- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn wrote, >On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Dar Scott wrote: > >> Black Unicorn wrote, [snip} We seem to be having problems with the meanings of words. For example, I make a distinction between certification and licensing. Also, I see violence and coercion as being ultimately related to something physical. I'm not sure what "proper", "competent to practice"... mean. And I see a big difference in a market based monopoly and a government based monopoly. [snip] >Didn't I just say this above? > >A centralized, or several centralized authorities. I had assumed you meant by authority an agent of the state that is able to envoke or otherwise wield the physical force of the state. By a certifying entities I was refering to private organizations that had no similar power or to government organizations that had only the power to provide information. By a licensing entity I was refering to an organization that can coerce to prevent the unlicensed from doing the licensed behavior. By coercion I meant the threat of physical force or the force itself. Though one might think of physical force as applying to murder, kidnapping, slavery, assault, robbery, physical theft, I would also apply it to theft or damage of abstract property that has properties like physical property. I intend for these to apply to many actions of the state. Perhaps I erred in applying "certification" and "license" to these contrasting concepts, but I do think the distinction is important and the observation that there are fuzzy areas in between does not remove that. If I have a license from the local gang to sell drugs and the guy across the street does not, I could encourage the gang to do something and the guy might get shot. Similarly, if I was a PE and my competitor across the street was not, I could encourage the state to do something that--with several stages of his lack of cooperation--results in his finding a gun in his face or worse. >I guess the center of my question is, how can you apply Web of Trust to >e.g. a university degree. Who cares what Bob and Alice think my degree >is in, the client only wants to know from the institution. It does not matter why people would trust a certifying entity. It might have a great earned reputation, it might "borrow" some reputation from bonding or audits, or it might have ties to the Real World. > Licensing can only be done by an >> entity that can use physical force to prevent >> buying and selling legal services. > >I believe you are incorrect, but I guess my main concern is your >characterization of "Physical force." I am assuming you mean coercion, >and not that you will be jailed or such (though this may be the case). > >I would argue that as long as coercion exists (violence of any type, >physical or not) you have a licensing authority. Take the hollywood >blacklist. No one actually pushed around suspected pinko screenwriters >(well, at least, if anyone did, it was incendential) but they certainly >faced a great deal of persuasive motivation. Look at the committee as >the licensing authority here. (Licensing you as a non-communist as it were). It seems I am using coercion in a different sense. Unless blacklisting has physical force at its root enforcement mechanism it is not coercion and is very fragile. >If several governmental and private authorities were in the practice of >certifing that Bob has a law degree from Tremont University, and that he >is competent to practice in D.C., and given that the citizens of D.C. >will look for these credentials, isn't this a license? Afterall, Bob has >to pass some test or requirement to get the signatures. Isn't this >coercion in your definition? No. I apologize for any confusion. >Can't the multiple authorities set common >or near common guidelines? Rather, don't they HAVE to in order to have >their signatures worth the electrons they are transmitted with? In general, No. Under many conditions market forces make services alike, but more often competing businesses find particular market niches. I would expect that different certs would cover different levels of expertise, different specializations and different breadths of specializations. Any lawyer might have a dozen certs. I would not expect there to be a single level of certification for all applications. I know of several companies in which the primary product designer has no engineering degree. >If you take the exteme position you seem to, there's an antitrust case here. I don't insist there has to be a variety. I only desire that coercion does not come into play in preventing it. As I said, if a natural monopoly forms at times, I am not worried. >Am I not "licensing" my key signature to people provided they pass my key >signature criteria? Am I not doing violence by withholding my signature >and the benefits it might convey for certain "terms?" [snip] >This is the trap of the licensing argument. I see a big difference in withholding a signature and sending gunmen. There is no violence in withholding a signature. >The evil is not licensing, which I think serves a real purpose, but >created convenience fees, taxation through the withholding of licensing >and the use of other government largess. I wrote a massive piece on this >and sent it to the list about a year and a half ago. With interest I will >repost it. Even if no one else is interested, I'd like to see it. >The real question is how you decide what an authority to license is. Is >it to be dictated by government? Or by market forces (i.e. the >reputation of the licenser). Yes, the government vs. market question is key, but I believe the answer is in that distinction I used in contrasting terms "certification" and "license". The "who" is tied up in what the instrument is. >> >I don't see how the net will eliminate the basic need for highly >> >qualified professionals and the proof that they have credentials. >> >> It won't. The needs might shift a little but they >> will be there. > >Then why will lawyers, or a 'professional monopoly' be broken? The meaning of "qualified professional" and "credentials" will be market-based and multidimensional, not defined by the state or a group already "qualified" using the state for enforcement. [snip] Concerning a market-based monopoly, >> Not so bad if it happens, >> but much more honest, efficient and softer-edged >> than "licensed to practice". > >I'm not so sure. There will be a tremendous amount of corporate power in >these authorities, and if (as you seem to be saying a few paragraphs up) it >is hard to break into the trusted certification business, there is a >monopoly again. I don't really think this is a problem. It is the force-based monopoly and specifically the government-based monopoly I have a problem with. [snip] >Like the several state Bars? The market advantage is slight. [snip] >So you have estentially admitted that a central authority is required? >Or will be more often used? Not required. [snip] >If your defintion of license is simply who does the coercing, I think you >should reconsider. What ever the word used, I see the distinction between 1) the assertion of certain information and 2) the threat of force as being key. Perhaps, I could have use the phrases "non-coercion-based" licensing and "coercion-based" licensing, but I am not comfortable with these--trade licensing invokes too violent of an image. A note to all in government licensed trades: I recognize that licensing is part of the real world we live in. Often one has to be licensed to practice a favorite trade. I do not mean to describe the licensed themselves as violent. Dar =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html ===========================================================

