- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

(fwd) Email Robot draws fire from CypherPunkz
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: news.eff.org!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cs.umd.edu!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!agate!boulder!ucsub.Colorado.EDU!peterson From: peterson(a)ucsub.Colorado.EDU (Peterson Penny) Newsgroups: alt.privacy Subject: Email Robot draws fire from CypherPunkz Date: 12 Sep 96 02:57:19 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Lines: 11 Message-ID: <peterson.842497039(a)ucsub.Colorado.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsub.colorado.edu NNTP-Posting-User: peterson X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #8 (NOV) The Cypherpunks gang has apparently attacked a San Francisco artist's www site, harrassing him and mail-bombing his service provider in an attempt to get him to drop the account. The Cpunks objected to an applett that this artist had on one of his pages that would send a mail greeting to people who had a *mail-to:* button on their www pages. This greeting consisted of his URL only and went through an anon remailer. More info and a sample of the email robot can be found at: http://www.hipcrime.com -- // declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com //

1 0

Re: 56 kbps modems
by William Ehrendreich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yeah... and besides that ... if your local telco has lifted your load coils then you have a much better chance! ---------- > From: Enzo Michelangeli <enzo(a)ima.com> > To: Asgaard <asgaard(a)Cor.sos.sll.se> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: 56 kbps modems > Date: Friday, September 13, 1996 10:24 AM > > On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Asgaard wrote: > > > >U.S. Robotics and Rockwell International are planning new modems with > > >speeds up to 56 kbps a second, almost double the speed of the fastest > > >rate now available. The new devices should be available by the end of > > >the year, although their top speed initially may be less than 56 kbps. > > >(Wall Street Journal 12 Sep 96 B11) > > > > People who seemed to know used to say that 'the Shannon limit' > > set an absolute upper limit around 40 kbps. Has Shannon been > > proven wrong, or what? > > Well, it all depends on the signal-to-noise ratio. Also, if the noise is > not white gaussian the situation can be even better. > > Enzo >

1 0

Re: 56 kbps modems
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM 9/13/96, Asgaard wrote: >>U.S. Robotics and Rockwell International are planning new modems with >>speeds up to 56 kbps a second, almost double the speed of the fastest >>rate now available. The new devices should be available by the end of >>the year, although their top speed initially may be less than 56 kbps. >>(Wall Street Journal 12 Sep 96 B11) > >People who seemed to know used to say that 'the Shannon limit' >set an absolute upper limit around 40 kbps. Has Shannon been >proven wrong, or what? > >Asgaard I imagine that both modems in a connection become phase locked with the underlying 8K digital carrier. Then each modem signal element is carried by just one 8 bit digital sample. That carrier moves 8 bit bytes 8000 times per second. Stopping at 56 Kb instead of 64Kb means that a 7 bit DA converter for the sending modem and a 7 bit AD converter in the receiver, plus some fancy analog filters to undo the subscriber loop effects. Going for 64Kb would require twice the signal to noise ratio on the local loops. I think that modern PBXs have a digital link to the phone company. This would mean that an ISP would not have to buy fancy modems. A modified PBX could transmit and receive bits to a computer directly. It will impact the phone compnany's ISDN service but I don't think that they can stop this.

1 0

Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: > I'm crushed. > Seriously, what is the import of the "real identifiable > human" or the "posting under their legal names" point? It's been a bad spam day. If someone offered me a switch that would separate academicians from AOLers, I would throw it. That doesn't necessarily mean I would leave it in the "ON" position forever, or that I would consider such a thing to be the correct Cypherpunks approach to the problem. > If an AI program posts quality stuff, what's the difference? > Why the import of true "legal" names? Why not simply > develop reputation signatures? > The concept that "legal names" are some how a credential is > silly. I have a friend who has four, with matching SSN > cards. These are all good points, but today (as opposed to days when I am in a good mood, and think correct political thoughts), I would opt for the quick and dirty solution. > What your suggestion basically says is "instead of > developing our own decentralized reputations system for > filtering lets use one already in place, i.e. the state > Department of Motor Vehicles. Let's develop our own decentralized reputations system for filtering. Could we have it installed in the "sci" and "comp" hierarchies by tomorrow morning please? > Mr. Duvos' idea is, in my view, a step backwards. Mr. Duvos, like other humans with Net fatigue, is occasionally not in good humour. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1

Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes: > Well, it would seem some are helping to make my point; > M.Duvos is calling for government intervention, in the form > of an "Internet Driver's License." Nothing to do with the government. If people choose to voluntarily obtain a key with which to voluntarily sign their posts, and I set my newsreader to present only articles which correspond to keys having certain criteria, all is well and good. Anyone can still post anything they like, including unsigned articles, and the filter is at the reading end, which is where it should be. A given key could mean "I am Mike Duvos", "I am Tim May", or "I am Dorothy Denning." Or it could mean something more obscure, like "I showed my driver's license to get this key", or "10 leading Cypherpunks think I'm a Nym worth listening to", or even "I donate regularly to the 700 Club." > There goes anonimity, which has, in general, been a "good > thing" on the 'net. Here comes "big brother", to protect us > from the evil anonymous spammer. Bullfeathers. Encouraging people to sign posts, and permitting newsreaders to select based on signature characteristics is about as big a threat to anonymity as a procmail file which filters out everything having an anon remailer disclaimer attached to it. > Here comes more government infrastructure to enforce the > LAWS that "we", as a society, have subjected ourselves to, > so that "the few, the rude, the clueless" can no longer send > out their anonymously sourced spam. They can spam all they want. They can be as rude and clueless as they wish. It hardly requires additional government infrastructure if *I* want to only read posts signed by keys endorsed by persons or organizations I trust. > Less freedom, more taxes. How one moves from a system of voluntarily signing Usenet posts to more taxes is beyond my ability to comprehend. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 13 Sep 96 at 13:37, Admin wrote: > > >Also, I charge $500 per message. I've always liked flat fees. :-) > >------- Forwarded Message ------- > >At 21:50 9/11/96, Ross Wright <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> wrote to > >cypherpunks(a)toad.com and remailer-operators(a)c2.org: > >Unsolicited advertising/promotional email proofread for > >$500/message! Your sending such a message to me is an explicit > >request for my services! > Inane, off-thread, unsupported weak analogous attempts at reasoned > argument received, but not read - simply deleted, for $1000/message. > Sending OR posting the above to me or a Newsgroup that I may happen > to read constitutes your accord and acceptance of the above > contract. If I must read them, the fee is $2000/message. Geeee... I am *truly* clueless with my 0.1 g of pure gold per e-mail deleted. As of today, take notice, I'm increasing my rates to 2 ounces of 99.99+ pure gold per received and deleted e-mail. jfa Jean-Francois Avon, Montreal QC Canada "One of theses centuries, the brutes, private or public, who believe that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson of what happens when brute force encounters mind and force." - Ragnar Danneskjold PGP key at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Juno Newbies are Great!
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, there are lots of spammers, clueless newbies, and wannabes there. There are some cool things about Juno - it's free. Anybody can get on it. Easily. Anonymously, more or less, since they don't need to have your whole credit history to be able to charge you money. At most you need a maildrop. - it's free. Anybody can get on it. Without a government. Without a bureaucracy from Washington who are Here To Help Us Provide Universal Access to the Nationalist Infotainment Infrastructure. Without telling us how to run _our_ systems. - it's free. Anybody can get on it. Anybody can try to compete. There aren't any subsidies, so there aren't any rules, except the usual "make sure you've got positive cash flow soon" and "reputation capital can sell lots of stock." - it's free. Nobody has to be on it. If you don't like the management, you can bail, with minimal investments, and go find better. - it's free. Nobody has to be on it, unlike a government-run NII that you need to pay your taxes, do your banking, register cars, keep your draft card up to date and your papers in order, and can get thrown off if they suspend your Internet Driver's License for six months. - it's free. _I_ don't have to pay for it if I don't want it. - it's free. Any newbie, spammer, or 3133T D00D can get on it, act as stupid as they want, and it's ok, because the public knows (or will soon enough) that clueless people live there and not to take any email from juno.com too seriously - it's not like mail from whitehouse.gov or kremvax.su or cnn.com that you know you'd better read and believe every word of. It's as accurate as the National Enquirer, it's the Net Of A Million Lies, and like Television, nothing to panic over. So, like, relax, chill out, and get procmail or BozoWatch or some other filter, and you not only can get rid of most of the junobots, you can use it to get rid of lots of other spam, and use that new Distributed Reputation Service Platform that Anon(a)juno.com is developing to find the interesting 100 messages per day of the 1000 you receive. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

