- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: "Family Channel" of the Internet?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:40 PM 12/6/96 -0500, Ken Kirksey wrote: >1) Is it technically possible for them to limit access to only approved >IP addresses? If so, how can they do this, and is it possible to get >around these measures. Oh yeah, very easily. Can you say 'proxy server'? Corporations [including the one I work for] have been using them for quite some time to control Internet access. For example, everytime I try to hit anything in the GeoCities domain I get a nice little message saying I've been caught and to stop being naughty. You can get around it by using services (like Anonymizer) beyond the proxy server that get pages, files, etc for you. Assuming, of course, that the ISPs don't block those as well. >2) What in the world would SET--I assume that was what he was talking >about--have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. >3) In general, how would you use crypto to ensure that your users only >connected to approved sites, regardless of the platform or browser >software they were using? I wouldn't. It's not even a crypto issue. That's like asking how you would use your tea kettle to peel this orange: sure, you *could* do it, but why? I think your pegged 'bogometer' had it pegged. -Rick Rick Osborne / osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com / Northrop Grumman Corporation ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Double your drive space - delete Windows!

2 1

Re: PGP in Russia
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:29 AM 12/6/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >A slight correction -- taking PGP out of the US is not illegal, as long >as you take adequate measures under the presonal use exception to prevent >your laptop from being stolen by foreign nationals and keep records of >your trip for five years. At least that's what y my friend from the State >Dept told me when we had dinner a few weeks ago. Don't the ITARs say it's illegal to "disclose" that material to a foreign person? If that's the case, then presumably a person could take the material out of the country without "disclosing it," or he could "disclose" it to that foreign person inside the US. True, the government seems to have already taken the position that there is a personal-use exemption, but so far we haven't heard any action with regards to in-country disclosure to a foreigner. I'm not trying to give them any nasty ideas, but a domestic sting with this as its nexus seems possible. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

ANSI X9 pointers
by Crypto Policy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi: I am writing a paper on the ridiculous/backwards US crypto policy. I am trying to write a few words about the ANSI X9 vs. clipper fight, but I haven't been able to find anything on ANSI X9. Can anyone point me to info on ANSI x9 on the web? Bernie

2 1

Re: denial of service and government rights
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:02 PM 12/6/96 -0700, John Kozubik wrote: >you were speaking of human rights, and the issue of Bush being Knighted >... just out of curiousity, why is it against the constitution for Bush >to be Knighted?? > >Thanks > Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

2 1

Coderpunks
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[retin] May's IQ is lower than the belly of a pregnant snake. His ignorance and stupidity are bottomless. o o /< >\ Tim C[retin] May \\\_______/// // ||||||| \\

1 0

States' crypto legislation
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi I wonder whether various states in the US have laws restricting use of cryptography. In particular, does anyone know of such laws in Oklahoma? thank you - Igor.

1 0

Re: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Blanc Weber wrote: NOTE: original posting undeliverable due to spelling: cyhpherpunks > From: Dale Thorn > If you could analogize the list to a human society, then you might > understand that a pattern of decadence can set in here as it does in > the more visible society, as is run from Washington DC, etc. It is > my hope to make a contribution here (as in the more visible society) > to fight off some of that decadence, even when I get beat up on for it. > There is a huge the difference between a society of people relating to > each other based on principles of coercion vs an extemporaneous society > of individuals who make their own decisions (daily) about when/where/how > long they will associate with another. > The society run by Washington,D.C. expects that people will have no > choice but to fly in formation in the direction set by the leader who > represents the majority (sort of). That's a judgement, rather than an obvious truth. Fact is, service in Washington is purely voluntary, and one can leave anytime they wish. > The virtual "society" of the cpunks is only based on their interest in > opening up their mail and reading a few messages here & there according > to their mood of the day or the moment. Sounds pretty casual, doesn't it? Maybe there are a *few* c-punks who fit that description, but there are at least as many who are in this thing for some heavy action, if you know what I mean, and I think you do. > It is true that formal societies, like the one which was initially > intended by The Founders (of the US), often run afoul of the original > purpose for which it was begun. They decay for many reasons. This is > precisely one of the elements in the background of the cpunks thinking > ("the founders" and others) about societies and the "ties that bind" > (supposedly) us to each other: the interest in being released from that > supposition that we are bound to each other and are obligated to > maintain a relationship of some kind (as determined by the PC moral > 'authorities'). [snip] When I "joined" the Audio Engineering Society in the late 1970's, to get their journal cheap, it was going pretty good. Eventually it decayed quite a bit, where they were running more pictures of their get-togethers and awards programs than anything else. I see cypherpunks in the same straits potentially, as long as so many of the long-term "members" can continue claiming that "It belongs to one person, really, our Cypherpunks God", etc. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of potential here, and I hope it continues, but.... BTW, thanks for a very civil reply.

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vulis, the KOTM, Wrote: >No one even commented on the latest Dr. Dobbs issue. Maybe they were just too busy sifting through your irrelevant bullshit. (And to continue the irrelevancies, so you can maybe see a bit of the irony of all this garbage you tend to keep sending despite pleas and flames, try checking your subject line if you are going to bitch about others' spelling. Adverbs need an "ly," and you should drop the "e.")

1 0

Re: PICS is not censorship
by thad＠hammerhead.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net ("Timothy C. May") sez > This is why I fear PICS. Democracy has run amok in the Western world, and > the various "herds" will vote to constrain the freedoms of other members of > the herd. > > My Prediction: If PICS is used voluntarily by more than 80% of Net users to > label their Web pages and their writings, etc., then less than 3 years > later PICS will be mandated in the United States and other such countries. PICS, or something like it, is the absolutely right response to calls for true Internet censorship. People agreeing to a language, a way of communicating, is a good thing. Did you object to HTML? TCP/IP? Other agreements that limited the way that people communicate? I don't think that PICS will be mandated any more than those two standards are mandated, perhaps I'm naive, but I think that the social conventions will work in this case. I suppose the a better solution would have been to have many competing private rating services, but PICS will work well, not put much load on the net, and is transparent and simple. I like it. thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad(a)hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/people/thad

3 2

RealAudio 3.0 ships! Download it now, for free.
by Progressive Networks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear RealAudio User, We are pleased to tell you that RealAudio Player and Player Plus 3.0 have shipped! You can download RealAudio 3.0 from our Web site at http://www.realaudio.com. RealAudio 3.0 supports broadcast-quality audio, including stereo at 28.8 Kbps and near-CD quality audio at ISDN. Platform support includes Microsoft Windows 95 and 3.1, Macintosh PowerPC and 68040, and many flavors of UNIX. In addition, you can give friends and family the gift of Internet audio with our full-featured RealAudio Player Plus. Order online, and we'll ship it in a special gift box to the person of your choice. We hope you enjoy RealAudio 3.0. Best wishes, Rob Glaser Chairman & CEO Progressive Networks, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------ For more information on RealAudio e-mail updates, visit http://www.realaudio.com/mailinglist/index.html.

1 0