- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Mondex
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Degenerate L[ibel] Vandal K[ocksucker] Of The Minute will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own son's prepubescent body. o_o ( ) Degenerate L[ibel] Vandal K[ocksucker] Of The Minute ( | | ) ' " " `

1 0

He's back
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dumbbell Virus K]retin[ Of The Moment enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic queer friends. ,_, *-._W_,-* Dr.Dumbbell Virus K]retin[ Of The Moment `-;-;-' " "

1 0

More Circumventing the ITAR
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? It's not all that much different from what MIT has up for PGP. Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Phill" wrote: >I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into >the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool >for confirming the present social order which is manifestly >corrupt. I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore As R. J. Wagner once said, "Koo koo, baby." Hey, I hope that the above is construed as neither a flame nor as "off topic". May I additionally congratulate Nurdane on her birthday? Yo "Phill"! When's your cyber-revolutionary birthday? Maybe we can all chip in to buy you a biscuit. (See, in England, they say, "That certainly takes the biscuit". Eh, "Phill"?) BTW, "Phill", did you want to make good on your bet to Sandy at this time? Ain't C-punks fun nowadays?

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. >> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in >> some places) still on the books. > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws >from being made against libel. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does today. Sigh. Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his enemies will. One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping the masses in line. Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it couldn't be printed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > > >jim bell wrote: > >> > >> At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >> >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >> >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >> >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >> >any recognition of this fact. > >> >........................................................ > >> > > >> >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > >> > >> Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > >> concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > >> encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > >> using encryption. > > > >Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there > >is a clear need for an AP bot. > > > >Do you feel like writing it? > > > > - Igor. > > Jim's all talk, I on the other hand am serious. Did you receive my Monday > e-mail? > yes, and found it interesting. - Igor.

1 0

More Circumventing the ITAR
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? It's not all that much different from what MIT has up for PGP. Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

2 1

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yee-hah! Congratulations (and enjoy the $1000 check!) So what did you do interesting cryptographically in the crack, other than coordinating a bunch of workstations? Was it just brute force with well-tuned code? Given the figures in your press release, it sounds like you tested about 350 billion keys out of a trillion possible, so you hit the winner a shade early. That's about 400,000 keys/sec/box. Are the machines mostly Pentiums, Alphas, Suns, etc.? At 03:59 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Ian Goldberg <iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY > >January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate student, >announced today that he had successfully cracked RSA Data Security >Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher in just under 3.5 hours. .... >Goldberg used UC Berkeley's Network of Workstations (known as the NOW) >to harness the computational resources of about 250 idle machines. >This allowed him to test 100 billion possible "keys" per hour -- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

3 2

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. >> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in >> some places) still on the books. > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws >from being made against libel. You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does today. Sigh. Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his enemies will. One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping the masses in line. Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it couldn't be printed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population >control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being >able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple >majority. > >As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. > >A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. >The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier >ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through >will get 110% of the poor's bid. >The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a >collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the >tyrants murder. >The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the rich/powerful --Steve

1 0