2 1

NSA on GAK
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The opening comments here by Admiral McConnell of the NSA appear to parallel the comments of Mr. Michael Nelson at the September 6 NIST Key Escrow meeting on the use of encryption by "spies, terrorists, and criminals." URL: http://csrc.ncsl.nist.gov/secnews/ees_q-a.txt ---------- Note: The following answers were provided by NSA to the Senate Subcommittee on Technology and the Law in response to their follow- up questions to the May 3, 1994 hearings. --------------------------- Senate Subcommittee on Technology and the Law Hearing on the Administration's Key Escrow Encryption Standard Written Questions for Vice Admiral McConnell, NSA *Questions for Senator Pressler: Q: Admiral, as you are aware, critics of the Administration's proposal argue that as a practical matter, no criminal, foreign spy, or terrorist of any sophisticated would be foolish enough to use an encryption device designed by the NSA and approved by the FBI. How do you respond? Why do[n't you] think the people whose telecommunications the NSA and the FBI want most to decode will be the very people most unlikely to use this technology? Answer: From what we know today, the overriding requirement that spies, terrorist, and criminals have is for readily available and easy to use equipment that interoperates. Key escrow encryption is not meant to be a tool to catch criminals. It will make excellent encryption available to legitimate businesses and private citizens without allowing criminals to use the telecommunications system to plan and commit crimes with impunity. We believe it would be irresponsible for government to make excellent encryption broadly available knowing that its use by criminals would make it impossible for law enforcement agencies to conduct lawful wiretaps against them. The Department of Justice credits information gleaned through wiretaps as leading to more than 20,000 felony convictions since the early 1980s. This would not have been possible if the criminals had been using encryption systems the FBI could not break. Without government action, however, this fortunate situation will change. At present most people, and most criminals, don't use encryption. However, there is an increasing public awareness of the value of encryption for protecting private personal and business communications. Increasing demand for encryption by the public will likely lead to the widespread use of some form of standardized encryption on the public telecommunications network. This development would have great benefits for the country. Legitimate businesses an private individuals could use the telecommunications system secure in the knowledge that their private information such as business records and credit card numbers could not be intercepted by third parties. But there is a down side. Criminals, terrorists, and others could also use the system to plan crimes, launder money, and the like, completely secure in the knowledge that law enforcement agencies could not listen to those communications. Just as legitimate businesses operate much more efficiently and effectively using the telecommunications system than they could without it, so will criminal enterprises be able to operate more efficiently and effectively if they no longer have to avoid using the telecommunications system. The United States is faced with a choice. We can sit back and watch as the emerging national information infrastructure becomes a valuable tool for criminals and terrorists to use to plan and carry out their activities with complete security, or we can take steps to maintain the current ability of government to conduct lawful wiretaps so that prudent criminals will have to find other less efficient ways to operate and foolish ones may be caught. Key escrow encryption is the later option. Q: Would widespread use of the Skipjack algorithm harm U.S. exports? Do you think it is unlikely foreign businesses will purchase American encryption technology if the U.S. Government holds a set of the decoding keys? Answer: I do not believe that widespread use of key escrow encryption in the United States will harm U.S. exports. If it has any effect at all, it could increase exports somewhat. Key escrow encryption products provide another option for foreign purchasers that they have not had in the past; to the extent that foreigners doe purchase key escrow encryption products, it will mean an increase in exports. Meanwhile, U.S. exporters are free to continue to sell the products they currently sell in foreign markets and to seek license approvals for new products. It is difficult to predict the foreign market for U.S. key escrow encryption technology. Businesses that fear U.S. Government interception of their communications presumably would avoid products for which the U.S. Government hold keys. However, there are a number of reasons why foreign businesses might purchase them. One major reason would be to communicate securely with U.S. businesses that use them. In addition, the superior level of security provided by key escrow products (against all but lawful U.S. Government access) may make them attractive to foreign business that do not view U.S Government access as a major concern. While some