- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CAUTION: This *could* be a TROLL / Re: Request For Cash: TruthMailer services at dev.null
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMailer wrote: > > O "I'm from BassMasters, and I'm here to help you." > |/------o > -\______|___/- | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | > |/ <}+++< >

1 0

PGP question
by Eagle One 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not being very knowledgeable in the cypher world, are there any good online references that compare RSA vs DSS PGP? and why one would be better than the other? thanks

1 0

Government violates 3rd amendment
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sunday 10/26/96 Roby II Town Hall Meeting The Town Hall Meeting convened at 2:00 PM as promised at the Community Center in Auburn, Il. nearly 6 miles east of Roby. The Community Center was packed. Neighbors from far and wide attended the meeting which lasted for several hours. At least one attendee, a local City Councilman was so incensed after hearing from the neighbors of Shirley Allen, he offered to contact Judge Slatter in hopes of having the court order withdrawn. Attended by numerous members of the media, this Town Hall Meeting produced several local neighbors speaking on Shirley's behalf. Even the lone State Trooper seen "taking down license plate numbers" during the meeting did not mar this event. Reportedly, Carolyn Trochman dialed 911 and reported a "suspicious individual" roaming around the vehicles and demanded that an officer be dispatched to help. That lone trooper after seen "talking on his radio" was observed to quickly ceased that activity. Speakers onhand included John Trochman and Joyce Riley with impromptu ballads supplied by singer/songwriter Dave Riddell. Reports indicate a Ballad For Shirley was born during the meeting and performed by Dave Riddell. The Auburn Town Hall meeting was dubbed a success and several neighbors owning property adjacent to Shirley Allen spoke in her defense so strongly that afterwards it was agreed to reconvene at a home NEXT DOOR to Shirley Allen. This caravan, including at least one motor home then proceeded to converge at the neighbors home with his invitation and the local Troopers had little choice but to allow them into the outer perimeter. The meeting was peaceful and included at least 75 from the Auburn Roby 2 Town Hall Meeting. Spirits were lifted near Shirley's home as the second session of the meeting continued into the darkness of dusk. Chants were born and at least one being shouted by all at the gathering could not help but help the troopers on duty realize that this was indeed an effort to help relieve tensions. The chant born yesterday afternoon was "BAD COP.....NO DONUTS ..... BADCOP......NO DONUTS". Troopers were seen not able to keep their "terse" expressions during these chants. What was accomplished? "A Lot!" exclaimed Joyce Riley. "We have at least one City Councilman whom has since contacted other councilmen and they will be visiting with Judge Slatter Monday Morning. The local neighbor support for Shirley is overwhelming. With this kind of support, we can only go uphill from here." More Later on the Success of Roby II Johnny Johnson Houston, Texas (281) 530-5511

