- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Hooked on Ebonics
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that the new Afrocentric Ebonic language is officially recognized, we have a lot of work to do. Having textbooks published in English and Hip Hop is going to be daunting. New educational tapes, "Hooked on Ebonics" will have to be produced. Answers to test questions will have to be analyzed and converted, and an entire new dictionary will need to be established. You know what I'm sayin'? In some ways life will get much simpler. No longer will we be burdened with the cumbersome task of searching our minds for the proper adjective, pronoun, or participle. An expletive invoking another's mother will be the only adjective, pronoun, or metaphor in the new Ebonics dictionary. Bernard Shaw and Alan Keyes could get rid of that bothersome eloquence and perfect diction and rap it back Black, lay it on me bro. I'm curious about the "N word." Will that be allowed? I do hear it a lot in movies centered around life in the ethnic neighborhoods of L.A. or Oakland. The reason I ask is because where I work you'll be severely fired if you toss out the "N word." We'll need to have clarification. It would be kind of strange to have an official language that only one ethnic group is allowed to use. Maybe if we could get Texaconics declared an official language of the corporate elite we could give those guys at Texaco their jobs back. Ross Perot could say, "You people" with impunity. As a matter of fact we can have an official language for however you want to talk. Bigotonics, Stupidonics, Stoneronics, Skatersonics, Preppyonics and last but not least, I can't get a decent job anywhere in the world because I was educated in the Oakland School Districtonics.

1 0

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:17 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >>transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >>U.S.C. 5324(a). > >Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The >evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence >of the opposite. Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean "report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of $10,000. If the guy didn't report the $27K as gambling winnings on his 1040 then he'd be guilty of tax evasion in addition to the structuring charges, but that's an independent issue. Go read 31 U.S.C. 5324 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) >Again, he clearly DID NOT "evade the reporting requirement." Brian Davis >admitted this. (Whether he ever intended to do this is sheer speculation on >the part of anyone else. We'll never know; as Davis pointed out, the IRS >screwed up.) Even if the standard of evidence was as low as "preponderance >of evidence" (which it, of course, is not in a criminal case) he SHOULD have >won. By waiting until the return was filed and the tax was paid, the IRS >was allowing him to resolve whatever ambiguity remained. Of course he attempted to evade: three checks, deposits the first in bank 1, the second in bank 2, and the third in bank 1 again. Trying to not cause either bank to file the form that says "we just got a deposit in excess of $10K." That's structuring to evade. Welcome to Allenwood. --bal

1 0

Re: RE: Scalpers (SJPD does crack down)
by Tim Simmons 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A >for $60 (face = $69, and I would have taken anything over $50 without a >haggle), about 5 minutes before game time, on the far side of Guadalupe >Expressway (e.g. @ Almaden Blvd.), which the Arena-patrolling uniformed >officers have repeatedly said is "outside the no-vending zone"... >>> > >Correct me if I'm wrong. Did the Police arrest you because you were selling >em or because you were in a no vending zone? If they did arrest you for >selling them, why'd they areest you for selling them under face value? In >other parts of the country it's a crime to sell them above face value, but >not below. According to my contact in the ticket office it is NOT illegal to re-sell tickets, even if you are selling them ABOVE face value. San Jose Box office makes a legal business out of this practice. It is only illegal to sell them within a certain proximity of the venue. You must have been within the "no vending zone" if you were outside of the zone, you should be able to get the charges dismissed. Tim S. Manufacturing Engineering x 2162

1 0

RE: [NOT NOISE] Microsoft Crypto Service Provider API
by Blake Coverett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Not quite. The API comes with a program SIGN.EXE that will create a > "debugging signature" for your CSP, and a new ADVAPI32.DLL, described as > a "Modified advapi32.dll to load providers that are signed with > sign.exe." So the patch point is a bit more accessable than inside the > kernel. Maybe the "Modified advapi32.dll" should find its way offshore? Even better than exporting the hacked advapi32.dll, compare the it with the original one. I'd bet good money that the only difference is the contents of the RC_DATA/#102 resource attached to the image. (It's useful to note that the advapi32.dll from versions of NT before CryptoAPI doesn't have any RC_DATA resources.) And to think MS was good enough to provide an UpdateResource API that I haven't yet had a good reason to use. > Interestingly enough, CSP signatures are held in the registry instead of > the binary, necessitating some install procedure for a given CSP. Not > to start rumors, but NT 4.0 does use threads to watch some registry > entries that control the version (workstation/server). Not much of a > stretch to imagine a thread that tracks (reports?) changes to Nope, a little experimentation shows you can change those entries while the system is running to your hearts contents. Try temporarily renaming the signature key of the base provider. regards, -Blake