prospective users abroad may steer clear of key escrow products because the United States will retain access, there may be many who believe they are unlikely to be targeted by U.S. intelligence in any case or for whom the superior security offered by key escrow encryption products against threats of greater concern may make key escrow products an attractive option. For example, a distributor of pay-TV programming may depend on encryption to ensure that only those viewers who pay for the service can decrypt the TV signal. Such a distributor probably would not be concerned about the threat of access by the United States Government, and might favor suitable key escrow encryption products over competing products that use weaker encryption algorithms. Q: You were present when the previous panelist, Stephen Walker, described how present U.S. laws prohibit his company from exporting encryption products. As I understand it, Senator Murray's bill S.1846, attempts to relax these export controls somewhat. Please give us your views on this legislation. Answer: I support the Administration's position, as announced by the White House on February 4, that current export controls must remain in place and that regulatory changes should be implemented to speed exports and reduce the licensing burden on exporters. The bill you reference appears to be inconsistent with the Administration position. I would be happy to provide you further information on the Administration's reasons for maintaining the current export controls in an appropriate setting. *Questions from Senator Murray: Q: In my office in the Hart building this February, I downloaded from the Internet an Austrian program that uses DES encryption. This was on a laptop computer, using a modem over a phone line. The Software Publishers' Association says there are at least 120 DES or comparable programs world wide. However, U.S. export control laws prohibit American exporters from selling comparable DES programs abroad. With at least 20 million people hooked up to the Internet, how do U.S. export controls actually prevent criminals, terrorists, or whoever from obtaining DES encryption software? Answer: Serious users of encryption do not entrust their security to software distributed via networks o bulletin boards. There is simply too much risk that viruses, Trojan Horses, programming errors, and other security flaws may exist in such software which could not be detected by the user. Serious users of encryption, those who depend on encryption to protect valuable data and cannot afford to take such chances, instead turn to other sources in which they can have greater confidence. Such serious users include not only entitles which may threaten U.S. national security interests, but also businesses and other major consumers of encryption products. Encryption software distribution via Internet, bulletin board, or modem does not undermine the effectiveness of encryption export controls. [Primary written questions for Admiral McConnell] 1. The Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1994 has authorized $800,000 to be spent by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of federal encryption policy. Can we wait to implement the key escrow encryption program until we have the benefit of the NRC's study? Do you think this study is necessary? Should this study be expedited? Answer: We do not believe that we can wait until after the NRC study is completed in 1996 to begin implementation of the key escrow initiative. The information technology industry is dynamic and fast-moving, and to wait another two years or more would, we believe, jeopardize the success of the initiative. Industry demand for encryption products is growing, and the technology is available now to meet that demand with encryption products that provide an outstanding level of security to the user conduct lawful wiretaps. To wait for the completion of the NRC study to other encryption products which would defeat lawful wiretaps. We believe that such a delay would not be in the best interest of the American people. Neither do we believe that the study should be expedited. For our part, we will carefully consider the conclusions of the NRC study. We expect that it will give very careful consideration to the issues, and we would not want the pressure of an unnecessarily short deadline to limit the study group's ability to produce the best report possible. 2. The Administration has said that it is continuing to restrict export of the most sophisticated encryption devices, in part, "because of the concerns of our allies who fear that strong encryption technology would inhibit their law enforcement capabilities." Do we really need to help our allies by prohibiting the export of strong American encryption products, since those same countries can simply control the encryption bought within their borders? Answer: Exports of encryption products are subject to review primarily to protect U.S. national interests, including national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and other important interests. The law enforcement concerns of our allies are a consideration, especially as the ability of our allies to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and other international law enforcement problems can have direct benefits to the United States. However, foreign law enforcement concerns do not drive our export control policy. We would continue to review encryption exports to protect U.S. national interests even if foreign law enforcement concerns disappeared. 