- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

List of Explosives
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The correct URL for the latest ATF list of explosives: http://jya.com/atf042597.xt

3 2

hidden.net temporarily down
by Patrick May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The magic smoke escaped from the machine running remailer(a)hidden.net. It is being moved to a new machine forthwith. Expect a couple days downtime while the IP address change propogates. remailer-admin(a)hidden.net

1 0

Re: Mondex
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[unt] May is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. ||||||||||| \~0/ \0~/ < (0) > --oOO--/|||\--OOo- Tim C[unt] May

2 1

Re: War & InfoWar
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMonger wrote: > Of course, you have your own definintion of innocenent bystanders, >while others may have different definitions. .......................................................... To me, an innocent bystander would be someone who was walking by a building which was blown up by someone with a grudge against its occupants. You lose the point of your attack when you kill those who do not relate to the reason for your attack. "To save the village, we had to destroy it." .. Blanc

2 1

Money orders, debit cards, ...
by daw＠cs.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some court transcripts from the McVeigh case contain interesting information about real-life anonymous systems. See http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/okc.trial/transcripts/may/050697.eve.html Did you know that money orders are not so anonymous as you might think? On the order itself are digits identifying the post office where the order was purchased, as well as the date of purchase. Also, a private company testified on their money order service, and it comes out that they keep a computerized record of every money order purchase in a central database. Eek. And read about a real-life instance of traffic analysis of phone calls based on timing correlations. This one really happened, folks (though it was by mistake). Also, read about how a company offering prepaid debit cards searched through billions of records to find all phone calls to or from a certain number, etc. Read about how they entered a disk containing information on 100,000--200,000 phone calls (!) into evidence. (Note: contents of calls are protected by law, but traffic analysis specifically is allowed, far as I can tell.) And you value your privacy? Too bad!