1 0

Hong Kong's Net-conduct code, from South China Morning Post
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************* http://www.scmp.com/news/template/templates.idc?artid=19971028005357046&top… emplate=Default.htx&MaxFieldSize=2838 [South China Morning Post] [Front Page] Tuesday October 28 1997 [Hong Kong] Conduct code targets porn on Internet [China] [Asia] [World] GREN MANUEL A voluntary code to control [Business] publication of obscene and indecent [Markets] material on the Internet was launched yesterday, with the threat of a review [Features] after a year if it failed. [Sport] But the code can only be applied [Property] against material put on to the [Technology] Internet in Hong Kong, with no effective sanction against publishers in the rest of the world, where the [Index] vast bulk of the material originates. [Image] The code, issued by the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers' Association, which covers all major Internet firms, is supported by the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority. Both pledged it would not be used for political censorship. "We do not want to turn into an 'Internet cop'," said the association's chairman, Daniel Ng Chi-shing. Last year the Government proposed new laws to block access to pornographic sites worldwide, but the plan was scrapped amid criticism it was technically unfeasible and could be used for political censorship. Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Eddy Chan Yuk-tak said: "If you strictly control the Internet you could stifle the free flow of information and inhibit the development of this new technology. "However, we must protect our young persons and children from the effect of indecent and obscene materials." He said the best strategy was to "advise, inform and educate" young people but the code was a useful supplement, and would be reviewed after 12 months. In June a senior Correctional Services officer was given a suspended sentence after posting hard-core child pornography on the Internet. Ousted Democratic Party legislator and Internet pornography campaigner Andrew Cheng Kar-foo welcomed the code but said it would have little practical effect on the material available. "The Government should have a clearer definition of 'obscenity', otherwise it could be abused," he said. Despite estimates there were more than 10,000 Web sites hosted in Hong Kong, the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority has received just four complaints. "There is a problem. But it is difficult to tell how serious it is at this stage," said Mr Chan. THE MAIN POINTS * Category III material will not be published on the Internet. * Category II material must be preceded by warning notices similar to those on printed material. * Users who repeatedly break the above rules should be disconnected. * Internet firms should promote technology that can allow a rating classification or the blocking of certain sites. * The public may make complaints to a page's host Internet firm. The firm must ''act promptly and conscientiously on the complaint''. * Unresolved complaints may be referred to the TELA. * Statistics on complaints will be sent to the TELA every month.

