- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Smith wrote: > : ...the "little girls in leotards" case was only a few years ago, etc.) > > Don't know about that one. Is it illegal for little girls to be > photographed in leotards now? "Nutcracker" is X rated? Move over, > Bambi. But this proves precisely Tim's original point, that child pornography is a thoughtcrime. Here's a working definition of child pornography at the end of the millenium: it's a picture of a child, in the hands of a pedophile. Pictures of girls in leotarfds are not child pornography per se, but if you think evil thoughts while watching them, then they become child pornography. What got Stephen Knox in trouble was leaving so much evidence that he was thinking those evil thoughts.

1 0

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Admin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:34 PM 9/11/96 -0400, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Admin wrote: > >> >This is an absurd and inaccurate analogy. The mailBot simply pushes >> >*mailto:* tags that people have willingly placed on their public websites. >> >They invite the mail so a more accurate analogy would be that City Hall puts >> >up a public suggestion box and invites comments. The bot then puts one, and >> >only one, unsigned anonymous suggestion into the box. It then goes on to the > >You're sending out messages, inviting people to visit your web site, but >you're using anonymous remailers because... you don't want people to know >who you are? Perhaps he's sending out through the remailers...because he can. Its open to the public. Or perhaps he's trying to get the word out about remailers also, or perhaps no one but he knows why, and why is unimportant. You can always make your remailers a private, pay per use club. Then you could control all the *whys* *whens* and *hows*. >Then why invite them to your site (or even have a site)? It's >like if I sent out postcards to people with no return address saying, >"Please stop by 1313 Mockingbird Lane for snacks and refreshments. Signed, >A Friend". (Note, this is not my real address.) >Only in this case the >postcards don't have any stamps so the people who receive them have to pay >the postage. Which is precisely what you're doing: Sending someone e-mail >costs them time and it often costs them money. These people have invited the email, and the associated expense, by placing a public email-to: button on their public www page. A more acurate analogy, and to the point, would be if a business sends you a postage pre-paid business reply card, that is blank, and invites your comments on the card. They can hardly complain of the expense when people actually send it in, even if they don't like the comments. >Sending it through an >anonymous remailer accomplishes four things: 1) People can't complain to >you to stop sending them mail. Seems anyone who followed the link can complain to the appropriate source. >2) It costs us, the International Secret >Cabal of Anonymous Remailer Operators, time and money for no good reason, >because you are sending anonymous mail and not making yourself anonymous. Didn't see any disclaimers on the remailers requiring a *good reason* to use them. Who would be this Judge of Sufficiently Good Reason? Perhaps you can write an AI piece that can auto-detect good reason from *no good reason*... >3) You're pissing off a bunch of people, and the only ones they can take >their frustrations out on or complain to is us. What is the ratio of *pissed off people* to not pissed off people. Likely less than 0.5% based on how many messages the Cpunks claim went out in a day. >4) It's giving us a bad >rap, man, and that's the *last* thing the remailer net needs now. The saying goes...There is Heat in the Kitchen... > >I could care less about your little applet, or what you have to say; in >the words of Thomas Jefferson, "it neither breaks my leg nor picks my >pocket." Until, that is, you start sending it through my remailer, and >*then* you start picking my pocket. >The remailers of the world don't exist >to provide non-anonymous anonymous advertising, which you could do just as >well on your own sending forged e-mail headers from netcom. Now now... forgery is a no-no. And someone always has the freedom to give up their anonymity whenever they choose. > >Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design / UGA >===== For PGP public key: finger andy(a)neptune.chem.uga.edu | pgp -fka ===== >Sure, the Telecomm Act will create jobs: 100,000 new thought-cops on the net >http://charon.chem.uga.edu/~andy mailto:andy@CCMSD.chem.uga.edu <}+++< <>________________Lowest_Priced_Long_Distance__________________<> ||Long Distance 9.9¢/min |Helping hardworking people || ||9.9¢ Anytime, Anywhere in US! |like yourself pay the || ||Free sign-up, 6 second billing |lowest possible price for || ||http://www.superhot.com/phone |high quality LD service. || <>-----------------------1_303_692_5190------------------------<>

2 1

Re: PANIX.COM down: denial of service attack
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:09 AM 9/12/96 -0700, #6 wrote: >WSJ 9/12/96 > >Paraphrasing: > >Panix has been under attack for the last week by someone flooding >their server with bogus "requests for information" [see below] ... Even though service has suffered, Panix is still useable. Until I read the MOTDs on Tuesday, I thought it was just normal flakiness. DCF

