- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

All Children Work in Sweatshops
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One of the interesting things about the child porn crusades is the terminology manipulation employed to officially describe more and more innocuous things as officially being "child porn," and by inference, describing those who object the slightest bit to the government's violation of the First Ammendment as "child porn supporters." Now the wonders of government terminology have been applied to a new problem, the "scourge" of child labor. While an historical review will clearly demonstrate that laws preventing minors from working and earning a living had their origins in times when adult unemployment was high, and were heavily pushed by the public school teachers labor unions and immigrant parents outraged that their children had an opportunity for financial independence, the myth that such laws exist to "protect children" instead of to economically and politically disempower them persist. Enter the current crusade, being heavily trumpeted by the media, to rescue children from "sweatshops." What is a sweatshop, you may ask? According to the official definition, a "sweatshop" is a workplace that engages in repeated labor violations involving wages, hours worked, or the age of its employees. So by the magic of government definitions, all unlawfully employed minors automatically work in "sweatshops," by virtue of their being illegally employed. All people arguing for the right of minors to work of course "support sweatshops," and all consumers and stores who buy goods produced by these illegally employed minors are purchasing "goods produced by children working in sweatshops." 290,200 children are alleged to have been employed illegally last year, (in sweatshops of course). And woe to anyone who doesn't support the call to liberate these children from their paychecks. (er, sweatshops) The US is now attempting to export its crusade against so-called "child labor" to third world nations, citing of course only the most egregious examples in the case histories it presents. The US still refuses to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because it prohibits the execution of minors, which many US states permit, and guarantees minors access to reproductive health information. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Very Preliminary release of IPSEC code for Linux (fwd)
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 01:32:11 +0200 From: John Ioannidis <ji(a)hol.gr> To: ipsec(a)TIS.COM Subject: Very Preliminary release of IPSEC code for Linux -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings! The Linux IPSP implementation I have been working on lately is finally at a stage where it can benefit from feedback, and also where other may also benefit from it. This is NOT an untar-and-play release; far from it. It is being made available so that it can reach the UnP stage faster than if only I work on it. The code compiles into a loadable module for the 2.0.xx (I'm running 2.0.24) kernel. Use at your own risk. I won't be held responsible even if it mails the contents of your filesystems to the NSA and the KGB (or whatever), and then proceeds to encrypt them :-) The gzip-ed tar file is in: http://prometheus.hol.gr/~ji/ipsec-0.2.tar.gz If you want to mirror it to your ftp site, please drop me a note. Enjoy! /ji -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCVAgUBMnk2+c+A0YctPurVAQFSSAQAkt6e6a8TiYNcZ0rcLnxzIjm3uUTyYP3W sUaM9hkMYsDbePdc/O9GoA5Q/HnAg4/BNl+Tla1Os72NCq+uDZX2gDnlUFktnd9b q3S961FIL+ilmV0TepmQGGImjXPpThWMg4FKK7bhaiymcepJ7xs43sJoFEfkQ+uZ iUxTEo2j1Ro= =ztQp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When posted MISTY algorithm source code, I hadn't read "A Cypherpunk's Manifesto" yet. Such a fee was set up as a result. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Compromise proposal
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[this goes to cypherpunks(a)toad.com and freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org. I am not reading f-k, but I am interested in Dave Hayes's opinion.] Hi, I am not normally considered an ally of Dimitri Vulis, so let this be an attempt at being impartial. Many members of cypherpunks list are right when they oppose the forced unsubscription of Dimitri Vulis from this list. The sorry state of this list is not the result of his flames alone, there is a large number of people who discuss things of no cryptographic relevance. We should remember that besides flames and scandals, Vulis has been posting things that are most relevant to this list's topic. We should also remember that individuals have the right and responsibility to define what content they want to see and what content they do not want to see. I am surprised at libertarians putting forward propositions that are intended to promote welfare of "new subscribers" and try to shield them from "lies". Similarly, individuals are free to create voluntary moderated associations as they see fit. As it was created, this mailing list was not a moderated association. At the same time, unfortunately, flames that Dimitri generated had rendered previously 80% unusable list to be 99% unusable. These flames had zero value for me personally. Since cypherpunks is a private list (although it used to be unmoderated), I can understand the list owner who wants to save his creature from total destruction. I propose the following: 1) The block on Dimitri Vulis's subscriptions should be removed 2) We should not impose any limitations on anyone's speech except 3) 3) Dimitri and everyone else should put prefix "[FLAME]" into all Subject: header fields of their flame-related messages. 4) The sole discretion of determining what is flame and what is not should be exercised by John Gilmore. His definition of "flame" can be as broad as reasonably necessary. 5) John Gilmore should have the right to forsibly unsubscribe, for a period not exceeding two months, anyone who posts flames and does not use the right prefix. 6) Cypherpunks list owner shall have the right to install any filters he considers necessary in order to catch and review any messages before they go to all subscribers, solely in order to verify their compliance with item 3). Messages that do not comply may be rejected and their authors can be unsubscribed, as defined in 5). This solution will allow anyone with a clue to use appropriate filtering and improve the signal-noise ratio, and at the same time will not in any way limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am also eagerly awaiting when Perry creates a moderated cypherpunks list. - Igor.

