- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Privacy Without Tears
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Excellent. This is much-needed. Please see >"http://www.c2.org/~bryce/WhatIsPGP.html", and consider >cross-linking with me. Will do - URL squirreled away for when I do the References pages. Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: >> A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" >> idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on >> the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_ >> announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who >> correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of >> rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or >> appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, >> and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital >> cash. >> > >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply >because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and >moraly or ethicaly undefensible. That's a misleading statement: You said, "simply because..." As should be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone killed "simply because" of the fact I "don't agree with them." It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so. >> On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a >> government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck >> of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights >> beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident >> and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various >> acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, >> presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under >> libertarian principles. >> > >Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or >another. That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. I'm amazed that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list. While I don't know precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a REALLY weird definition of that. Somehow, I think that this is where your argument fails, and it fails miserably. >By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to >protect us against. Sorry, I disagree. Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually believe in that. Most people seem to think that they are entitled to protect themselves from violations of rights. The fact that these violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it. Anybody who feels entitled to use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in itself, a violation of my rights. Are you a statist?

1 0

Re: "Rights"
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com wrote: >What happens when there *is* no remedy, when there are no other sites to >go to, when there are no employers who would refrain from violating an >employee's privacy? What then? Easy! Either you do not get on the net or you start your own ISP service. It might cost money. i.e. requires work, but it is feasible. No one, neither company nor individual, owes you to provide you with a link simply because you *wish* it. If it were otherwise, anybody with the ability to produce would become slaves to the ones who don't. Enslavement of Ables for the sole benefit of the Not-Able. It would be punishment for being good. Principles must take precedence over a temporary wish. JFA Selfishness is a virtue!

1 0

Re: Privacy Without Tears
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:53 PM 2/10/96 -0800, Lunaslide wrote: >If everyone not only has a link to these pages in text, but also has their >"PGP secured!", or similar little graphic on their pages, linked to these >sites as well, it would save a lot of people a lot of redundant explaining >and it would help spread the word about PGP like wildfire to the masses. I like that a lot! A nifty graphic would be the old-fashioned engraving of a padlock on the O'Reilly book about PGP. Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