1 0

Fear of Flying -- from HotWired
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/37/special3a.html 12 September 96 HotWired, The Netizen Fear of Flying by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Washington, DC, 11 September John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, knows firsthand how drastically airports in the United States are altering their policies in response to the nation's perceived vulnerability to terrorists. When Gilmore opened his laptop for inspection by airport personnel at San Francisco International last month - as requested - but refused to turn the machine on, the cops were called. When he then refused to show identification to airport police, "they put the handcuffs on me and hauled me off," he told The Netizen. The cops took Gilmore to a back-room office. "They tried to ask me questions. I said I wanted to speak to my lawyer. They kept asking me questions anyway," he says. Airport police arrested Gilmore even though, according to the FAA, "there is currently no prohibition against allowing someone on an aircraft" without identification. Gilmore's arrest came after President Clinton tightened airport security in response to the TWA Flight 800 disaster and the Atlanta Olympic Games bombing. Now the anti-terrorism drumbeat in the nation's capital is starting again, and it's louder and more ominous than ever. It reached a fevered pitch Monday, when Clinton called for an increase of more than one billion dollars to be spent on anti-terrorism measures, especially airport security. Clinton based his request on the unsurprising recommendations of a commission created by executive order in August, staffed by spooks and headed by Vice President Gore. The group's proposal includes a plan allowing the CIA and FBI to "develop a system" to screen passengers who fit certain profiles as potential terrorists. David Sobel, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the White House proposal "a realization of Big Brother concerns people have about computer technology." The proposal would allow the FBI and CIA to couple their databases with those of the airlines. "There are going to be massive databases that will track our actions and activities. If you think of increased capabilities to collect information, it's even scarier," Sobel said. A former US senator agrees. At a Cato Institute terrorism conference yesterday, Malcolm Wallop said: "In the year and a half since the terrorism debate began, all the legislation considered would do little or nothing to stop or deter terrorism. These measures do more to crack down on Americans than terrorists. "A bloody nose does not warrant an exponential expansion of federal government authority," argued Wallop, now the chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute. Over lunch at the conference yesterday afternoon, former CIA director James Woolsey responded with some seemingly gratuitous anti-Net rhetoric. Terrorists may use biological weapons like anthrax, he said. "Anthrax is colorless, odorless, and has a 90 percent lethality. One gram has 100 million lethal doses." Then Woolsey delivered the zinger: "The knowledge of how to make anthrax is widely available, including on the Internet." Not content to let bad enough alone, Woolsey added that the government can't allow netizens to use data-scrambling software like Pretty Good Privacy that the spooks can't break. He said the threat of terrorism will "require us to have a key escrow system" where keys "for complex algorithms [will] be placed in such a way that the government" will have access to them. "You can accommodate industry a lot, but the principle is: you got to get to the key," Woolsey said. (FBI director Louis Freeh made similar, though less straightforward, comments during Senate hearings in July.) Before Congress adjourns for the fall recess, the House must decide whether to approve a "digital telephony" domestic wiretapping slush fund into which the NSA and CIA can pour cash. Senators will then likely add provisions for warrantless wiretaps to the anti-terrorism bill that the House sent to them in August. The fundamental problem here is, of course, the politics of terrorism. Legislators routinely grandstand atop national tragedies, using victims and their families as backdrops. Justice Department lobbyists then swarm onto Capitol Hill and demand reduced civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Societies can, and should, safeguard against systematic threats. Random acts of violence, on the other hand, are trickier to forestall - and terrorist acts are anything but predictable. Luckily for the EFF's Gilmore, he was cited only for the crime of "delaying/obstructing a peace officer" and was released after being handcuffed to a bench and then dumped in a holding cell for a few hours. He got off easy. But if Congress decides to sacrifice freedom for security, the country will ultimately enjoy neither. ###

1 0

(Correction) Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: : I've read in several places that the Jock Sturges case was thrown out : Nobody has dragged me away in shackles for : owning "Radiant Images." Correction -- That's "Radiant Identities." Rick.