EGO_war
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-13-96. FiTi: "On manoeuvres in the modern military mind." The most interesting challenge is psychological. Participants learn the hard way that they cannot simply command. They must persuade, cajole and win over subordinates, allies and politicians, who may have varying agendas. While lower level command requires physical courage and speed of decision, higher commmand involves moral courage, intellectual vision and perseverance. "Politicians are being pressed by interest groups on all sides, while the military will usually only focus on their aspect of the task. The collision of those two sets of values can be quite a shock." The more subtle message from the historians is the lethal potential of petty jealousies, warring ambitions and clashing egos. ----- http://jya.com/egowar.txt (16 kb) EGO_war

1 0

Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> >> Hallam-Baker writes: >> > Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that >> > employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your >> > rights the day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to >> > the cooprorations a while back you might have got out of the middle >> > ages. >> >> Yes, we could be a workers paradise like one of those lovely European >> countries with double digit unemployment and all. Too bad we didn't go >> in for democratic socialism while we could have, eh? > >Perry, hate to burst your bubble but unemployment in the UK _trippled_ >in the first eighteen months of rule by that great socialist Margret ^^^^^^^^^ >Thatcher. One third of UK manufaturing industry went bankrupt in the >only large scale application of Freedman's ideas. Ummm. We're being Hallam-Baker PhD'ed again. I think she was a little bit Tory. Conservative, maybe? Right wing? Funded by industry? On kissing terms with Reagan? Socialist, no. Or was this an attempt by Doctor Sarcasm at wit? Actually the UK is now way ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of deregulation, low labor costs, efficient manufacturing, etc. Germany and France are now up the familiar creek because of their too-socialist policies. But there are those who say that Thatcher's slash and burn approach was appalling. You get the government you deserve, but not necessarily when you deserve it. That's what causes all the fuss. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Technology (n): | | A substitute for adulthood. stevenw(a)best.com | Popular with middle-aged men.

1 0

Re: Alien and Sedition Acts [WAS xs4all.nl] then Terrorists
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Look for something along these lines from Congress in the not too distant future. All in our best interest, of course. (from 'In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson, Nobel E. Cunningham, Jr.) "The first alien act (June 25, 1798) empowered the president to order the deportation of any alien he judged "dangerous to the peace and saftey of the united State" or had reasonable grounds to suspect was involved in any trasonable intrigue against the government. It was up to the president to determine what constituted a danger." "Even more sweeping and more objectionable to Republican opponents of the administration was the sedition act (July 14, 1798). Passed in the final days of of the session, after Jefferson had left for Virginia, the act made it unlawful for any person to combine or conspire together to oppose any lawful measure of the government, to prevent any officer of the united States from performing his duties, or to aid or attempt to procure 'any insurrection, roit, unlawful assembly, or combination.' Furthermore, it provided for the punishment of any person writing, uttering, or publishing 'any false, scandalous and malicious writing' against the president, the Congress of the government of the united States, made with the intent to defame them or exite against them 'the hatred of the good people of the united States.'" >At Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:54:29 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Then again, the only reason I am not a terrorist is that the government >>hasn't YET defined hate speach directed against the government to be >>terrorism. > >Don't be so hasty in saying this. > >A couple of months ago Clinton signed some sort of bill having to do with >terrorism, terrorist organizations, funding of same, and deportation of >alien-units suspected of being allied with terrorist organizations. (I seem >to recall another such act being passed in early 1995, so there may be more >than one of these things...) > >Given the mounting hysteria about terrorism (by the government, at least), >and given the various laws on the books, I would not be surprised to see >some Web sites prosecuted as "harboring" terrorists terrorist-symps. > >If any of you are not citizens of the U.S., and are here on visas, I would >give this some real serious thought. Of course, maybe deportation is a >blessing in disguise. > >--Tim May

1 0