- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

GOPHERD FOR SOLARIS 2.5
by dani＠193.144.104.4 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi!, IŽm looking for a gopher server for Solaris 2.5, IŽve tried in the Sunsite, but succesless. Does anybody know where else may I find a gopher server for Solaris 2.4?. Thanks in advance. Danny. dani(a)gva.es _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Daniel Díaz Luengo. dani(a)gva.es _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Consellerìa de Presidència _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ C/Micalet nº5. _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Valencia-(Spain) (96)-386-38-57

1 0

Re: MSNBC and cookies
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Microsoft and GE, the parent corporation of NBC, are participants in the >FBI's "Web Awareness Program." Like the FBI's "Library Awareness Program," >which tracked which books were being checked out by which patrons, the Web >Awareness Program tracks user interests at Web sites. > >The WAP has already allowed the FBI and other intelligence agencies to >check up on several people who appeared to have an unusual interest in the >TWA 800 case. > >(Don't spend too much time in certain sites, friends.) This is interesting. Where can one find reliable sources to verify this information? (The existance of a WAP, and the use of it in the TWA 800 case). //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: Reasonable validation of a software package
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:12 PM -0700 7/18/96, Carl Ellison wrote: > >The problem people overlook is that a CA binds a public key to a name but >the name is in the CA's name space. For me, a verifier, to derive any >value from a certificate binding (key,name), the name has to be in *my* >name space. > >If there were such a thing as a global namespace meaningful to everyone, >then we could both use it. That's the X.500 falacy/pipe-dream. Think of the common name on a certificate as if it were a first-come, first-served serial number of alphanumeric form. There's no reason to believe that John Smith is YOUR John Smith. Your John Smith might tell you he's John Smith 37. It's kinda like vanity license plates. The alternative is every privacy fan's nightmare--embedded SSNs or some such in certificates. Some of the problems, of course, will be of the users' own making and there they get to pay their money and take their choice. What I mean is that you can optionally include or suppress your e-mail address in Type I certificates, and real address in Type IIs. If you include it you improve the chances of being the "right" John Smith someone is after. If you prefer privacy you will also be less accessible. I see nothing unusual about that--after all, people with unlisted phone numbers are ultimately inaccessible except (pretty much) to those to whom they give the info. > >The fact is, no global name space could be held in one human's mind, so >there's no way a global name space could be meaningful to me. Nor is there any reason it should be. It isn't, now. > >So, to use a certificate from a CA, I need to map a name from its name >space (DN) into a name in my name space (nickname). Every time I've looked >at that process, I've had to have a secure channel over which to learn from >the person I call by that nickname what DN he goes by. Why does it have to be a secure channel? Why can't it be published (for instance by including the address in the certificate)? >If I have that >secure channel, then he could tell me his public key fingerprint ove that >cnnel -- and I wouldn't need the CA. Why wouldn't you use the certificate to bind the public key to the name and address? What need would there be for fingerprint communication? How is this different from 20 John Smiths in the phone book at 20 different street addresses? I'd better know the address of the John Smith I want if I'm to get his phone number from a directory. Note that I'm not attacking what you say. There's clearly something you're getting at that I don't understand--since you post sensible stuff (as far as I recall). Help me out here. David

1 0

Re: US versions of Netscape now available
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199607190709.IAA00119(a)server.test.net> you wrote: : Jeff Weinstein <jsw(a)netscape.com> writes: : > Adam Back wrote: : > > Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once : > > it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc. : > : > Just a minor nit. No netscape software is freely distributable. : > The license agreement does not allow people who download it : > to redistribute it. : Oh dear! So I am incorrect... but wait, what about people like : sunsite northern europe (Imperial College London: ftp.doc.ic.ac.uk) : who already have a license to be a Netscape mirror site. Would this : license allow them to distribute this latest 128 bit netscape beta : (were it to leak)? I would like to know what Netscape's position on the above mentioned scenario is .. (Uploading "possibly" received 128 bit binaries to official netscape mirrors outside the US, that is) (guess why ...) bEST Regards, -- -AJ-

