- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Remailers & NYMs
by kpdarby＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know some good PGP encrypted remailers, that are secure and pretty fast? How about a few good NYMs? KPD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" --Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky wrote: > At 20:19 7/16/96, Stig wrote: [regarding the "Ecash" trademark...] > >It's like giving Microsoft a trademark on the term 'Email'... It's nuts! > >Was the term ecash not in use before DigiCash showed up on the scene? > > No that I am aware of. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, DigiCash's > Ecash is the only ecash that I am aware of. The other "ecashs" lack various > properties of cash, as previously explained by Bryce. Digicash's ecash lacks various properties of real cash from the users point of view (offline transferability, large scale acceptance, etc.) and a great many from the issuers perspective (too many to list...), but we still seem to want to call it electronic cash when it isn't. It may be "Ecash" but it sure ain't digital cash... jim

1 0

Re: New Infowarfare Panel
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Sternlight wrote: <snip> >I'm talking about some of the information that started slowly leaking out >later, not the prime-time TV pyrotechnics. It doesn't "slowly leak out" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the plumbing. Someone has to commit the federal crime of military espionage! <snicker>

2 1

Re: ABC News on internet telephony
by john (j.) brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message "ABC News on internet telephony", you write: > > General topic of internet telephony > There's something fundamental going on here beneath the surface. > Surprisingly, a recent item (maybe the one you reported) on this suggests > that the big phone companies are trying to use this phenomenon rather than > stop it. I think it was AT&T Sprint has also come out in favor of the internet phone. > This is the rankest speculation on my part, but could some of the bigger, > smarter phone company cum internet providers have done some serious > analysis and concluded that we're moving away from distance-based rates for > voice calls. I will weigh in with my own stinky speculation: Sprint, MCI and AT&T (and possibly LDDS) own pretty much the entire commercial network physically. Every other long distance company leases lines from the big 3 (or 4,etc) and resells them, except for certain very specific points. And the Internet phone has pretty much given them the chance to drive their competitors out of business if it succeeds. After all, there is a constant demand for internet bandwidth. Every T3 they pull out of long distance services is a T3 they can throw into data services. It gives them a real cost savings compared to installing another high bandwidth backbone. They'll lose money from their customers who switch too, but those three are the ones with the lion's share of business lines, which won't be switching to Inet phone anytime soon. and they gain all the business customers who leave the dying small companies. And yes, fixed rate will be the way to go, especially for small bandwidth applications. Bandwidth is exploding - 1 Terabit optical networks have been created. A single phone line becomes miniscule. Now, if you want a much bigger pipe, they might charge you per hour for that. The thing I find second most interesting about this is how the large companies are fighting regulation, while the small ones are demanding it. That is a big change from yesteryear. And I know that AT&T has benefitted in a major way from gov't regulation in the past, but that doesn't make it right for it to be applied now.

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids [Noise]
by JonWienk＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I personally keep a Desert Eagle .44 Magnum (66 oz empty, 8+1 capacity, semi-auto,) with +P+ 240 grain FMJSP hunting loads. It's not just a gun, it's an adventure. :) Even if it doesn't penetrate body armor, the impact will knock anyone entering entering through your window at 0400 on their duff long enough for a follow-up shot or two to finish the job. This is in addition to a 12-gage pump shotgun and an M-1 carbine. Jonathan Wienke "1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" --Adolf Hitler "46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. ...Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." --The 29 Palms Combat Arms Survey http://www.ksfo560.com/Personalities/Palms.htm 1935 Germany = 1996 U.S.? Key fingerprint = 30 F9 85 7F D2 75 4B C6 BC 79 87 3D 99 21 50 CB