1 0

Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >At 8:11 AM -0700 10/30/97, Tim Griffiths wrote: >> We hear on TV etc people saying "If this draconian measure saves the >> life of one innocent child its worth the loss of my right to walk in >> the park, or whatever". This is clearly shit, but can people suggest a >> sensible measure of when new legistlation is justified? > >If not, then the answer is "the Constitution." > >The longer version being that the Constitution and especially the >Bill of Rights clearly enumerates rights held by the people, and >there is no mention that such basic rights are to be stripped away >because the "life of one innocent child" can be saved... But this line of argument does not get to the heart of the matter. Why is the Constitution so great? After all, it's just a piece of paper and if Americans generally decide not to respect it, it's gone. In a related comment Steve Schear wrote: >"Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither." More accurately, they will *get* neither! Police states are not only unpleasant, they are terribly unsafe. When somebody tells you they wish to trade security for liberty, offer to handcuff them on the spot in exchange for protection. If they don't agree, they now have to explain why they believe you have less integrity than the police and their political masters. And, in almost every case, the draconian measure is orthogonal to protecting children and is only a cynical ploy to institute a police state. While it will be different from ploy to ploy, it can be productive to undermine the assumptions of the argument. Consider cryptography. We are told that it is bad for children. We also know that banning cryptography will cost at least $60 billion every year. Why isn't a $30 billion child protection fund being advocated? It would obviously be a good deal. The reason is that protecting children isn't on the agenda. (And that child protection bill better include a list of things not to spend money on: Do not frame political dissidents. Do not infiltrate church groups. Do not spy on Jewish children at summer camp. Do not gun down antiwar protesters. Do not suppress the Press. etc. etc.) In general, those who talk about "protecting children" shy away from obvious and real measures that might actually protect children. For example, in most states child protective services are underfunded and staffed by incompetents. Real children are living miserable lives every day, and yet Louis and the Gang are worrying about the use of arithmetic. Could it be they have some other motivation? Or consider teenage prostitution. In most big cities there are many teenage prostitutes. They don't want to be prostitutes for the most part, but usually they were in a bad situation and they ran away from home. We can tell the situation is bad because when they get hungry they still don't want to go back. Typically, there are known places where the deals are done. Yet we see no noticeable enforcement effort occurring. Could it be that the police don't care that much? More importantly, it is terribly easy to help these people. All you have to do is set up a home where they are welcome, feel safe, and feel comfortable. BTW, that means no religious indoctrination, no drug indoctrination, or any other brainwashing. It does mean finding hosts who are warm emotional people and genuinely care. (It may be impossible for a bureaucracy to establish such an environment.) Anybody who cares about teenagers can set something like this up. Yet, it rarely happens. The reason for this is that very few people truly care enough to actually do anything about the situation. When somebody tells you should go to jail for performing the wrong kind of arithmetic because it's bad for children, ask them what they *really* have done for any children anywhere. Usually, they have done nothing and will do nothing. There is almost nothing lower than a person who would exploit concern for children for his or her own political purposes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFjdqpaWtjSmRH/5AQGAJQf/RyhKbHhI9mHgMLIoRFVeckDiv/ZiZ/WK aAGAJo9C5XqUgQA/RZ+EwaEaiYsEkpNeu+KOz0TjEAEBZLTW3JQPtW4e5TWC8q3k qJp74Xp+uQCuBBD51NNpfmJqZVQcTVSp6TDeUvIQQP2s/Kicc+oJoEHtW++R6nIL Zw61A/IWEmNFpwbawurrrRbIxbb98YbgsW6QLgBS6e8zujT3OjKR5DOUqrCxP/No YqQ+B3KZDH6+M1Gq2oU81n8ReUGFUViIfFYCB9tO6lau/+6slw//kHOBSoRgG+6h k3oaYzHQltcHzGnEG1jTcc0BEofsvSSoQ16DM6r9w1BUn2qCuIzl0A== =6job -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Alan Olsen wrote: >Actually, the real "sucker rates" are the amounts small businesses >pay for insurance. > >The big businesses (who can buy in bulk) get a pretty reasonable deal >for what they get. The smaller companies who cannot bargain the >price down get screwed. (The rate my wife's employer was paying was >close to double what my insurance costs and it covered ALOT less.) You can improve the situation by purchasing high deductible policies. It is astonishing how quickly the rates fall when you are willing to pay the first few thousand yourself. Also, many small business owners seek out other small business owners and purchase their insurance collectively. I have heard this works fairly well, although it gives each participant less discretion, just like if they were employed by a large company. >I seriously doubt that most people could afford to self-insure at the >going rate. (Not unless they have some serious income they want to >get rid of.) I'd guess there are a lot more people who can self insure than you think, but their net worth should be $200,000+. I'm not convinced that disaster medical care is all that expensive. Consider AIDS. I've heard that it costs about $30,000 to care for somebody with this disease. After ten years that's only $300,000. Yet, this is often put forth as a problem which causes insurance companies great trouble and causes rates to increase significantly. Does anybody know what the odds of hitting $300,000 are? I'm just guessing, but the odds are probably higher that you would die in some other way. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFjmAJaWtjSmRH/5AQEKlwf+M/LejU8uHDxrl4Q8K61CVSymGZjC1yPd QvTEOGHJZb8+g5MypHByJcyQTfUwf5oxFJJHsqM7RCVfYaNOnH/2V5TM0O7+B8Tq wT05ybZEbMY4XOcROccKjHj1spgpNinIQpYRvCQ6yf0t5RNo9ouhyx6dkK0VkUv2 FGk0/XeynCJO41OXvkVp031PO3d3G1alk/wO5SjB3KDzScsKHHdFQP4RP5Zv65WI ucWUO5aC9ArciVrI066s+D+B8lBJGZJoMAP0tkIEJnkWy7OlYshpp6n208ZdrAow YbCh7JDT/so0pX5hdsnC4PV+9WF0Cqu6rwHls8RyES7Cts+5/Bkebw== =awBK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Burnore preworthily larine circumgyrate (Who Care?)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