2 1

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>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. Choosing what you read and choosing what other people (including your children) read is the difference between filtering and censoring. I didn't say filtering was wrong, I said censorship was wrong. >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 am sorry to hear. I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more harm than good. I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will leave it up to you to read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for very strong arguements in my support. >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. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the filtering programs we were discussing allow a user very little, if any, ability to "set his filters differently". >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. Again, I agree, and thought I had made that clear. However, that doesn't mean we can't object on a social (opposed to governmental) level. I repeat: just because a government doesn't have the right to oppose private censorship doesn't make it OK. >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." I was under the impression that most on the list were avowed libertarians, and would rather the State didn't intervene in any part of your (or your son's) life. However, I would still argue that restricting your son's access is more of a detriment to your son than allowing it, then discussing why it is Wrong (or whatever) and why he feels it is necessary to read such things. I would also argue that you are right in that the State has no right to force you to raise your child in any way. But, as I stated in another post, the problem is not just the government. >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). I fail to see how trying to breed attitudes that you allegedly avow is "propaganda". The book you cited is intended as a means of teaching acceptance, not necessarily approval. You say you tolerate homosexuals, but that is not a wide-spread practice yet. Violence and ridicule is the more common response to openly homosexual behaviour, and that book is meant to stop such bigoted reactions. You'll note that nowhere in the book does it say anyone *should* be homosexual, it merely says that it's okay if you are and you should accept others who are. >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). Please show me an instance where you or your children (if you had any) would have been forced into practicing homosexuality by anything taught in a public school or shown on a web page. Exposure to a lifestyle and having that life- style's practices forced on you are not the same. Would you allow your children to learn about Nazi Germany? I find the lifestyle of the Nazi positively disgusting, but wouldn't think to prevent my child from learning about it. Same thing with other cultures, religions, political principles, etc. The simple fact that this particular issue is regarding sexuality bears no significance to the arguement. A child (or any other person) should not be restricted access to any sort of information available about any topic, unless she is restricting her own access (filtering). <garbage regarding AIDS/etc ignored> //cerridwyn//

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

At 8:48 AM 7/19/96, Simon Spero wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> 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 > >Actually, the Economist has, er, come out strongly in favour of gay >rights on numerous occasions- most recently on the issue of same sex >marriages. Sure, and I didn't exactly state what my position _is_ on so-called queer rights. I said I have no interest in hearing nonsense about it, e.g., the drumbeat of propaganda, etc. Of course, it should come as no surprise that I believe everyone has the legal right to refuse to associate with anyone. Thus, a shop owner or employer, in my view, has every right to refuse service or employment to whomever he wishes. While many may not _like_ this (including me, when I am banned from certain businesses, as I am), it is part and parcel of liberty. --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."

1 0

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Sternlight writes: > Here's the problem in a nutshell: Everyone who has looked at our systems, > from Cliff Stoll A *famous* security expert. >on to blue ribbon scientific commissions, The last of which recommended that crypto be entirely deregulated. > Serious studies have shown that the kinds of protections to make the > systems we depend on robust against determined and malicious attackers (say > a terrorist government, or one bent on doing a lot of damage in retaliation > for one of our policies they don't like), have costs beyond the capability > of individual private sector actors. Defense is cheaper than attack in encryption because it is easier to make coherent information incoherent (see Usenet) than it is to make incoherent information coherent. > In such a case, where public benefits from government action greatly exceed > public (taxpayer) costs, and the private sector cannot (or will not) act > unaided, the classical basis for government action in the interests of the > citizenry exists. It's the economist's "lighthouse" argument. But since the Internet and the WANs and LANs that you are talking about are all "private value-added networks," the benefits of enhanced security a fully captured by the users of those networks and there is no "public goods" problems. (BTW, there were private lighthouses too.) Note too that major money center banks disagree with you. There was a recent article about the fact that they are not reporting computer intrusions and just fixing the problems themselves. They don't seem interested in official security "help" with all the disadvantages (publicity and security leaks) that it brings. DCF

2 1

No Subject
by weffross＠counsel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Inet unsubscribe weffross(a)counsel.com Thanks!

1 0

BIG_dif
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-19-96. NYP: "AT&T and Wells Fargo Investing in an Electronic Cash Card." The companies said that they would form the American affiliate of Mondex. Any one with a Mondex card can transfer electronic cash to anyone else with a card. This flexibility has raised concerns both about the possibility of counterfeiting and of money laundering. Because of these concerns, Mondex has been modified in the United States so that banks will be able to track card use. That will allow them to audit for fraud, if not recreate every transaction. Data from Mondex cards will be used for various product marketing. "We believe there should be privacy, but there is a big difference between privacy and anonymity," Dudley Nigg, executive vice president of Wells Fargo, said. ----- http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/bigdif.txt (4 kb) BIG_dif

1 0

Inventor of radio...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I would like to correct a misconception about who is credited with the invention of radio. Nikola Tesla has held the credit for the creation since the resolution of the original lawsuit in the mid-80's. Tata. Jim Choate Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Mail-order Ph.D.'s > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 96 07:37:24 EDT > > He also invented the radio, but Marconi+Popov stole the credit from him.

2 1