- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I, on the other hand, am surprised by your over-optimistic tone. Bills in Congress are, technically, ALWAYS up for public comment. And yes, they are almost always subject to amendment. But the REALITY (remember reality?!?) is that once a bill has been officially introduced in Congress, it is substantially more difficult to add a good part, or remove a bad part, than if the bill remained on a word-processor or was simply put on the 'net for comments. The status-quo system might have made sense in the pre-Internet era, when the public familiarity of issues and/or legislation was less, or communication costs to the public were higher, etc. But today, when it's easy and cheap to put the text of a proposed bill on the Internet, it simply no longer makes sense to not accept public comment BEFORE the "high-hysteresis" environment of Congress has been entered. Here's what is REALLY going on. Congress wants to maintain the illusion that the public actually has some input into the way bills are drafted. But in reality, they want essentially total control. One of the many biases inserted into the system to ensure this control is maintained is to disguise the extent to which special interests (and Congress, itself, is a "special interest") get to dictate how law reads. Consider the alternative, and in particular the Leahy crypto bill, and even more particularly the portion of that bill criminalizing the use of encryption in a way which thwarts an investigation. Suppose the pieces of entire bill, before actual filing, had been publicly posted on the Internet, and there had been either a vote or at least a collection of comments about the individual proposed sections. What would have happened? That portion of the bill would have gotten flamed and rejected, with a large majority opposing it. Moreover, we would all have KNOWN that it had been rejected. At that point, if Leahy still insisted on including it, it would be tantamount to giving the 'net his middle finger, and we would have rightly lambasted Leahy, as he deserved. Moreover, we would have known that someone was pushing that part of the bill, and could reasonably insist that he is identified. But the way Leahy actually proposed it, in a package that had been put together in secret, it isn't clear how much Leahy detests our opinions, and he might actually have gotten away with foisting this on us. See the difference? An open system holds legislators to a much higher standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we should insist on it. An open system reveals to the public if their interests are being followed. An open system will allow more people to become aware of being screwed by politicians, maybe even before it happens, and it will allow them to reject legislative proposals which contain undesirable portions, particularly portions which are written into a bill despite opposition. _THAT_ could, hypothetically, become the "legislative process" someday. In fact, it SHOULD BE the legislative process. I consider the current system illegitimate to the extent (at least!) that it is biased against public participation. At 08:51 AM 8/27/96 -0400, John Raffetto wrote: >Jim -- I'm surprised by your message. Members of Congress rarely introduce >bills and say take it or leave it. Rather, by introducing a bill, they're >offering it up for public comment. After introduction, the bill is referred >to a committee, and perhaps a subcommittee, where there are hearings and the >like. The lobbyists swarm in, constituent letters roll in. Then the bill >is marked up in committee, and emerges in a revised form. > >If you want to vet a proposed piece of legislation on the Internet, then >copy the text off of THOMAS and post it... then participate in the >legislative process. > >John Raffetto > > >> >>I believe that it is particularly suspicious that these bills come into >>existance without even cursory "vetting" on the Internet. Both the Leahy >>bill and even the Burns crypto bill popped into public view without any >>indication of how they were written, or any public input on their intent and >>scope. Perhaps this "take it or leave it" practice is old hat to >>politicians, but frankly I'm disgusted at politicians' presumption that they >>can prepare a law with no identifiable input from the public. >> >>I am similarly disgusted at any organization (even if, ostensibly, acting in >>support of "net freedom") that assisted in the development of the Leahy >>crypto bill (and to some extent, even the Burns bill) because they clearly >>failed to solicit the kind of public input that such bills should >>automatically get. >> >>And in a sense, "the Net" doesn't NEED "strong supporters": what we need are >>politicians who are willing to LEAVE US ALONE! It should come as no >>surprise that the call you frequently see among net-freedom- supporters for >>new legislation is that which repeals existing restrictive laws, such as >>ITAR and censorship laws. >> >>Jim Bell >>jimbell(a)pacifier.com >> >> > > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Hayek (was: Cato Institute conference on Net-regulation)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:26 AM 8/28/96, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >Senile tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) rants: >> Indeed, Hayek has had a _lot_ to do with the Cypherpunks! From "The Road to >> Serfdom" to "Law, Legislation, and Liberty," his works have exerted a >> profound influence on me, and on many others. > >But he's fucking unreadable. I plan to teach economic this semester and >make every student read Hazlitt (economics in 1 lesson). I can't force them >to read hayek (or Rothbard) because they're fucking unreadable. Shit. Well, to one who inserts "(spit)" after nearly every name he cites, and critiques Hayek as "fucking unreadable. Shit.," I suppose Hayek must indeed seem unreadable. Shit. After all, Hayek rarely writes things like: "The senile Von Mises (spit) and his Sovok Cabal plotters...." As to "forcing" your students to read Hayek, just who is in charge? If you're the instructor, they can choose to read what you tell them to read, or be unprepared on the exams you give and possibly flunk the class. What part of "Required Reading" do you or your students not understand? --Tim (spit) May 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 27 Aug 96 at 21:16, jim bell wrote: > See the difference? An open system holds legislators to a much > higher standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we > should insist on it. Fine Jim, but how? Any idea of a system that could lead to that? JFA who's ROTFL! DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Re: FYI: GOP's Stolen Laptop...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:41 PM 8/27/96 -0500, Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern(a)il.us.swissbank.com> wrote: >> They should have used PGP on those files..... > >...but I thought fine, upstanding, and law-abiding citizens didn't have >anything to hide... These are _Republicans_, Andrew! :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