trailblazer(a)sk.sympatico.ca (Stephen K. Goguen) wrote: > Does anybody really care who is spamming who? > I don't think so. I am not a spammer BTW! > These messages are a waste of valuable band width! > If you have a problem with a spammer take it up with them, spare the > rest of us from this boring carp! > > > On Sunday, 26 Oct 97 20:01:02 PST, nobody(a)neva.org (Neva Remailer) > wrote: > > > >An atumble Henrician. Intramastoid the cutted refight. DataBasix > >androgen. Allochroite syndesmosis. You might want to direct your comments to the author of this spammage, Gary L. Burnore <gburnore(a)databasix.com>, CEO of DataBasix, who still appears to be on a vendetta against the anonymous remailers. This particular spam campaign appears to be designed to accomplish two things: 1.) Get people upset at the anonymous remailers by posting this spam through them, and; 2.) Saturate the news search engines with matches on his name and that of his company so that any search on these words yields a vast majority of false matches. Just look at some of the Subject: lines he's posted over just the past few days: DataBasix cajoler Burnore Elamite the juxtaposit parciloquy ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ Autoceptive DataBasix sugary bultow ^^^^^^^^^ A Amoyan planula hoboism Burnore guestling ^^^^^^^ Burnore undutiful unavouchably ^^^^^^^ Perocephalus Wotan wine murder Burnore Akiyenik ^^^^^^^ Wotan votive DataBasix manglingly ^^^^^^^^^ Burnore dowery crants sla throneless ^^^^^^^ Instillator a dene meethelper orach Burnore acoine ^^^^^^^ A sith hove DataBasix cradlesong commercialist hebete ^^^^^^^^^ Unangelical visual DataBasix nonempirical ^^^^^^^^^ Burnore preworthily larine circumgyrate ^^^^^^^ Interfertile pomade outhue and Burnore cancrophagous ^^^^^^^ DataBasix preapperception ^^^^^^^^^ -- "I cannot convince myself that there is anyone so wise, so universally comprehensive in his judgment, that he can be trusted with the power to tell others: 'You shall not express yourself thus, you shall not describe your own experiences; or depict the fantasies which your mind has created; or laugh at what others set up as respectable; or question old beliefs; or contradict the dogmas of the church, of our society, our economic systems, and our political orthodoxy.'" - Jake Zeitlin

1 0

Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Thu, 30 Oct 97 08:27:55 -0600 > Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > Well THANK YOU Jim for joining forces with the Government NewSpeakers in > bastardising the language. Military and Police actions by governments is > NOT Terrorism!! Yes, Bill it is. *ANY* use of violence for anything other than IMMEDIATE SELF-DEFENCE is terrorism. Simply being on the *winning* side does not make your actions any less terrorist. Any use of violence except in immediate self-defence is in effect saying "do what I say or I kill you". THAT is the definition of terrorism. > Everything bad that happens is NOT Terrorism!! Just > because it is politically expediant to call somthing Terrorism does not > make it so! If you have a point then do so and let it stand on it's > merrits rather than trying to win brownie points by stealing emotional > value from an established lable. This is a shallow debating technique of a > weak mind. Bill, I have never done anything but been willing to let my views stand on their own two feet. > Exactly how many have died from Terrorist acts?? I contend that it is > below 10,000 in the past ten years and more than likely closer to 2,000. > Even at 10,000 we are only looking at most 50-100 Americans a year!! Well, if we look at Jan. 1, 1900 as the starting date for our accounting I would estimate that somewhere between 2 to 5 BILLION poeple have died due to terrorist acts. It doesn't make it right whether it is the Khmer Rhouge, SOG, Shinning Path, The SLA, CIA in Laos or Columbia, Ruby Ridge, KAL 007, TWA 800, IRA, SDS, Black Panthers, or some old lady in Ill. who wants to committ suicide. When you kill or threaten somebody for what they believe or what they are you are committing terrorism. > The whole point of my orriginal message that you seem unable to grasp ("no > suprise") is that 50-100 deaths/year does not justify turning this country > into a police state!! *NOTHING* justifies turning a democracy into a police state, that is the WHOLE point to democracies in the first place; NOTHING justifies a police state. Go back and read the Declaration of Independance again, you missed something in previous readings. If anything Bill, *you* are the one who has unwittingly (I hope) swallowed their jism. If you yank on a dogs chain and it bites you, it isn't the dogs fault. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