3. Do you know whether foreign governments would be interested in importing key escrow encryption products to which they hold the decoding keys? Answer: Several foreign governments have expressed interest in key escrow encryption technology due to their own law enforcement concerns. There have been some preliminary discussions, but issues such as who would hold the escrowed keys and the circumstances of government access to escrowed keys must be fully vetted. 4. The Government wants the key escrow encryption standard to become the de facto industry standard in the United States. Would the Government abandon the Clipper Chip program if it is shown to be unsuccessful beyond government use? Answer: We do not expect the program to be unsuccessful beyond government. We have developed a sound security product that we expect will find many uses in government information systems and further believe that government use will bring with it a commercial market, particularly in the defense sector. We have developed a sound security product that we expect will find many uses in government information systems regardless of its success in commercial markets. 5. Openly available devices, such as Intel-compatible microprocessors, have seen dramatic gains, but only because everyone was free to try to build a better version. Given the restrictions on who can build devices with the classified skipjack algorithm, how will key escrow chips keep up with advances in semiconductor speed, power, capacity and integration? Answer: Despite the requirements that a firm must meet to produce key escrow encryption chips, we expect that there will be a number of manufacturers competing against each other to produce the best product, and that such competition will drive them to keep up with the latest technological advances. It is worth noting that only a few companies can produce the sophisticated microprocessors you reference, yet the competition in that market has driven them to achieve remarkable advances in that technology. NSA's STU-III secure telephone program provides an example of a cryptographic product line that keeps pace with technology. The presence of a classified algorithm does not preclude keeping pace with technology. Through NSA's use of a competitive, multi-vendor approach, STU-III secure telephone products have continued to evolve in response to user requirements and technological advances despite their use of a classified encryption algorithm and the consequent need for security restrictions on the manufacturers. 6. How well does the Skipjack algorithm work on telecommunications operating at very high speeds. Is NSA working on another algorithm, called BATON, that could be used in high speeds with a key escrow system? Will Capstone be compatible with BATON? Answer: Using currently available microelectronics technology the SKIPJACK algorithm could not be used for encryption at very high speeds. BATON is the name of an algorithm developed by NSA that could be used at higher rates of speed. We have no plans to develop key escrow encryption devices using BATON, however. Instead, we are considering another algorithm for use at high speeds with a key escrow system. A high-speed key escrow device based on an algorithm other than SKIPJACK would not be "compatible with Capstone" in the sense that traffic encrypted by such a device could not be decrypted by Capstone, and vice versa. However, since such a device would be used for much higher-speed applications than those for which Capstone was designed, there would be no need for it to be compatible with Capstone in that sense. 7. Can Capstone be used to encrypt video programming? If so, have cable companies been approached by any government agency to use Capstone to scramble or encrypt cable program? Answer: Capstone could be used to encrypt any digital signal, including video programming, operating at up to about 10 million bits per second. It could be used for encrypting individual video channels but not for bulk encryption of many channels multiplexed together in a single link. NSA is not aware of any government agency approaching cable companies to urge the use of Capstone. Two manufacturers have asked us about the suitability of key escrow devices for this purpose, however. 8. Encryption software is available that can be used with Clipper to encypt a message before after it has been encrypted with Clipper. This "double encrypting" risks bypassing the key escrow feature. If a sender first encrypts the message with software using DES, and then transmits the message "double encrypted" with Clipper, can tell you from looking at the cipher, or encrypted text, that the underlying message was encrypted? Answer: The only way to tell that a message has been "double encrypted" in this way would be to decrypt the "outer layer" of encryption, i.e. that done with Clipper. Only then would one be able to tell that the message had first been encrypted with something else. ----------

