- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Actually berating on a routine basis.
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) on Wed, 24 Aug 1:14 PM >This latest round of insults from you cretins is having >the benefit of cutting down the messages I read. No insult intended. Meant to compliment your hectoring and cajolery and levity. Berating folks now and then makes interesting reading; keep it up. John

1 0

1994 Digital Telephony Bill campaign
by Shabbir J. Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Voters Telecomm Watch has officially taken a position against the 1994 Digital Telephony Bill. It's not that we're slow, but it's taken time to reach a consensus (and even reach the board members), to compose all our materials, and gear up for the fight. In opposing this bill, I hope to exceed our efforts of "watching" with the Cantwell bill. If you followed that bill, you'll remember that we attemtped to notify the Net community before every vote with accurate information including sample letters, phone numbers, bill histories, and legislator positions. We had a few problems (legislators with changing addresses and phone numbers, voice votes that leave no record that we could tie to the legislator) but we also had many successes. We'll be doing the same thing (even better, I hope) this time with the Digital Telephony bill. We're going to try something new though. This message will be sent to all the mailing lists we usually use on our announce list. If you have access to news, check the following newsgroups: alt.activism alt.conspiracy alt.mag2600 alt.politics.datahighway alt.politics.libertarian alt.privacy.clipper alt.wired comp.org.cpsr.talk comp.org.eff.talk comp.risks comp.society.cu-digest comp.society.privacy misc.activism.progressive talk.politics.crypto (Crossposting will be done carefully, so people with decent newsreaders only see these alerts once) I'll be forwarding this to the following mailing lists, who will be removed from the vtw-announce(a)vtw.org mailing list: cypherpunks(a)toad.com eff-activists(a)eff.org eff-crypto(a)eff.org thesegroups(a)tic.com nii_agenda(a)civicnet.org com-priv(a)psi.com risks(a)csl.sri.com rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu cpsr-berkeley(a)cpsr.org Please do not forward this announcement to the above lists, they have already seen it. A number of people complained that the political announcements we were sending were off topic for the lists during the Cantwell campaign, so I hope this is a reasonable compromise. If you do not have access to Usenet news, please feel free to subscribe to the announce or the working lists at vtw-list-request(a)vtw.org. -Shabbir

1 0

Windows PGP shell
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've just finished making an ftp deposit to soda in the cypherpunks/incoming directory of WinPGP26.ZIP; it's the latest version of the Windows PGP shell. Shareware, and understands 2.6/2.6ui/2.7. Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

1 0

Windows Front End PGP 2.6
by John L Tocher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anybody know where I can find a windows front end that works with PGP 2.6? Any feedback on this would be appreciated! Thanks, John Tocher ????Windows front end: PGP WinFront from Ross Barclay????

4 3

RE: Computer Security Conference & Exibit
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Claborne, Chris" <claborne(a)microcosm.sandiegoca.NCR.COM> writes: > Has anyone been to the Computer Security Conference & Exhibition? If so, > what did you think of it. > > I am thinking of goin to the 21st annual on Nov 14-16 in Washington D.C. > PGP key signing party??? I gave a presentation at the one last year, hung arround checking out the others. Bill Murray gave a nice pitch about PGP, how bad Clipper/skipjack was, DERD gave her usual technical discussion of Clipper. I'm up for a keyswap, or beer drinking, or anti-GAK session. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)cs.gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: Nuclear Weapons Material
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <paBMkOwscIgG070yn(a)io.org> Mark Terka writes: > Not to mention the fact that without tritium, the "trigger" for nuclear > weapons (and extremely expensive and rare at $ 100m a gram) all you have > is a radioactive paperweight. To the best of my knowledge, tritium is not used in nuclear weapons (meaning A-bombs), only in thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs). One of my teachers was involved in the Manhattan project; he never mentioned any need for tritium. -- Jim Dixon

19 37

Anonymous questionnaires
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My partner is a participant in a long term psychological study. I have been asked to fill out a questionnaire to aid in this study. Some of the questions address issues that I would never answer non-anonymously. After speaking with the research director, I ended up with the following problem: is there a way that would allow the institute to 1. Correlate my answers to the answers of my partner. 2. Verify that I have indeed sent in a filled out questionnaire (and send me a check for participating). 3. Allow a supervisory agency, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to verify that the researchers did not just make up all the data - that is to allow an audit. 4. Protect my privacy by making it impossible to correlate my name to the answers given. I would very much like to help to advance medical knowledge, but am concerned what might happen once the institute is forced to hand over all accumulated data to the Kommunal Kare Kontrol Kommittee under the Health Care and Crime Prevention Act of 1998. The researchers seem to think that there is no way to satisfy all the above criteria. I, after following discussions on this list for a long time, am not so sure. I intend to forward any workable suggestions (if the problem even has a solution) to the researchers. I am sure that better privacy protection would not only increase the number of participants, but also the quality of the data. Thank you all in advance, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

3 2

CEB 8 - I GUESS I'LL JUST HAVE TO DO IT MYSELF!
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CYPHER_REBELS" ELECTRONIC BOOK (CEB) 8 - I GUESS I'LL JUST HAVE TO DO IT MYSELF! Fellow Cyphers - rebel/punks, I have decided to do the CEB myself. I am going to post it on Cypherpunks about once a month & on other lists as well. The CEB will exist as an often updated & posted file. I now need contributions of text. I need the WNSTROM steganography program internet source location & a concise write up of it. I also need the same for PG shell program. I also need a concise write up of how to use remailers, how to chain them, etc.. The CEB will be an up to date source to show locations of best privacy software, essential information, & electronic privacy concerns. PUSH EM BACK! PUSH EM BACK! WWWAAAYYY BBBAAACCCK! BBBEEEAAAATTTT STATE!

2 1

Re: ADMIN: proposed new policy on the mailing list
by plaz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN UNSIGNED MESSAGE----- >I don't think restricting participation to signed messages >is a good idea until we have some way of verifying a >signature automatically before allowing it to be posted. Actually, Eric wasn't suggesting restricting participation, just putting a delay on it. But you're right. This proposed policy is pointless. I would probably end up copying and pasting a bogus signature (not bogus for somebody else's message, but bogus for mine) into my message to avoid the delay. The policy, as it stands is rediculously easy to circumvent. I suspect that this would be even less effective than the national 55 mph speed limit. >How do we prevent people from registering a key in >someone else's name??? It's beyond me. You can't. There is simply no way to kill pseudo-spoofing without coming down on the whole internet with a massively intrusive security system. It certainly isn't worth it to me, to hand the net over to big brother to avoid people posting under various aliases. You'd almost certainly end up losing anonymous posting as well. PS - Eric you can take this as a vote "NO". -----END UNSIGNED MESSAGE----- _______________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- plaz(a)netcom.com "We are the shock troops of reality." - Voice of the Friends (Wild Palms)

1 0

Re: U & Pu is good for U
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199408252138.OAA15395(a)well.sf.ca.us> Brad Dolan writes: > >On the other hand I say that such studies are poor criteria for > >judging the effects of radiation intended to do the maximum possible > >harm. > > Well, these studies are about all we have to go on right now. The > wartime residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do provide a large set of > folks exposed to "radiation intended to do the maximum possible harm" > but, darn it, none of them were wearing dosimeters. People do study > these groups, making educated guesses about doses, but it's hard to > draw precise conclusions on that basis. There is a Sufi parable about a guy who loses something on a dark street. His friend finds him searching the ground carefully at the corner under a street light. He asks him what he is doing, and he explains that he dropped something. "Where?" "Down the street." "Then why are you looking here?" "Because there is a light down here." -- Jim Dixon

1 0