1 0

$145 turned to $1300: BEST investment for ANYBODY
by woostp＠ns.interred.co.cr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend: Earlier this week I sent you this very same letter and since I have not heard from you I imagined either it didn't get delivered or you accidentally hit "delete" on it. Or you simply just haven't gotten around it. I don't think you want to wait around much longer. Especially if like other friends of mine and business relationships, you are interested in MULTIPLYING SUBSTANTIALLY (and in a very short time) a very small investment. So here again, is a copy of my letter. Today I write you to share one of the most simple and beneficial investments I found in the last months. I waited effectively several months to verify the incidence of my decision and truly, I am so glad of this one, that I decided to share it with a selected handful of people. I was proposed to invest $145 minimum and $485 maximum to receive a basic $1300 in the first months with a program, by sharing it with a very few friends. (I took the $485 option). Conclusion: not only didn't I have to wait one year to see a 800% of return on my investment, but I had the surprise to receive this amount SEVERAL TIMES BY MONTH. It seems incredible, but it's true. The American Company offering this program is not only serious, but I could personally speak with the President and the CPA and they have been reliable for the few friends I shared the program with. So, if I awakened your interest just a little bit, this is the moment and opportunity to give a look to the complete information pulling the FAX ON DEMAND # 716-720-2106 or visiting the following WEBSITE: http://peopleschoice.com/STP/home.html And remember, do as I did by considering this opportunity as an investment, and, applying the program, it will give you the most secure and fantastic yield you can find. FOR ONLY $145 to $485. Just try it, contemplating that the risk is around zero and share it with two or three of your best friends just after you applied. To participate, you must indicate a sponsor number. I would be glad if you used mine, it is: # 983 registered under the name of my corporation, WOOSTER CORP. So don't hesitate on this opportunity my friend. You are getting today one of the most safe and simple ways to increase a very little capital SEVERAL TIMES. Just try it as I did. Friendly Jean Marc Gelot CEO / WOOSTER CORP.

1 0

Interview with Cindy Cohn
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's an excellent but short interview with Cindy Cohn, the attorney on the Bernstein Snuffle case, on the San Jose Mercury site: http://www.sjmercury.com/business/center/cohnqa121597.htm She has a knack for getting to the crux in clear and logical steps. Good stuff -- should make it all obvious to the judges! -- Jim Gillogly Sterday, 25 Foreyule S.R. 1997, 07:34 12.19.4.13.12, 2 Eb 10 Mac, Second Lord of Night