1 0

Cool Website Check it out
by Wolf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out my cool website at http://members.tripod.com/~wolf16

1 0

(no subject)
by Andrew Fairbanks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsuscribe cypherpunks

2 1

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just realized that I haven't been making something clear. The ephemeral endpoints (to use Lance Cottrell's phrase) will be identified when they're used. The purpose of concealing from all but a trusted group (remailer operators) their address (at first) is to slow that identification as much as possible. If it takes someone (NSA or whatever) repeatedly sending messages through to discover each new address, this will take longer (and make it harder for traffic analysis, especially by other parties) than if the output end's address were immediately made public knowledge. This can be helped by the remailer(s) sending to the output address only accepting such mail from another remailer. -Allen

1 0

Re: crypto anarchy
by an42035＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Count on it. Things are moving much too slowly on "our" side. Entities >like AT&T, Warner, etc. stand a good chance of controlling much of what >becomes "the net" in the future, if much of this technology is not: >1) in place and functional >2) easy to use by the clueless and lazy as well as techies >3) accepted for use within the network, indeed considered *part of* the > network both as "flavour" and technical specifications >4) impossible to remove - no govt/corporate turning back of the tide >VERY soon. In addition the populace has to become aware of: >4) HOW to do all of this - easy "newbie" software is needed - plug-n-play >5) that privacy is possible. Most have forgotten this. If we need this stuff out VERY soon, then there is a serious problem: Time-Warner, AT&T, etc. can afford to spend major $$$ on implementing technology, including having employees work on these projects full time, while the cypherpunks work that goes on is largely on a part time basis by otherwise employed professionals, or students. Not to insult anybody; each contribution in anonymous mail, digital cash, dc-nets, crypto software, etc. is GREATLY appreciated. However, the progress that has been made still has a fun oriented research and development slant. But all the same, if what you are saying is that these volunteer/hacker types have to battle for the future of the net, there's no way. I mean, look at all the stuff Phil Zimmerman went through to put out one crypto program. Can you expect anybody else to do the same? Many volunteers have spent countless man-hours working on PGP, and by no stretch of anybody's imagination is it "plug-n-play" ready. I can't tell you how many announcements of upcoming Windows PGP front-ends I've seen. I'm sure many hobbyists are working on it as much as they can, and I'm glad, but these people can't be expected to compete with real software development efforts. A software company that wants to make "plug-and-play" easy to use crypto software which meets #1 and #2 - including integration into popular mail software - will bury PGP or RIPEM by sheer numbers. Most people fall into the "clueless and/or lazy" category. >There's a lot of work to do. The Wired article may have called cypherpunks "millionaire hackers", but I don't think the majority of this list can afford to work on cypherpunks stuff full time like it probably needs to be worked on. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQBVAgUBLMRcPcOOfkF1iwTdAQE7ygH+OixoYSJBqiH5HbLj4TSjnEaUJINZlndk /zBYfigU0hFYB12rEpI1MBsqep9DNSzR4aOqyQMz4WQ45ayBCp4ekw== =kQBw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

5 4

List membership
by Robert Barnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is cypherpunks subscribed to some CNET new service list by design or accident? I looks like SPAM to me. </enter confession mode> I must admit that in my frenzy to unsubscribe I attempted to unsubscribe cypherpunks. </exit confession mode> RAB -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Barnes Phone: +61 7 32529722 Engineering Manager Fax: +61 7 32571403 Tritronics (Australia) Pty Ltd Email: robertb(a)tritro.com.au PGP Key fingerprint = 02 A6 22 5E 26 D3 7C 4D E2 91 9E 15 AC EA B1 58 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key

