- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: GSM technology
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year.

1 0

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Greg Broiles Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) .................................................................. Heh - Jim B. and Jim C.: the Yin & Yang of Society At Large. What could a discussion between them produce. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:37:01 -0500, you wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends how paranoid you are, how good your passphrase is, how much you trust the repairman not to snoop, etc. For the hell of it I'd revoke my key and issue a new one though. It's not a minor inconvenience, and when people use your old key you can still decrypt the message... just send 'em a note that you prefer they use you're current (unrevoked) key. --Rob

1 0

NOISE.SYS Home Page
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I now have an under-construction home page for NOISE.SYS, in case you're interested: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/software.htm#noise (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-RNG device for DOS boxes.) Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). ........................................................................ Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can unsubscribe (sp?). They *don't* have to take it, or identify with the cpunks any longer. I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, plus the fact that many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), plus a lack of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it difficult to think in a straight line. Sometimes the posts on the list come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine points of difference. Whom can one blame for what does not exist (on the list) - there is no mechanism for its production; only the attractions of the subject and the aim, are what bring in the participants who could provide substance and depth. Perhaps waxing lyrical on the features of Eudora and regular reminders on the benefits of mail filtering would be encouraging to "the timid"? .. Blanc

2 1

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [GSM] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > __o > _ \<_ > (_)/(_) This guy keeps forgetting to add 'crypto-relevant' to his headings. No wonder they go to 'flames'.

1 0

PGP 2.1
by lwjohnson＠grill.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that > philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just > government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. I've seen this kind of statement so many times I just have to point it out: "which this moderation policy *clearly* (emph. mine) is not". Why is it so clear to you, but not everyone? Am I missing something? Didn't Reagan, Bush, North et al make it clear enough to Americans that much of what the govt. does has been privatized, as if we didn't know already from the 1970's assassination hearings in the Congress, or from when Carter fired the 900 security guys and they went to work for "private" contractors? I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved. John Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating" this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it. Have you or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this? Is he so devoted to crypto and personal freedom that he'll do *anything* to eliminate the postings which "threaten" this list, or could there be some other, hidden motivation? My long experience in the real world says that professional people do *not* devote a great deal of their time to things like this unless there is an *awfully* good reason. > On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > > repercussions). > > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while?

1 0

Re: GSM technology
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year.

1 0