2 1

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 18:35:34 -0700 > From: Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> > Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War) > Let us assume that it is unethical to force children to participate in the > production of child pornography. (For the benefit of Kent and the more > ignorant people on this list, I will state that I firmly believe this to be > true, despite the fact that doing so should be irrelevant for the argument.) > Furthermore, let us assume that there are a number of individuals who enjoy > looking at hard core child pornography. > The question then is: does going after the distributors provide a benefit > to the children being (potentially) used for such pictures? > The answer is clearly no. Assuming, tacitly of course, that the supply of distributors is unlimited. If the resource is limited, as it actualy is, by getting the distribution node you in effect cut many people off. Thus forcing either total denial or else direct intervention, thus raising the chance of getting caught because more persons would be involved than would normaly be the case. This in effect clearly indicates a benefit to going after the distributors. This argument can be extended to the film-maker as well. Now some will say that it doesn't matter, somebody else will always pop up. The problem with this is that we have a limited population and there are only a statistical percentage going to be interested in the activity. This implies that there is some set of persons who will not participate. The trick is to get the non-participants to be the larger of the two. > By limiting the distribution of an individual > picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy > market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand. By extension then full and complete public distribution would minimize it completely. So, you are seriously stating that we should put such pictures on the daily television, say during childrens hour? Now if we follow this further we are left with the image of our government hiring children to pose for said images because the supply of 'actual' images had diminished. That is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Plus the sicko's get free, danger free, thrills at the public expence. Wooo, just what I want my tax dollars spent on. We are clearly dealing with a cusp-shaped function here. The implication being that some form of regulation is beneficial if we want to actualy reduce child abuse. > Thus, by going after the distributors, Se7en causes more children to be > violated by child pornographers. Or just possibly making the supply even more scarce because fewer and fewer are willing to take the chance of making a few bucks. > The only question that remains is: how can he live with this? > > Logic != base emotions, Ahmen brother! Otherwise, feldercarb. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Moderation in all things, including moderation. | | | | -I wish I could remember- | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Intro to Cyptosystems talk 6/23 7pm
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: net-thinkers(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 14:32:34 -0700 From: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> To: Multiple recipients of <net-thinkers(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Intro to Cyptosystems talk 6/23 7pm ever wondered what the buzz about cryptography is all about.. You are all welcome to attend my "Introduction to Cyptosystems" tutorial at the BMUG South meeting.. It's open to the public. When: Monday, Jun 23 Time: 7:00 PM Where: Town Hall, Apple R&D Campus (blding 5) How long: 60 mins or so? --------------- Q: Why should you care about this stuff..? A: The internet is not a secure channel, It's easy intercept your email or files or even know what webpages youve been looking at. Cryptography is a tool that provides you privacy and protection from competitors and the news media scum. How much do you trust to the internet? Cryptography is also the best protector of the most cherished civil liberty: "the freedom of speech" Q: But I have no secrets to keep? A: Cryptography is not just about secrets, In addition to providing confidentiality, modern cryptography holds the building blocks necessary for successful electronic commerce. Authentication: The receiver of a message can ascertain it's origin; an intruder should not be able to masquerade as someone else. Integrity The receiver of a message can ensure that the data has not been modifed in transit; an intruder should not be able to substitute a false message for a legitimate one. Nonrepudiation A sender should not be able to falsely deny that he sent a message Q:Why should I care about electronic commerce. Apple hasnt done anything with it? A: That the point of this talk. E-Commerce will be a bigger market than anything we have ever been in before. Ask yourself, What is the biz proposition for anyone publishing on the NET and the answer will be net commerce. Q: what will you talk about What is Cryptography What it's used for How Cryptosystems work secret/public key encyption, digital signitures, modern crypto systems key management, e-commerce, Governement Issues This talk is NOT about Theoretical Mathematics Programming APIs Specific Products Who this talk is for Marketing Evangelist Engineer Anyone who needs to be Crypto competent There is a PDF of the slides at http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/papers.html Vinnie Moscaritolo That Crypto Guy at Apple... http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:22:44 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War) > Your economics education must have some gaps. Look into "price elasticity." > Look also at the markets for illegal drugs: despite severe "taxation" (in > the form of price increases of some drugs, increased prison terms, etc.), > some markets have increased even as prices have increased. Clearly this whole discussion can be broken down into a cusp shaped gap. Too much regulation will cause the market worth to soar hence driving a large increase in at least attempted revenue spent on the commodity. Whereas a complete lack of regulation will saturate the market hence driving suppliers and distributors out of the market, leaving a few megaliths. Somewhere in the middle is a point where there is actualy a minimum of the events you are trying to eliminate. > With drugs, knocking out distributors has in many cases increased the > selling price of the drug, making it actually more lucrative for street > dealers to enter the market. Actualy what it does is increase the perception of danger and difficulty in the mind of the user and low-level dealer. The actual cycle is much more complicated than Tim is alluding to here. First there is the total supply of raw material, processing, and distribution. This sets a hard baseline limit on the total available drug. Then we have a certain fluctuating percentage of the population who use it. If we study the typical 'addict cycle' for different drugs and users we see a multiplicity of cycles and patterns of behaviour (eg most users who don't od kick the habit after a period of time). Then we have the perception of those users on the availability of the drug. There is also the percentage of tax that a society can support at a given standard of living to support police activity specificaly for drug control. The image that John and Jane Doe have on the impact of drugs on their lives. And on and on... > This is not at all clear. If the crackdown on child porn, or porn in > general, causes the street price to rise to $10 a picture, say, then many > folks not producing child porn now might be tempted to get into the market. Any many who had thought about it would decline because of the increased chance of getting caught. Specificaly how are you justifying the assumption that the net effect would be to increase the total available distributors? It seems to me that such an arguments natural extension would be that it would increase the net number of movie makers not distributors. Consider, the number of distributors is reduced by a very public campaign. Obviously two things come from this. First is the actual reduction of available material and the perception that distribution is a very dangerous game. So what does our enterprising pedophile do? He buys himself a camera and proceeds to make his own for him and his buddies. Hell, if he gets too worried he can start killing the kids so they can't squeel. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