1 0

An open letter to the Editor of The Observer
by matthew＠itconsult.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I understand the text of the Observer article is available at http://www.hclb.demon.co.uk/obs.txt] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I. T. Consultancy Limited Our reference L2217 The Editor The Observer 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER 26 August 1996 AN OPEN LETTER FOR PUBLICATION Sir, I read with some interest the article by David Connett and Jon Henley in yesterday's edition regarding the Internet and child pornography. I was particularly interested as I am a computer consultant advising clients on Internet issues. In my professional opinion, the technical standard of the reporting was sufficiently poor as to be both inaccurate and misleading. The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain technical issues which might cause your readers to reach unfounded or incorrect conclusions. It is important to be aware of the various methods by which information generally (which can include pornography) is distributed around the Internet. Your article focuses on one particular route, namely Newsgroups. It is Newsgroups which are detailed in the Metropolitan Police's letter to Internet Providers and which are concentrated upon by your article. There are several other means of distributing information. I believe however that the Police letter lists fewer than the 150 groups referred to by the authors. Interestingly enough Newsgroups only offer the means of broadcasting information to anyone who wants to retrieve it. The authors do not appear to have a sufficient grasp of what a "remailer" does. For example they seem to draw a direct link between the use of such remailers and people being able to "log on and participate in 'live' and 'interactive' filmed sessions". A lay reader would perhaps draw the inference that the remailer is somehow involved in any such live participation. Unfortunately this could not be further from the truth. Remailers simply allow people to post messages, either as email to other people or to Newsgroups for general reading. Nothing more. Remailers are generally incapable of being "logged on" to. Your article also refers to "remailing companies", from which the lay reader might infer that remailers are operated for commercial profit. Such an inference would again be wholly incorrect. I know of no organisation operating a remailer for profit, indeed none of them even charge for their services. They are generally run by individuals on a voluntary basis who consider them as a service to the Internet community. Your article appears not to mention any of the purposes of such remailers other than in terms of the distribution of pornography. In my view it would be difficult to present a balanced article without doing so. Different remailers take different steps to prevent whatever their operators consider as "abuse". My understanding is that Mr. Helsingius' service restricts messages to 48k bytes (or characters) and prohibits postings to the "binaries" newsgroups designated for images. I also understand that it only allows 30 messages per user per day. At a technical level these restrictions would make it almost impossible to use his service for mass distribution of any binary data, not just pornography. It therefore appears surprising to me that your article should allege that Mr. Helsingius' remailer is responsible for handling "90 per cent of all child pornography" on the Internet. I wonder what substantiating evidence The Observer has to this effect other than the alleged claim by Toby Tyler. Indeed it appears from your article that the words "is supplied through this remailer" may not be a direct quote from Toby Tyler. Your article alleges that "the photographs made available to Demon's subscribers through the Internet are supplied anonymously by remailing companies". The lay reader might infer from this that all photographs therefore come via remailers. Again this would be far from the truth. Finally I hope this letter offers some assistance to your readers in clarifying a number of issues which were perhaps less than clear in your article. Given your newspaper's difficulties with technical issues, I would be grateful if you would kindly refer any editing of this letter to me prior to publication. Yours faithfully, Matthew Richardson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAgUBMiFvEAKwLwcHEv69AQGjIQP+IGR9rhvdYXe7CuCcwPl/tIrIBryikTM2 IVOpygTF2nCPf3WEJ8czRvs1emp9d9d++69XiG1f6QAeP9Jv/h9KzVtV7mjjuqCX LhlhXBYjLIiGCcxljKZ07zHFlCeZWCzuAmIFnZbz2fNNjqyicheIMlxI2tDrGgjp dlaGZuAI2XY= =dkXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Code Review Guidelines (draft)]
by Wendell Lee 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe wendell(a)singnet.com.sg To: hag(a)ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: Code Review Guidelines (draft) From: lists(a)lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:30:49 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: ichudov(a)algebra.com, adam(a)homeport.org, firewalls(a)greatcircle.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, coderpunks(a)toad.com In-Reply-To: <199608272111.RAA23997(a)galapas.ai.mit.edu> from "Daniel Hagerty" at Aug 27, 96 05:11:39 pm Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Hi, > Much better, look at rfc822. (I wouldn't consider *anything* that > has the word "sendmail" in it a good reference). its much better if you dont rely on the content of the string at all. Dont use sh -c or system and you will be save. Simply asume that all characters are valid in user suplied strings and treat them exactly that way... If they need to be exporeted then unfortunately they need to be 'untainted' and this should be done by positive not negative lists as mentioned in the guidelines. Greetings Bernd PS: I have collected the references on http://www.inka.de/sites/lina/freefire-l/ -- (OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels(a)Wittumstrasse13.76646Bruchsal.de -- ( .. ) ecki(a){lina.inka.de,linux.de} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/A2C51749 eckes@irc +4972573817 *plush* (O____O) If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy

1 0

Re: Australian Interbet Betting System Gets US Interest 08/26/96
by Mark Neely 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>CentreBet can be reached at http://www.taunet.com.au/centrebet BTW .. that is //www.taunet.net.au/centrebet ^^^ Regards, Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt(a)ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Internet Consultant, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet (2nd Ed.) Australian Business Guide to the Internet Internet Guide for Teachers, Students & Parents Check out my Anti-SPAM FAQ: http://www.accessnt.com.au/faqs/spam.htm

1 0

Identification docs needed.
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

c'punks, Sorry for the off-topic post, but I think that the resourceful people on this list might be able to help. I have a friend here in NYC who is in a bit of a bind, because she has *no* id. Her birth was never recorded (i.e. no birth certificate!) So, the question is: Anyone have any suggestions as to how one could obtain documentation that would pass muster with the local passport office? I'm hoping to help her obtain the documentation she needs to get on an airplane without gaining too much attention from the JBT's. BTW, she was born a US citizen in Puerto Rico. Baptismal records may be forthcoming, but that isn't certain. advTHANKSance, -jcr

1 0

(Fwd) Re: **"OuR" Project press release** (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I thought I would forward this so those less connected might know of amateur space technology. With a factor of 5 increase in altitude these folks will be putting things in LEO. My guess, 3-5 years. Forwarded message: > From postmaster(a)ddg.com Tue Aug 27 23:25:59 1996 > Message-Id: <199608280351.WAA21839(a)oak.zilker.net> > Comments: Authenticated sender is <stu(a)mail.zilker.net> > From: "Stu Barrett" <stu(a)zilker.net> > Organization: Personal Business > To: hct(a)ddg.com > Reply-To: hct(a)ddg.com > Errors-To: postmaster(a)ddg.com > Precedence: bulk > X-Listserver: AutoShare 1.0.2fc14 by Mikael Hansen > X-Administrivia-To: Stu Barrett (Stu(a)Zilker.net) > X-To-Unsubscribe: autoshare(a)ddg.com, body: unsub hct > X-See-Also: http://www.DDG.com/ > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 22:53:36 -6 > Subject: (Fwd) Re: **"OuR" Project press release** > Priority: normal > X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) > > Pulled this off of the net. The was even better than SkyeDance IV ;-) > > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > > Paul Robinson & Ken Mizoi wrote: > > > > To All Fellow Rocketeers: > > > > The "OuR" project was launched Friday, August 16th, 1996 at 9:05 PST. > > All available flight data is still being analyzed so any information > > presented is preliminary and is provided for the courtesy of all those > > who have supported the "OuR" team. > > > > First, the principal members of the "OuR" team are, in alphabetical > > order, Frank Kosdon, Phil Prior, Paul Robinson, and Jim Rosson. These > > dedicated souls spent two years of dedicated research and effort, not > > to mention tens of thousands of dollars, to build and fly the "OuR" > > project. > > > > The R motor is a proprietary engine design with the propellant > > provided by Frank Kosdon. It was 10.5" in diameter and contained > > almost 300 pounds of propellant, including a 21 pound, full diameter > > delay "cake" for tracking. It was calculated to burn for 10.5 > > seconds, and provide 285,000 Newtons of total impulse. Yes, in > > rocketeer terms an R27,000! > > > > The