1 0

Re: Computer Security Risk Assessment Software?
by Frank Willoughby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:44 PM 11/1/96 -0800, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> allegedly wrote: >Frank Willoughby wrote: >> The solutions to the above-mentioned problems are: >> Shop around. Find out which consultants are qualified and what they charge. >> Make sure the consultant caps his cost. You should know the maximum price tag >> associated with the consulting engagement BEFORE the consultant walks in the front >> door. This helps to avoid having the consultant camp on your doorstep at $XXX >> dollars per hour for days, weeks, or months on end. > >The above is a nice ideal. You should of course get a "really good" consultant, >and even better, get one who's "real honest". But my guess is those guys cost the >most of all, or at the very least, require the most research to find. Good point. To help establish the honesty, it wouldn't hurt to get personal and business references. It also wouldn't hurt to check the BBB (Better Business Bureau - a consumer rights group) to see if there are any complaints against the company. Ideally, the consultanting company would also be in the BBB's Care program which means that they will submit to binding arbitration in the event of a disagreement. (BTW, the BBB also investigates all claims to weed out claims made by one competitor against another, etc.). >The ideal of capping the cost is commendable as well, however, when the consultant >finds midway through the project that his initial estimate (made as carefully as he >possibly can) is way too low, he will now have an incentive to lie, cut corners,etc., >*particularly* if the customer looks like one of those antsy types who might withhold >payments and so on. Depends on the consulting company. It is also a good measure which can be used to separate the weasels from the good guys. The weasels will do exactly what you said. The good guys won't. Granted that once in a while, there will be a contract which will have some surprises in it and you - won't make as much money as you were supposed to. IMHO, this is a part of doing business. Usually, you will win, but once in a while you will lose. These things will happen. Learn what went wrong and take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Then go back to succeeding. BTW, I think it is the customer's right to withhold payments until the job has been performed to the customer's satisfaction. >My advice: Get a consultant to find a good IT consultant. Seriously. If you have the money to spend, this may be a good idea. Personally, I would tend to separate IT consultants from InfoSec consultants. InfoSec is a highly specialized field & seasoned InfoSec Officers don't exactly grow on trees (as companies who don't have one and are trying desparately to find one will testify). Seasoned InfoSec Officers who are consulting for customers are even rarer, but I would rather have that to have the security of my corporation depend on an IT consultant who has never had any experience working as an Information Security Officer (who has successfully implemented Information Security in a real business environment). There is no substitute for experience, IMHO. Food for thought. Best Regards, Frank Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec <standard disclaimer> The opinions expressed above are of the author and may not necessarily be representative of Fortified Networks Inc. Fortified Networks Inc. - Information Security Consulting http://www.fortified.com Phone: (317) 573-0800 FAX: (317) 573-0817 Home of the Free Internet Firewall Evaluation Checklist

2 1

Welcome to OANDA financial services
by webmaster＠olsen.ch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Fred Cypherpunk, Thank you for registering with OANDA! You may begin to use your account (cypherpunks) immediately to access any of the following services: - OANDA's advanced financial forecasting services. Refer to our pricing plan to find out how to best use your free credit. Please note that starting December 1, 1997, all of our prices are handled in US dollars. - OANDA's Customizable Currency Converter. Now you can customize OANDA's popular 164 Currency Converter with the look and feel of your Web site. Feel free to try your own customization. It's free for designing and testing. Please refer to our Customizable Currency Converter for information about how to activate your customized currency converter. We would be glad to help with any questions you may have. Thanks again for using our services. Explore and enjoy! The OANDA Team e-mail: oanda-info(a)oanda.com http://www.oanda.com

1 0

Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rashidk(a)mailexcite.com (Rashid Kaman) > X-No-Archive: yes > >Shades of McCarthyism.... > > Such big words, my my! :-) Sorry, I forgot you were from DataBasix, where most words are four letters in length. (Hint: I wasn't talking about CHARLIE McCarthy...) > >Strangely enough, a search of the public database of listed telephone numbers > >turns up nothing for you. > > Why did you look for it? To be a champion of privacy you first have > to respect privacy. Of course I respect privacy. Your phone number would only have been there if you'd CHOSEN to have it listed by the phone company, right? And if you'd chosen to have it listed, then it would be logical to assume that you WANTED people to have it. It's not like I went to your phone company and demanded that they turn over a listing of their unlisted numbers. (Your buddy Burnore, OTOH, did demand a list of all the users of the Huge Cajones Remailer from their logs. In case you're unclear on the concept, people use remailers so that people like Gary and Belinda WON'T have access to their e-mail addresses.) It was Gary Burnore and Belinda Bryan who've been denouncing "hiding behind" anything, so I found it sort of ironic that all of them have unlisted phone numbers while whining about my unlisted e-mail address. (Should I adopt Burnore's tactics and start calling the denizens of DataBasix "Unlisted Assholes"? Nah!) > >> >If remailers were shut down, I'd lose my ability to post. > >> > >> Why is that? > > > >For the same reason you'd no longer be able to post from mailexcite.com if > >someone decided to shut it down! > > That's not an answer, it's a cope out. "Cope out"? Sorry, I don't have a DataBasix-speak dictionary, and am not familiar with your in-house (or outhouse) jargon. Regardless of whether it is a "cope out" or not, it is an answer. Sorry if you don't approve. If the remailer I use for posting were to shut down, I obviously would no longer be able to utilize that resource, just as you'd no longer be able to use mailexcite.com if that were to be shut down. Something about that too difficult for you to understand? You might feel differently if Billy "Wotan" McClatchie had gone after Mailexcite rather than Mailmasher.