1 0

Re: Bounty Server, Revisited.
by Ian Grigg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Snow, > I have started drafting a proposal statement for the Bounty server. Wow, you've gotta move fast in this game :)) > Bounty Server, The proposal: > Version 0.1 > > Abstract: [chop where agreed or not disagreed] > Background: > It is the "Copylefted" software that interests me at this point. OK, although for my model, I am assuming that all forms are covered. > The proposal: > > What I am going to attempt to do is to set up a "Bounty Server" where > someone can iniate a "bounty" on a peice of technology. The initator > will write up a set of specifications for the technology, and an initial > award to be paid to the developer. They then post it on the server and > send their initial "bid" to the organization. Separate this out, for clarity of model. The initiator (I used Proposer, and called her Alice coz Alice always initiates) proposes the specification, or task. There is no need for Alice to submit an initial bid, although they have that option, as a buyer. BTW, bid to do what? Using market terminology, I have assumed thay bid is to buy, that is provide cash. Offer is to sell, that is provide software. Ah, yes, bid is add to bounty. > This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the > totals to add until someone claims that bounty by providing proof of > development to the initiator of the bounty. In software terms they would > upload the software to the server and notify the originator of the bounty, > and the server operators. Other technology will be figured out as it > becomes necessary. This is where I have put most of my efforts, because I need to design the microstructure that is built into our market. > Originally I was going to put the stipulation in that the software written > must be Copylefted. I decided that that wasn't really necessary, but > rather simply desired. To aid in that desire, I am going to build in > an initative to releaseing the software "copylefted". Absolutely - let the market decide. Some of us, for example, do not like copyleft. > To get more specific: [chop] > The first developer to upload a _working_ package to the server will > be awarded the total bounty, ... This worries me. If I, as a junior programmer, am looking to enter the market, I will have the daunting task of beating everyone else. Real life doesn't work that way - there are ways in which I can pick up some newbie tasks for low money, so as to build up experience and/or reputation. I guess the notion of bounty is just that - first one takes all. However, I think that the solution might be a bit limited in the long run. Interesting in that my proposal leads to task distribution by awarding contracts, your proposal leads to task incentives by rewarding speed. > "First" will be soley determined by the time stamp of the server. As soon > as the package is uploaded, the initiator and the server adminstrator > will be notifed, and the bounty marked "claimed". If the package is > accepted by the initiator, the bounty will be marked "closed", the > package moved to an FTP site for distribution (if Copylefted) or > moved offline if not (archived copies will be kept for legal reasons-- > more on that later). At that point a check for the developer will > be cut (or ecash mailed if that works out). OK, my proposals specifically assume no need for a "decision" by Alice. That's not to say either is right, it's just that I prefer to design something that eliminates the individual decision rather than cope with the complexities. I believe it will result, in the end, in a more efficient market. > The Server Adminstrator will also do an cursory check to make sure that > there are no obvious copyright violations. > > In the event that there is a conflict between the initiator and the > developer, the claim will go into adjudication. The server adminstrators > decesion is final, and he will make every effort to settle the claim > fairly. Adjudication will incur an additional fee (see the fees section). Same as above, no adjudication in my system. Although, it is possible to add underwriters, by simply making the task offerers (Bob and Carol) into bond writers who front for programmers. > Status: > > At this point in time I am (obviously) still in the process of developing > the procedures. I have registered a Domain Name (bounty.org) and I have > a couple promises off assistance in certain areas. As well, I have > a server to start off with. Wow, *gotta* move fast. As I say, our stuff is based on a lot of pre-existing software, so we make a lot of assumptions. Given our different approaches we may end up with competing systems rather than one, but that's fine, indeed highly valuable as an experimental approach. What's financing you in this? Or should I say, monetarily enthusing? I have started writing (last night :)) this all up as a paper for presentation to FC97. If you want, we could collaborate, or I will just document your efforts, and concentrate on presenting mine. My efforts are now at http://www.systemics.com/docs/papers/task_market.html TTFN iang.

1 0

Britannica Online Subscription Offer
by beta＠eb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Pathfinder Free Trial Participant, Thank you for participating in this special free trial subscription offer of Britannica Online exclusively for Time Warner's Pathfinder users. This free trial will be ending soon, and I would like to extend you a special discount to encourage you to become a Britannica Online subscriber. I hope you have had ample opportunity to sample all Britannica has to offer, and if you haven't used our service recently, I encourage you to take these *final weeks* to experience the only information resource offering this degree of depth, breadth, and interactivity. As a Pathfinder reader you know that NASA recently sent a Mars probe to begin a 10-month interplanetary voyage. Read our "Mars" article to find out what scientists have already discovered about the Red Planet, then follow an Internet link to the Los Alamos National Laboratory to view craters on Mars. Are you interested in health and nutrition? Review the extensive "Nutrition" article in Britannica Online, and look for the nutrient content in what you had for breakfast. Planning a trip over the holidays? Visit our "Nations of the World" feature to review the history, map, flag, and national statistics of the country you're considering before you finalize those travel plans. So whether you're interested in learning more about Mars, troubles in Iraq, or the latest hurricane, Britannica Online is regularly updated to give you access to articles on people, places, and events around the world. It includes the text of the entire 32-volume Encyclopaedia Britannica, plus more than 2100 articles not available anywhere else. Articles are written by notable scholars in their fields of expertise, including more Nobel Prize winners than any other encyclopedia. For about 50 cents a day you'll have access to the only reference source that combines the information power of the world's premier encyclopedia with thousands of direct links to related information. To sign-up for Britannica Online -- * Access the registration form at http://www.eb.com:195/bol/ by selecting either the monthly or annual subscription option * Enter PTF149A in the promotion code box for an annual subscription of $149 (our normal $25 registration fee will be waived for you as a Pathfinder user) Enter PTF149M in the promotion code box for a monthly subscription of $14.95 * Review to make sure information is complete and accurate, then submit Every day you and your family can learn something new about the events that are making history now. Your free trial will end in two weeks, so please don't let this opportunity pass you by. I'm positive you'll discover that finding quality information has never been easier. Sincerely, Lisa Girolimetti Marketing Manager, Online Products Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

1 0