airframe was 21 feet long, with a 5 to 1 conical nose. The gross > > launch mass was about 700 pounds. On board was a ten watt video > > downlink, provided by Jon Dunbar, a Trimble GPS, video overlay and > > associated electronics, provided by Bob Rau, and various other backup > > electronics. Both main and drouge parachutes were provided by Bob > > Stroud. > > > > The rocket was launched in almost no winds, pointing a few degrees > > away from the town of Gerlach, NV for safety reasons. The rocket flew > > perfectly straight and the motor functioned flawlessly with a total > > activity time around 12 to 14 seconds. The rocket coasted for about > > 80 seconds, slightly more than calculated, into the ozone layer. The > > altitude simulations pointed to an expected altitude of just under > > 100,000 feet. With the increased activity time and increased coast > > time, the altitude most likely exceeded 100,000 feet. > > > > One highlight of this flight was the video data transmitted back to > > earth from approximately twenty miles in the sky. What was seen was a > > clear outline of the entire Black Rock Dessert and the surrounding > > terrain, the curvature of the earth, and the great blackness of the > > space. > > > > Higher altitudes are accessible by smaller rockets, but the intent of > > this project was to successfully build and fire a "large" rocket > > motor. Previously, only commercial enterprises have had success with > > motors of over four inches in diameter and the results of last year's > > BALLS launch support this presumption. Furthermore, the instruments > > carried aloft simply would not fit in say a 54mm "altitude optimized" > > motor. > > > > Unfortunately, the rocket failed to deploy its recovery systems and > > accelerated to over Mach 1 and impacted into the sand dunes several > > miles away. There was a loud sonic boom heard by all that literally > > shook the earth. In fact, instead of the nominal "hole and fin slits" > > seen in previous impacts, there was a twenty foot diameter area with > > large chunks of sheared earth as if a high energy charge had been > > detonated under the ground. The rocket was not recovered, but several > > pieces of metal, fiberglass, and burnt Nomex were found indicating the > > ejection charges did in fact fire. > > > > As more data is analyzed, and more hard facts are gathered, more > > information will follow. Furthermore, the rights to the video are in > > the negotiation stage with the various film crews present, but do > > expect a very detailed video from Earl Cagle of Point 39 Productions. > > > > Once again, the "OuR" Project members wish to express sincere thanks > > to all those who listened, donated, and gave their support who were > > not specifically named. This project would not have flown if were not > > for the "believers" and the tremendous team spirit. Only they know > > the sweat and the number of hours it takes to fly such a rocket. > > > > Members of the "OuR" Team > > ----------------- > Stu Barrett > e-mail: stu(a)zilker.net > Phone: 512-255-6052 > > "Out the transceiver, down the coax, through the router, down the > fiber, off another router, down the T1, past the firewall.....nothing > but Net." >

1 0

SCO giving free licenses to UNIX OpenServer
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hit www.sco.com Pick What's New Look for UNIX Unbound. Read, Understand, and Delight... Microsoft maybe in trouble at last. This is for single user home based UNIX systems. Was announced August 19, don't know how long this is to happen.

3 2