- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Free Membership!!!!!!!!
by freemem＠yahoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey cypherpunks.... You gotta check this out, I was really bored so i was surfing the net and i stumbled upon this porn site, and let me tell you this is the best shit. Its got everything !!!! And *FREE MEMBERSHIP* Check it out http://209.167.161.17 It even has a WHORE GUIDE for the entire country, but that was only one of the cool things that it has. its got; LIVE VIDEO PORN FUCK FLICKS NUDE CELEBRITIES- this one is great PHOTO GALLERY You even get to see the pamelah lee vidoe**FREE** Trust me http://209.167.161.17 P.S. Ill be over a little later with some Brewskies see ya ************************************************************************ If You Would Like To Be Removed From Our Future Mailings, Please Reply With The Subject Remove, Or Manually Send To freemem(a)coolmail.to And Your Email Will Be Entered In The Global Remove Filter. ************************************************************************

1 0

Re: BEWARE of SnakeOil (tm)
by Destroy micro$oft 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 10:43:23PM -0400, Jean-Francois Avon wrote: | | - beware of any product that has not been *extensively* peer-reviewed, with *all* the | source code made public. Security breaches are *very* easy to overlook and no software | should *ever* be used unless it was peer-reviewed. The source code for his Linux implementation is available at http://www.filesafety.com/CRYPT.EXE - which is actually a tar+gzipped file. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Thank You
by Joe Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for your recent inquire. President, Joe Anonymous Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com

1 0

Re: [OB: CRYTO] Re: about RC4
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ryan Anderson wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > > (And they wonder why we kicked Japan's butt.) > > > Because they couldn't speak a non-native language perfectly? > > No...because they couldn't speak a 'Native' language perfectly. > > Cherokee! > Navajo, if I understand what reference you're making. :-) You are > referring to the practice of using Navajo Indians for much of the > top-secret communications during WWII, right? Right! It is em-bare-ass'ing to admit that my second 'guess' was going to be Comanche... I'm not too dumb to use a Search Engine, just too lazy.

4 3

getting premail
by ichudov＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know of a WORKING site where I can download premail from? kiwi...berkeley is refusing connections. thanxZ ignoramus

2 2

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is this like flame baiting him? Personally I don't mind the comments :) ----------- We don't take kindly to racial slurs here. You'll probably be receiving hundreds of email bombs over the next few days from angry cypherpunks. You may want to change email accounts.God bless! At 08:19 PM 8/29/98 -0400, RyanFord(a)aol.com wrote:> hola and good tidings > send some info on spooks please > i will be grateful>