5 5

Response to "My War"
by se7en 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been away for most of the day, and came home to see I hit a sensitive spot in one way or another with many people. I tried to respond to many people who sent me private messages, but for some strange ass reason all of my mail is bouncing as "host unknown." I am quite sure aol.com exists. So I am going to try and respond to much of it here. In my long rant, I realized the message was getting too long, and paraphrased some of my larger thoughts. I figured everyone would know what I was trying to get at, but I was wrong. To clarify a few points, before I get to the debate: I was not advocating the destruction of servers that are used by large numbers of people. I was thinking of the terminology used by the people trading...fserv/ftp servers, many of which are virtual to their desktops which can be shut on and off at will by them as desired. My reference to destruction of servers fit this definition. I don't want to affect large numbers of innocent users to get the few scumbags out there. That is not acceptable. Precision strikes yes, not mass strikes for the "greater good." That is asinine. Nor was I attempting, as some did point out, to be some sort of "ring leader" in this crusade. I do not plan to organize some large anti-kiddie porn team. I plan on spending a few hours a week, on my own, identifying active participants in this activity. I plan on gathering logs of various types of activity to justify my actions. I plan on taking action which will affect only these individuals. I will make public postings on my own accord to various places on the Internet (dc-stuff WILL NOT be one of these places). These are things I am doing on my own. If others would like to join the effort, I would ask they do the same thing. Spend a few hours a week in their world to identify the traders and do what you do best to either wreck them or make things a serious hassle for them to continue. I do not want a personal strike team to organize and manage. As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and upload it to the Internet. No one has the right to force a six year old girl to suck his dick until cum is running down her face, take pictures of the whole thing, and, once again, upload it to the Internet. This is not covered. Go back to school if you think it is. Anyone who thinks this doesn't affect the young children, you are wrong. I doubt these children consented to the sexual activity. I doubt they consented to being photographed. I doubt they consented to the pictures being distributed to others. I am sure this affects the emotional/psychological state of the child victim in many ways beyond what most of us can understand. I think we can all agree that is creates a less-than-optimal psychological state in the children. I know my actions are themselves illegal. I am not going to try to morally justify it with comments such as "It's for the greater good," or "What they are doing is more illegal than hacking." I know my actions against these people are illegal, and many for good reason. It is destruction of property. I am honest enough to admit I will be breaking laws. At least I don't try to rationalize it behind some strange, twisted sense of logic. I am not here to force my morals on anyone. If you agree with me, fine. If you have the ability to do something about it, fine. If you disagree, fine. I have had some disagreements against my email/plan/whatever. I have read evry single one of them. I do not hate those who disagree with me. I see the logic in their arguments. I actually encourage it, as it helps me to define what I plan to do better. Everyone has the right to say what they want, whether they agree or not. That includes me, that includes you. This, of course, as long as it doesn't violate the more fundamental rights of others. Agree with me? Yes. Disagree with me? Yes. Distribute child porn. No! On an interesting note, in instances where I have talked one-on-one with law enforcement agencies in the past, I have thrown several hypothetical cases their way to judge their reaction: (A small glimpse of my Defcon speech) ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and poked around a left, would you arrest me?" THEM: "No. We don't have the time or resources for that. We aren't interested in the people who look around without causing damage despite what everyone thinks." ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and destroyed it, would you arrest me." THEM: "Most definitely." ME: "If I was at Defcon and entered a system without authorization that was dedicated to the distribution of child pornography and destroyed it, and you were looking over my shoulder the whole time and saw what I did, would you arrest me?" THEM" "I would turn around and walk away." se7en

3 2

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Subject: How "child porn" laws ban pix of girls in leotards > > At 11:54 -0700 6/9/97, Vangelis wrote: > >None of this out-of-control angry mob shit, alright? THINK. If it's too > >hard a task to go after ONLY those genuinely responsible and you'd rather > >go after their friends, family, co-workers, customers, or anyone else > >you've rationalized as somehow indirectly encouraging the activity w/o > >actually participating, then you've got no business playing vigilante - > >you've become just another wreckless crusader *blinded* by his own > >self-righteous outrage. Christianity, the Nazi Party, and Prohibition, and > >McCarthyism (just to name a few) have already given us enough of those. It seems logical to deduce that a child pornographer would want to cover up their activity by loud protestations about child porno on the internet. The obvious solution to child pornography on the internet is to attack those who most loudly protest against it. > The main reason folks seem to be in a lather about the "threat" of child > porn is that it might ruin the Net for everyone. That is, it gives Congress > an excuse to censor it and bring it under ever-tightening controls. Perhaps the answer, as with alcohol and gambling, is to put child pornography under government regulatory control. Find a way to tax it. Then only those who were not decent, law-abiding child pornographers would have to fear imprisonment. > Also, I see a lot of uninformed rants on this list about "we must uphold > child porn laws." Few people seem to realize that the long-standing Federal > child porn law outlawed *pictures of dancing girls wearing leotards*. I'm > not making this up. No nudity. No breasts. Certainly no genitals. But the > Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the Knox case. Now the law is even > worse, since it criminalizes morphed images that *look* like kids in > leotards, even if the models were 25-year old adults. And William Geiger could be criminalized by the fact that his bad speling and the gramma make his posts *look* like crypto. TruthMonger

1 0