1 0

Montgolfiering, the Hot Air Balloon of Cryptography -Reply
by Sean Vince-Jillings 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody quoth >Fie on the small minds that cackle at my brilliance! As a Mensa member >and >founder of the Society for Superintelligent Former NSA Employees, I >chortle >at the baseness of callow criticisms by those doubters and dilletantous >denigrators of virtual one-time pads and PRNGs (perfect random >number >generators). So Mr Smarty Pants, how does it feel to be the second most intelligent life form on the planet? Your polysyllabic phrasing does not fish you from the unfortunate and precarious position of only being in the second most august and lofty eyrie of intellect in the upward spiral of extropian realisation. Ha! As the Shadow president of the Alien Consortium that controls MENSA through the Boy Scout Freemason Recruitment Program, I refute your dubious and somewhat ill-considered claims to being the very paragon of intelligence. >Montgolfiering. What is it, you ask? It is demonstrably a new paradigm in >the evolution of homo sapiens (Parry Messger excepted) toward >Shannon's >dream of a one-time pad needing only a single, easily memorizable >number as >a seed. I have heard only silence when I challenged the so-called >superbrains of this latargial list to try to determine which number I am >using as the seed of my system. If you are such great smarty pants, far >smarter than my colleagues at the NSA and at Mauchly-Wood, why can >you not >then determine this number? I can. >Could it be because I have outsmarted >you? >Could it be because I understand the Sufi secrets of picking random >numbers >truly randomly? I submit this to you: 8 31 26 3 19. Now, oh great >ones, >tell me, what is the next number in this sequence? 11. Prove me wrong. > >Ha, you cannot predict this next number, can you, oh gibbering >greatnesses? Bullshit. I just did >Ths proves that my perfect random number genarator (PRNG, for those >of you >too stupid to remember) PRNG.Its hard to forget such a stupid name. >cannot be broken. Q.E.D. > >I question the issue of Parry Messger's objectivity in assessing the >brilliance of my importations and acidulous assertations. I question >whether Parry may have a peculiarly pecuniary interest in these >affairs? >Does Parry have an insider, or other position, or interest in one or more >of the RSA interest? If, this explains his fantastical faith in the core of >this so-called "RSA" system, which I proved to my colleagues at NSA >could >not possibly be valid. Why, you ask? Because it contains no virtual >seed, >and that which has no seed cannot grow. Q.E.D.--it has been >debunked. No, it only looks debunked because your mind has been unhinged. > >Entropy, you quibble? Ha! What is entropy but thermodynamics? And >what is >the topic of thermodynamics, you small-minded ensemble (Gibbs) >people who >never worked for the NSA may ask? Thermodynamics is about hot air. >Hot air >is in balloons. Balloons were pioneered by the Montgolfiers. Thus we >come >full circle (can you understand this, you mental midgets?). Q.E.D.--it >has >been demystified. No. It has been filled with hot air in the hope that the argument will float. > >Montgolfiering = a new virtual one time pad based on hot air. Eureka! I >have found it. > >P Information = P * log_base_infinity P Log_base_infinity? You can't quantify this? The name for this kind of tricky sum is in fact, rhetoric. >I laugh at your sanctimonious snivelings, your bombastic bombardings, >and >your fatuous flatulations. I laugh about your need to be so prissy about a simple fart. >(Montgolfiering. Q.E.D.--"it has been deflated") heh. yeah right. GAIAWired

1 0