[FWD] Re: Burnore preworthily larine circumgyrate (Who Care?)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com> whined: > Funny. Of course, databasix.com has been DOWN SINCE AUGUST BECAUSE OF A > MOVE. The shit you see abouve comes from the anon asshole trying to see > if Burnore and DataBasix and other keywords are being blocked by anon > remailers. I've seen it before. I'm sure Ron Guilmette (who you've accused elsewhere of doing this) would be smart enough to know that it doesn't take dozens of posts every day containing those keywords to detect blocking, if any. OTOH, the fact that the "abuse" does seem to fit such a nice, tidy pattern does imply that an easy way to stop it would be to block any anonymous posts that mention Gary Burnore, DataBasix, etc. Could that be the real purpose of this nonsense? Do you know anyone who'd like to see all anonymous posts that mention Gary Burnore and/or DataBasix blocked? Perhaps someone who chronically refers to remailer users as "anon assholes"? Of course, the databasix.com domain being down is irrelevant. You still have sufficient Internet access through Netcom to do what's being done, so your alibi is meaningless. > Such an amazing coincidence that the software given freely by > mai1to:rfg@monkeys.com (aka mai1to:support@e-scrub.com and > mai1to:sales@escrub.com) makes the above output possible. It's even more amazing that you'd just happen to know what sort of software was being used to generate the messages, isn't it? And if it's "freely available", as you say, then even you could have obtained a copy. You certainly seem to be familiar with its capabilities. Why would Ron allegedly have to use this special software just to test a few keywords (especially if using his own software would implicate himself)? And if he is supposedly using the remailers for "harassment", why would he do something designed to get them shut down? I don't recall him posting anti-remailer tirades and harassing remailer operators (such as Jeff Burchell) as you've done. Or could it be that you're trying to flood the search engines with references to certain keywords so that it's difficult to search for posts related to you, DataBasix, and your tactics? And did you insert all of those "mail to:" URLs into your post to get Ron Guilmette spam-baited, or did you hope I'd quote them verbatim and thus get my post blocked by some automated filter mechanism? -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

3 2

Re: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >Turns out that Blue Cross and Blue Shield have negotiated, through >enormous buying power, daily rates of about $700 a day. (These >numbers come from my memory of a "60 Minutes" report a few years >ago. Details and current figures may vary.) Sounds like what you really want is to be able to buy through these companies without buying the insurance. This would be a real easy service for them to provide because if they mark it up a little bit, it's basically free money. (They are doing the negotiations anyway, after all.) They don't even need to know your name until you show up wanting to use their health care network. The Emergency Room Scenario is a little more challenging. One way to deal with it is to wear some obvious signs of wealth like a $10,000 watch. In a pinch you can give them the watch. ;-) (Some of the nurses won't know what it is, but the doctors will, I am sure.) I'm pretty sure that if you are an unconscious wealthy looking person they don't turn you away. You really only need to survive until your lawyer gets to the hospital with a suitcase of cash. How do super rich people solve this problem? You can be pretty sure that Bill Gates self insures and protects his privacy at the same time. How does he do it? How does he solve the Emergency Room Scenario? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFjs2JaWtjSmRH/5AQH8bgf8CmUdMFs1Hzrx4wVhtAKVSDpaizFsA5c9 BuSlOGkVsFcpAWOWSYatZcpR/gx2AJgSFk1oJGWulh89L7QpQ06pNpLaNQUrx39n Y2PT00ljNShmVE2IEmHrhSwPaEs0XDT03M1TFBpg/N2XK939qnrl32ObNidE7f4/ joQlGlX2n11jJFXFJmKps0nA3s0IpxALBByBcXa7Zxrkuj5R1PpqHQaakBkHZSS1 krRF0ztDiSvV0bn1VWhLj2upvC7TALFmifACFZ29QLgRqk1k8Kp9VqRHO4+ZQENN Y4Ljk+qEjG/ej57CisWZyu2w5EIO44R1+y1jSNdOfrsevLo9vZn2QQ== =PFfW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1