1 0

Re: Is Hate Code Speech? YES
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First off if she didn't like the code she could have quit. Laws that say a company has to change their internal practices to make the workers happy are idiotic. I can't sue because the men's bathroom looks like crap and the wemans has a couch in it! If the program code was meant for distribution it might be a little different but still you have the choice not to get that code. The same as reading this message a few lines in you could delete it! You chose to read this far. The code is internal only and thus should require an internal policy, not an outside law enforcement agency. As far as speach: If it wasn't a form of speech she would have not gotten offended. She was offended by the language in the source code and thus the speech. get a job somewhere you feel comfortable, don't get a job and force them to change things around you ---"Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2(a)apf2.com> wrote: > > >From: mcw(a)atreus.ncs.ncsc.mil > >Subject: Is Hate Code Speech? > > > > > >I acknowledge that you're welcome to use whatever variable names you > >want in code you write in private. BUt if you want to sell that code, it > >should be held to a standard of professionalism. > > > > I think it is interesting that people are speaking of the program as > something published for public consumption. Source code for commercial > products rarely goes public and compilers do a rather nice job of obscuring > human language variable names. Thus if there is any message or coherent > agenda in the source code it is highly unlikely that it will be detectable > in the executable, which is in fact the product delivered to the public. > > Since the source code can only be read by insiders/employees then this does > tend to make it rather obvious that a form of speech was intended. I won't > rehash the fact that non-relevant, human-language-significant variable > names (as opposed to x, y, i, & j) are generally unacceptable programming > practice. I would make two points; that in todays programming world source > code is protected by copyright law as are other forms of expression legally > considered speech and source code is intended to document the process and > as such communicate ideas--in a broad sense this is a decent description of > speech, a written mode of communicating ideas. > > If someone finds offensive (hate) material in an obscured text (encrypted) > intended for limited distribution, does the encryption make it less > hateful? does the encryption make it any less a form of speech? does the > fact that distribution is limited (assumming the "target" is in the > distribution class) make it any less offensive? Is a crime less illegal if > it is hidden? (Be careful, on this one...) > > I think that offensive, probably hateful, speech was intended. So the next > step (or for others, a previous step) is to decide whether there are legal > grounds for action. There are several laws which do, in fact, make these > activities illegal. Most people in the US today agree that overt racism is > wrong. Additionally, most "Americans" agree with laws that make it illegal > to use/perform "hateful" speech. > > These are very dangerous laws since they try to tread a very thin line > between the freedom of thoughts (and to some degree, actions) and injury to > others. When I first settled down to live in Spain and began to pay real > attention to the local political scene I was astonished to find people > defending the "right" of the radicals to throw stones and metal objects at > those persons expressing ideas contrary to theirs (pro-peace, > anti-terrorism demonstrations, 1995-6). Fortunately, we hear less and less > of this non-sense that physical harm to another is a valid form of personal > expression or speech. But the base problem lingers, where do we draw the > line of expression of ideas and intent to do harm. It has long been held > that shouting "fire" in a crowded building is not a protected form of > speech. Nor is libel (forgetting for now the problems of defining or > proving it). And where do we draw the line (or does it even matter?) > between public and private? And where do expression and action get > separated? Thinking about doing something, or telling some one about those > thoughts are not generally the same as actually doing it. But where does > thought become expression become action? > > This case doesn't solely revolve around the speech issue...IMO, it also > revolves around the public/private issue, and whether or not the government > can rightfully "enter" a "private" business place to regulate these > matters. Recent history (80 years or so...) shows an increasing tendency > for the government to "protect" workers by regulating the workplace. There > are health & safety regs, minimum wage regs, etc. The "American" populace > has in general supported (and at times demanded) these external limits on > the "private" employer/employee relationship. Legal precedent exists. > > There are two problems here and historically the government has been called > upon to keep a balance between "free speech" and "harmful speech" on the > one hand and "Privacy" and "Protection" on the other hand. The debate now > is with this case which way will (should?) the pendulum swing? More > protection (reduction of privacy), more freedom (or hateful speech)... > > Personally, I hope no one wins this eternal debate 100% since the results > would be disastrous. > > Just some thoughts... > > Albert P. Franco, II > encryption(a)apf2.com > > == _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Child-Molesting Forger's Chilling Confession!!!1!
by Martin ELLISON 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

application/www-form-urlencoded

1 0

BEWARE of SnakeOil (tm)
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> The subpoena Booher received also ordered him to bring to the courthouse the >> source code for his product, suggesting the government wants to reverse >> engineer it. > The writer of this article shows an astonishing lack of computer knowledge. If they get the source code then there is no need to reverse engineer! Discount anything technical this writer says since he/she is clueless! Give 'em a word processor and they think they're journalists... Albert P. Franco, II

1 0

Is it true that PGP 5.X is not secure?
by Lars Weitze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There are still rumors about that... ChromeDemon - -- "One dead is a tragedy, thousand deads are a statistic." Karl Marx e-mail: chromedemon(a)netcologne.de http://chromedemon.home.pages.de http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-weitzela2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBNevU0XnCsKPabtOfEQILcACfZ097WlD1pyA+2c7qv5RcyuYQJaEAoOmf mvg3B9F9NNv7qrHljjgC1T+B =J/8j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2