This is not "This-is-not-punks" either
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:11 PM 2/10/96, Mixmaster wrote: >Lemeur Alexanderpunks, or perryrants vs. perryisanasspunks, >or CDAisdumbpunks, it's CYPHERpunks. Could everyone please >get closer to back on topic, there is work to do. Rant at >congress, not here! >XYZ Is anyone stopping you or anyone else from talking about quadratic residues, or Fiat-Shamir protocols, or the IETF proceedings? I didn't think so. People talk about what is on their mind. This week it's the CDA, a while back it was Jim Clark, and at various times we have talked about a truly vast number of subjects. Sometimes we talk about C code (not often), often we repeat ancient conversations about random numbers and steganography, and very occasionally we get into a new topic. This is not surprising, echoing as it does the patterns of conversations in real life. The scolding by people who think things are "off-topic" is not constructive. If they think people should be talking about some topic they consider more appropriate, let them start talking about it. Crypto is a hard subject, the technical part of it. If the list confined itself to this subject, very little discussion would take place. A Wei Dai might announce a new package every few months, someone might ask whether IDEA is better than Blowfish every couple of weeks, and maybe a Hal Finney would note that his analysis of RC4 is complete. Not much discussion, given the "depth" of these subjects. (And isn't sci.crypt a much better place for these discussions anyway? Why have the Cypherpunks mailing list at all if the only "appropriate" topics are those that duplicate what is already going on in sci.crypt?) Finally, I am always struck by how the most consistently scolding folks here ("Can't we get back to crypto?") are also the ones most prone to going off on their own rants when the mood hits them. Perhaps this is what they fear--the fear that someone else will say something that *must be rebutted* and thus cause them to go off on their own rant! Instead of ignoring the words that bother them, they declare that a topic is not suitable. Worse, they even engage in what psychologists call "magical thinking": they confuse cause and effect and claim that the actions of others will "cause" bad things to happen. We see this is the stupid comments along the lines of "I hope you're happy when the NSA wins, all because you made the list talk about Vince Foster instead of DES!!!!" People will talk about what they want to talk about. The way to shift the focus to what you think should be talked about is to write interesting and persuasive posts, not decry the topics others think important. The best way not to have the list "sidetracked" is to not respond to things you think are off-topic. Another version of this plaintive wail about topicality is the repetition of that comforting mantra "Cypherpunks write code." Overused in the extreme (though based on good ideas, that actually implementing systems is more interesting and more world-changing than merely discussing theory), this is used by people who wish others would shut up about some subject. As a way to have the last word. Sort of like writing, "As I've just finished explaining to you dullards in this 5-page post about why the Jacobins were actually proto-Libertarians, I must repeat that "Cypherpunks write code." So I now ask must ask you to accept what I have written on the French attitude toward libertarianism and get back to what this list is really about. If you continue to argue with me, you will be doing the NSA's work for them." (There's that magical thinking again.) (Why anyone would want others to shut up is beyond me...this is what filters are for. Anyone who can't filter out messages, either directly or by deleting them quickly, probably isn't in a position to "write code" anyway, so what's the issue? No, what I really think the issue is for these "control freaks" (to use the accepted term) is that it simply grates on them that other people are not more like themselves, are not interested in the same things they are at the same time they are. And they think that by scolding others they can force them to change their ways. Guess what? It doesn't work.) I was recently accused in private mail, and maybe public mail as well, by someone of "diverting" the list into a discussion of the Hiroshima bomb and its moral implications. I disagree. When Rich Graves asked originally, "Who holds up the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as great victories against tyranny?" I said "Since you ask, I do. A land invasion of Japan would've likely cost half a million American lives, and perhaps a million or more Japanese citizen lives, according to comprehensive studies I think are on the mark." This simple response--admittedly not related to DES or IETF or even Netscape--elicited flames, charges of racism, counter-arguments, and such. So? While I chose to sit out most of that flame war, you didn't hear me wailing "Can't we just get back to talking about Diffie-Hellman?" This is what filters are for. And what ignoring threads is for. I repeat, if you want others to spend more time talking about the things that you think need talking about, then set an example and begin the conversation. Don't just childishly wail about what others are talking about isn't "on charter." --Tim May, who will continue to write about what he wishes to write about Boycott espionage-enabled 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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From jimbell(a)pacifier.com Sat Feb 10 20:31:23 1996 > Message-Id: <m0tlQnv-00092TC(a)pacifier.com> > X-Sender: jimbell(a)pacifier.com > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:41:30 -0800 > To: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd) > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > > At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > > > >Forwarded message: > > >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply > >because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and > >moraly or ethicaly undefensible. > > That's a misleading statement: You said, "simply because..." As should > be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone > killed "simply because" of the fact I "don't agree with them." It is their > ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking > their deaths, should I choose to do so. > But it is not clear at all. Exactly how do their actions violate your rights? Are these the rights that you believe that you possess or the ones that are recognized? Do the actions have to effect you directly and immediately or must you merely percieve a threat? All of these issues are unclear in your presentation. And for the final one, doesn't your putting a contract out on them violate their rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of hapiness)? The only answer to this is 'yes', meaning that to be ethical you must put a contract out on yourself. Because your own actions violate somebodies rights. This catch-22 situation regarding deadly force is why anarchy does not work. A perhaps less different example might be: If you dislike bigots then you are a bigot. In short, you can't help but become what you hate the most. It pays not to hate or be quick to use violence since they are so strongly related. It is not yours, the governments, or anyone elses right to decide who lives and dies. You have a double standard. > > >Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or > >another. > > That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. I'm amazed > that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list. While I don't know > precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really > is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a > REALLY weird definition of that. > Then Lincoln had a equaly weird view: Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Perhaps this failure to recognize a basic premise of representative democracy explains your apparent dichotomy in the concepts of rights. In effect, your rights and their rights. When in fact there is no difference. I would suggest you read the Declaration of Indipendance and the Gettysburg Address (again) to get a better perspective on what and who is supposed to run this government and how. We have had a basic inversion of how our government is supposed to work. In short, if there is a question the federal government is supposed to bow to the will of the people and the states. Currently the states and people bow to the federal government. Somehow, I think that this is where your argument fails, and it fails > miserably. > > > >By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to > >protect us against. > > Sorry, I disagree. Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" > total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually > believe in that. Might does not make right. Ethical cohesion does not rest on numerical values. In case you have missed my comments before. I am not non-violent. I do not support the use of violence in any format except in direct and immediate self-defence. In which case make the beggars eyes bleed, no defeat and no surrender. This means that if you walk outside and see a person breaking in your car that in and of itself is not sufficient motive for deadly force unless they attack you. I do believe (contrary to yourself I would guess) that if you were walking down the street and somebody suddenly grabbed you that would be sufficient motive to kill them in self-defence. In cases like this there simply isn't enough time to evaluate the extent of the threat, it is clear there is an apparent threat though. In short if your person is violated physicaly without your premeditated permission then deadly force is justified. I also believe that you are ethicaly justified in stopping a person from assaulting or killing a 3rd party for the simple reason that it could be you next. However, once that immediate threat is over (for example a 4th party knocks the gun out of the muggers hand and knocks them on the ground) then use of deadly force is not justified. > Most people seem to think that they are entitled to > protect themselves from violations of rights. The fact that these > violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most > irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it. Anybody who feels entitled to > use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting > to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in > itself, a violation of my rights. > Rights as you use them are only relevant between a government and a citizen. I as an individual person am not forced to provide you with a forum for free speech or any other rights guaranteed in the constitution. Apparently you, as many people do, confuse the rights that are yours in regards the government with privileges and contractual obligations which govern interpersonal actions. The local grocery store is not mentioned in the Constitution. They are under no obligation to provide protection for your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Your basic argument rests on a straw man premise, namely that rights guaranteed you by government are guaranteed you by any and every other possible entity. This is clearly wrong. It is not ethical to kill another simply for being a burglar. How much must they steal before you are ethicaly justified in killing them? A $1,000 dollar stereo? Perhaps a $.20 pencil off your desk? Does this not justify your employer killing you for using their machines for your own use,it is theft of services after all (and you are on their property). If you have sufficient force detain them. The legal system will take them from there (assuming of course we revamp it with the other laws we discuss so heatedly on here). What I propose is a simple and humane system. If a person commits a crime which leads to the death or injury another they spend the remainder of their life in a solitary cell with no chance of parole. In other cases what should occur is they must work a regular job and provide restitution for an extended period (ie $100/mo. to you for 30 years). Should they fail to abide by this or they commit another crime then off they go for 20 years or so, again with no chance of parole. I also strongly object to plea bargaining. The whole concept of sending somebody to jail for 2-3 years is silly and counter-productive. It leads to nothing but professional criminals, in effect state run training grounds for the criminaly inclined. While in jail they should be forced to live in work camps and not prisons as we currently know them (unless they fall into the above 'harm another' category). What should occur is that they are forced to live a relatively normal lifestyle. In short, they work 8 hours a day and must pay for their housing, food, etc. from their earning. What needs to occur is to train persons to make a living and gain some success at managing a day to day lifestyle. Our currrent system treats criminals as animals, which does nothing to prevent further violence on their part, it only increases any sense of isolation they may have. > Are you a statist? > No, as I have said on many occassions, I am a strict Constitutionalist. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: Regarding employee rights on company equipment
by Leslie Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > From Edupage Feb 8, 1996, > > INTERNET USAGE POLICIES > Neal J. Friedman, a specialist in online computer law, says that "employees > are under the misapprehension that the First Amendment applies in the > workplace -- it doesn't. Friedman is only pseudo-right: IE, his arguement makes sense but courts have not always followed this reasoning, though: if you're really interested in this topic, investigate rulings where an employer has read an employee's voicemail. The key concept is "reasonable expectation of privacy." - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMRvoHSoZzwIn1bdtAQGA5AF+NLNypUxQ1E5/X6smpiY215d2R1O0A/Y0 n0hlXF9lpZNg6y+qlLWR5qZc00PZ5HpX =NI4R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Jordan Hayes wrote: > > it _is_ anonymous ... > > And then: > > > can be refilled at ATMs > > You make a deposit or something? How does the transaction clear? > When they finally look in the envelope, they credit the card? > > Or do you mean just 'anonymous' between the user and the merchant? > > /jordan > sorry i wasn't clear: it is anonymous between the user and the merchant, and between the user and the card distributer (in this case Visa). "Refilling" at ATMs is essentially a download of "cash" from your bank account into the card.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Jim Small wrote: > DO you know where I can find glide.c , or (newer) to bruteforce > .pwl files? http://www.c2.org/hackmsoft/ There will also be a utility for extracting and decrypting file sharing (Win95 as server) passwords as soon as the code is refined and the ReadMe is written. -rich

1 0

Re: DSN
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>[RSA in 5 lines of Scheme, deleted.] >Got any short prime-number generators? I am writing some more Scheme code (not optimized for size, though). Have a look at http://www.thur.de/ulf/crypt.scm -- Ulf Möller * E-Mail: <um(a)c2.org> * WWW: http://www.c2.org/~um/

1 0