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim, I understand you are pissed about what's going on in society but this really isnt a great strategy; >Personally, I think all folks should be armed at all times in their homes. >Those who aren't are taking their chances. doesn't this make you a prisoner of sorts... it is not healthy to go through long periods of time in orange alert. this might sound macho but it's impracticle. > My personal choice is a Heckler >& Koch USP .45. loaded with Federal Golden Sabres, a hollowpoint round that >has a 92% one-shot stop rate, with adequate penetration through Kevlar >vests (typically worn by BATF raiders). >Fortunately, though KTW ammo is no longer available to "marks" (= >civilians), .45 ACP +P does a pretty good job. Certain +P .357 Magnum >rounds are even better penetrators, but recoil and muzzle blast is pretty >severe with these loads.) Your choice of weapon is admirable, but I would suggest that something more akin to Glaser safety slugs, SW.40 or .45 would be better. with proper training you can perform an upward stitch, legs first. the point is the Glaser won't pentrate the walls and nail your neighbors. The +P penetration is way to strong and most likely to pass through. A scatergun is generaly a better weapon for home defense. there is something about looking down a 12 guage that changes your mind, Ninja suit or not. Besides this kind of strategy is better used on gangsta types. >I may die, but I hope I can take at least two of them with me. pretty dumb attitude, I would also profess that One Live Tim May, even in Jail is worth more to the protection of freedom than one martyred nekid hippy. getting into a gunfight with an entry team that has had much more practice than you can only lead to one conclusion, really the only protection from these Ninja's is through some form of covenant community. All joking aside that what Bo Gritz was really trying to do in Idaho, build a place where your neighbor watches each others back. It doesnt mater whether your agree with his politics or not, the point is he has an workable idea, Now couple that with redundant instant communication..the kind that is hard to jam. hmm imagine what Waco would have been like if the Branch Davidians: 1) were not morons. 2) knew how to use the news media 3) had redundant, spread spectrum, satilite, and underground comms into the net. This equals instant net coverage, to rival CNN. It makes for a hard target.Armed with your Militia-Mailer(tm) the strong crypto edition and live video, these folks would never consider getting near you. In some ways we already have one now, there are quite a few Cypher-punks out there, and it's pretty easy to get the word out. Historicaly folks like BATF prefer softer targets, they are safer. Ever wonder why doesnt the Reno squad hit the crack houses..well thats kind of dangerous, these folks know what they are doing and the cost to raid them can be very expensive in lives. And what do you get when your done, another well payed judge simply lets em out again.. It's also clear that there is another manufactured arms race going on, this time instead of Communism it's the "war on some drugs" It is costing us an incredable amount of tax dollars, it fucks with our freedoms, and produces limited results. This war also has the side-effect of producing a general feeling of disenfrancisement among the very citizens it is designed to protect. Folks like Her Klinton, piss off the the American people, when on one hand they spout rhetoric about how drugs are bad, and on the other hand condone them. Fighting back through firepower is unlikely to acheive the goal you want, It endangers innocent (if there are any left) folks and leaves you looking like a HCI poster child. I can see it now, "Crazed Naked Hippy Dies in battle with Federal Officers, linked to ITAR regulated Munitions factory". A better approach is to disarm and expose these bozos for what they are, and for christ sakes get out there and VOTE... dammit... and get your friends to VOTE.. But what do I know.. I just play a lawyer in Bob's rants.. Vinnie Moscaritolo "Law - Samoan Style" http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

2 1

MSNBC and cookies
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In attempting to check out different Net media coverage of TWA 800, it appears the msnbc.com site won't let you in without a cookie. Repeated cookie cancels with Navigator 3.0 drop you into an indigestive loop of the server continuing to try to force feed you cookies. When you finally click OK, you get in. Am I spacing, or is this the first site anyone's stumbled on that requires a cookie for access? I've never been shut out of a site for canceling a cookie. The first cookie request does have a user ID field. If the server (or client) isn't misbehaving, this seems like a wee bit of a privacy issue. I tried accessing the page (http://www.msnbc.com) on 7/18/96 around 9:15 PM PDT. Anyone care to confirm this. Joel

6 5

Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 PM 7/18/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: >I am not saying that a private entity doesn't or shouldn't have the Legal >Right to censor, but I am saying that censorship of any form by any >entity is a Bad Thing and the public (not the government, mind) should >fight it on all fronts. This, in my mind, is the only reason to be >dismayed by the decision on the CDA. It was found that the government >shouldn't censor on the Internet because there were forms of Corporate >censorship available. It would have truely been a great day if the >decision had been that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet >because censorship is wrong. Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and "peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing about. If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where there views are already basically set. I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can and can't do. Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." (As a libertarian, I really don't care what sexual practices others practice, so long as I am not forced to either fund or witness their practices. And so long as I am free to filter out their practices as I see fit, including for my minor children and/or members of my household.) >That is another problem, not the Real Problem. The Real Problem is that >parents are scared to have to explain to children why something they've >seen is wrong or bad. They are afraid to teach their children their >beliefs and values, so instead would rather just filter everything that >conflicts with those beliefs, so that they believe it by default. This is Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for schools their own children are no longer using). Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which I don't). I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay for the research. What do you call ten million AIDS deaths? You figure it out. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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."

8 11

********Apology**********
by Charles Senescall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the dozens of people subject to a careless error on my part and who would have received bounced mail from me I apologise. I have fixed the error. Sorry.

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > I wonder when and how raids in the U.S. moved from the "Come out with your > hands up" verbal announcement (for the cases that needed more than a knock > on the door) to this blast-in-the-doors approach, where the raiders are > dressed in "tactical black" and are wearing black Nomex hoods and carrying > MP-5s and blast any "perp" who looks at them cross-eyed? If people decide that they are going to permit widespread ownership of guns then these tactics are inevitable. They are rare in the UK because gun ownership is relatively rare. I find this type of talk typical wishy washy libertarian twaddle. There are dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like living in a country where the police are armed to the teeth then move to the UK where there are very few armed police. Of course you will find that the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff. If you want to own guns then you should accept the fact that you risk having your head blown off in the middle of the night by a SWAT team. Just as the car has introduced the risk of being killed in a trafic accident the gun has introduced new risks. If society dosen't like the risks then it can opt to ban the technology. If you want to own a gun because you have some kind of personality problem and you need to prop up your ego then Phill

8 14