1 0

Re: PANIX.COM down: denial of service attack
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here are the gory details from the first MOTD last Saturday: The attacker is forging random source addresses on his packets, so there is no way to find his/her location. There is also no way to screen out those packets with a simple router filter. This is probably the most deadly type of denial-of-service attack possible. There is no easy or quick way of dealing with it. If it continues into Saturday we will start working on kernel modifications to try to absorb the damage (since there's absolutely no way to avoid it). This however will not be an easy job and it could take days to get done (and get done right). For those who are IP hackers, the problem is that we're being flooded with SYNs from random IP addresses on our smtp ports. We are getting on average 150 packets per second (50 per host). We are not the only site being attacked in this way. I know of one other site that is being attacked in an identical manner right now, and I know of three others that have been attacked in the last two weeks. I hope that this means that the attacker is merely playing malicious games, and will soon tire of molesting our site. If that is the case, mail will come back up as soon as the attack ends. But if the attacker is really interested in damaging Panix specifically, the attack may *never* stop and service won't be restored until we can write kernel modifications. Since then the packet streams have hit almost all the ports for news, www, telnet, etc. DCF

3 4

[BOOK] "Competitive Intelligence" corrected
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry, forgot the Author... Brian "Car Bombs- The poor mans cruise missle." Competitive Intelligence Larry Kahaner "From Black Ops to Boardrooms- How Businesses Gather, Analyze, and use Information to Succeed in the Global Marketplace." ISBN 0-684-81074-3 Simon and Schuster ($24.00) Preface: Being a Hero and not a Bum Part One: What is Competitive Intelligence? 1.) The Rise of Competitive Intelligence 2.) What Competitive Intelligence can do for your company: Information vs Intelligence 3.) Why most managers are still stuck in the information age Part Two: Real-World Competitive Intelligence 4.) The Intelligence Cycle 5.) Planning and Direction 6.) Collection 7.) Analysis 8.) Dissemination 9.) Mergers and Acquistions 10.) Benchmarking and Competitive Intelligence 11.) How the Japanese Perform Competitive Intelligence 12.) Competitive Intelligence in other Countries 13.) Building a Competitive Intelligence System Part Three: Issues, Opportunities, and the Future 14.) Justifying the cost of Competitive Intelligence 15.) Using Competitive Intelligence in the European Union 16.) Ethics 17.) The New Gatekeepers 18.) Why the U.S. Government must get involved in Competitive Intelligence 19.) Competitive Intelligence-The Next Generation Glossary of Competitive Intelligence

1 0

Re: ... subversive leftists
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: > > As to "tasteless and insulting," a matter of personal perspective. I find > > it helpful to call a spade a spade, and others apparently do as well. > > > > Of course, Tim gets very uncomfortable when others call a spade a spade. This constant character assasination of Tim is getting rather boring, as far as I can see, and I read all of the posts on the list, he has done nothing more than ignore posts from these idiots, that is his choice and nothing to do with anyone else. This whole thread is taking up too much space and is just totally pointless. lets call it a day and just agree to differ eh? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az4= =riHc -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Fear of Flying -- from HotWired
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:16 PM 9/12/96 -0500, Declan McCullagh quoted: >... former CIA director James Woolsey: responded with some seemingly > gratuitous anti-Net > rhetoric. Terrorists may use biological weapons like anthrax, he said. > "Anthrax is colorless, odorless, and has a 90 percent lethality. One > gram has 100 million lethal doses." Then Woolsey delivered the zinger: > "The knowledge of how to make anthrax is widely available, including > on the Internet." Gee, biotech has come a long way. Now I can download the Anthrax DNA sequence from the net and insert it in some carrier bacteria and start making Anthrax bacteria. Neat! Or did he mean I can chemically synthesize Anthrax toxin? Or did he mean I can get information on culturing bacteria on the net, but must obtain a sample of the bacteria from other sources? BTW - My dictionary says that Anthrax is primarily an animal disease which only occasionally infects humans. It sounds like a poor choice for bio-war terror. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Lone Star" - My personal | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | choice for best movie of | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | 1996 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Excite Live!
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"live(a)excite.com" 11-SEP-1996 22:14:03.06 >A request was made for the location of your Excite Live! page >Found your Excite Live at URL >http://live.excite.com/?uid=CEC8C99632372D6E Hi. As you can see from the above, I've set up an Excite Live! page up with the email address of cypherpunks(a)toad.com. It has top priority on things related to cypherpunks, including technology news, political news, international news, etcetera, plus some build-in links and searches to appropriate places. I'd advise using the anonymizer to access the above link (http://www.anonymizer.com:8080/http://live.excite.com/?uid=) -Allen

2 1