1 0

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >At 05:54 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>"Man wins $27,000. He will eventually be required to report and pay taxes >>on the amount, but not quite yet. Stupid I/R/S people alert him BEFORE he >>files his taxes. He reports the payment, as is ostensibly legally required. >> He paid the taxes owed. Period." >> >>THEN you said, "we settled the matter." Huh? What, exactly, was there to >>"settle"? > >Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >U.S.C. 5324(a). Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence of the opposite. >Structuring (or attempting to structure) a financial >transaction to evade the reporting requirements is a violation of this >subsection, and 31 U.S.C. 5322(a) says that a willful violation is a >five-year felony. Again, he clearly DID NOT "evade the reporting requirement." Brian Davis admitted this. (Whether he ever intended to do this is sheer speculation on the part of anyone else. We'll never know; as Davis pointed out, the IRS screwed up.) Even if the standard of evidence was as low as "preponderance of evidence" (which it, of course, is not in a criminal case) he SHOULD have won. By waiting until the return was filed and the tax was paid, the IRS was allowing him to resolve whatever ambiguity remained. Actually, if there were any justice, he should have been able to sue the bank for reporting him and NOT INFORMING HIM of that fact. (I presume the law requires the bank to report suspicious transactions. I also presume that the law _doesn't_ prohibit the bank from telling the customer that it will have to report that transaction.) The bank, presumably being experts in the matter, recognizes that lay individuals can't be expected to be experts in specialized areas, and should be considered obligated to warn customers away from suspicious-looking transactions. I'm sure the REAL LAWYERS (tm) on this list will be able to cite examples of where experts of all kinds were sued by non-experts for failing to warn them of unexpected dangers that could have been averted had the appropriate advice been given promptly. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >At 07:17 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>>Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >>>transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >>>U.S.C. 5324(a). >> >>Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The >>evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence >>of the opposite. > >Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean >"report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report >the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of >$10,000. Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's mere _desires_ criminal.) Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there is a rule which states "If anybody comes in and does three separate $9,000 transactions, they get reported." In that case, anybody who does those transactions is already aware that doing them does NOT "evade the reporting requirements." Okay, maybe no such explicit rule exists. However, can you prove that anyone really believes that he is "evading reporting requirements"? Having read of this incident, it is quite obvious that the government doesn't obey its own rules and doesn't limit itself to logic and reasonable positions. It is also obvious that banks can't be trusted to follow reliable rules. Once aware of this, how can you show that a person really thought he was getting away with anything? (which is, after all, an essential element of the crime of "structuring", I suppose.) Gotcha! Catch-22 situation. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean >>"report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report >>the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of >>$10,000. > >Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of >the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't >evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your >part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's >mere _desires_ criminal.) Please, Jim, *go read the law*. Do it now, before you even think about replying to this message, else you'll say something else stupid and irrelevant. Look, I'll even give you the complete, specific URL for the section of the U.S. Code in question; all you have to do is cut-and-paste it into your favorite Web browser: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5324.html See in clause (1) where it says, "cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a)"? See the words "attempt to cause"? Now go back to EBD's original post. See where he said "Report of Suspicious Transaction"? See the errors in your argument above? Good. Your homework assignment is to go read _Ratzlaf v. US_, 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655, and summarize for the list. --bal

4 4

RE: [NOT NOISE] Microsoft Crypto Service Provider API
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:17:53 -0500, Blake Coverett wrote: >And to think MS was good enough to provide an UpdateResource >API that I haven't yet had a good reason to use. Right thoughtful of them, wasn't it..? <g> >> Interestingly enough, CSP signatures are held in the registry instead of >> the binary, necessitating some install procedure for a given CSP. Not >> to start rumors, but NT 4.0 does use threads to watch some registry >> entries that control the version (workstation/server). Not much of a >> stretch to imagine a thread that tracks (reports?) changes to > >Nope, a little experimentation shows you can change those entries >while the system is running to your hearts contents. Try temporarily >renaming the signature key of the base provider. Now, yes. However I wonder how quickly a service pack would be released to extend the monitor garbage... # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

re: Papers Galore
by Kenneth J. Hawley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: bart(a)netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew) >Subject: Papers Galore, address correction >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:58:31 -0800 (PST) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:16:39 -0500 >> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >> Subject: Papers Galore >> >> The NSA-hosted National Information Systems Security >> Conference, held in October, 1996, has made a wide >> range of papers available (in PDF format), and listed in: >> >> http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/1996/papers/NISSC/toc.pdf (110kb) >> ^^^^^ > > should be NISSC96 Actually the correct URL is: http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/1996/papers/NISSC96/ followed by: toc.pdf and many others. The URL will give you an FTP-style file list. -- Kenneth J. Hawley (616)372-5774 Principal khawley(a)silenus.com Silenus Group, Inc. Detroit - Atlanta - Kalamazoo

1 0

Error Condition Re: Invalid request
by listproc＠plaidworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=============== Mail Daemon Command Error =============== The line that caused the error was: >UNSUBSCRIBE SHARKS CYPHERPUNKS(a)TOAD.COM: You are not subscribed to sharks(a)plaidworks.com ==================== For more help, send e-mail to <info(a)plaidworks.com> or browse <http://www.plaidworks.com/ListAdmin/> to use our new World Wide Web interface. ==================== Any list commands after the point of error are ignored. If you put a 'signature' on your email, that will cause an error. This can be ignored if you received confirmation of your other commands. ========== Mail Daemon Command Summary ========== The syntax for the most common commands is: (if you aren't sure, get help from the above help sources) SUBSCRIBE listname your name goes here UNSUBSCRIBE listname To turn on DIGEST mode, use: SET listname MAIL DIGEST To turn off DIGEST mode, use: SET listname MAIL ACK ========== If you need more help ========== If you can't make it work, send e-mail to <postmaster(a)plaidworks.com> and we'll help you out.

1 0