I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, > and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having > read and understood the message. > > For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted > by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > justify adding postage to their letters. > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. That would be great. Sit home all day and hit web pages for a living.

1 0

Re: More on digital postage
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 5

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

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

The EFF
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >As for the "rift," may observers said at the time that DT was a Jerry >Berman "appeasement and capitulation" scheme. Note Berman no longer works >at EFF. Note EFF is no lnoger in DC. > >And yes, I've read Tim May's essay on his EFF membership. I probably would >have had the same reaction. > It might be a useful minor footnote for me to say that I did end up renewing for a later year (though I kept getting mail as "Tim Mat"). I was semi-persuaded that they'd learned their lesson. I stopped paying attention to them a while back, though, and haven't considered renewing. They just came to seem to be irrelevant as a "membership driven" organization. (There were reportedly only about 2000 individual members as of not too long ago, and the EFF does little recruiting for new individual members. They are definitely not following the NRA or AARP models.) Their legal work support has been very nice, of course. As for Berman, he put on the "SAFE" forum, which I thought was very well done. So, he redeemed himself, for me. (I don't really understand personally whether the Digital Telephony (CALEA, Computer Assistance for Law Enforcement) thing is Just Bad, or Really Bad, or Even Worse, or Inconceivably Evil. No one seems to know what is expected for Internet telephony providers, for example, or whether DT/CALEA could be used to shut down remailers, as some of us fear. If DT/CALEA turns out to be Really Bad, or Even Worse, I'll have to put Berman back on my list of less desirable folks. :-}) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker 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

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker 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