- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > > I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, > > anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is > > already crazy. > Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our > relationships with the "Establishment." It is who are using a > intellectually dishonest smokescreen of "freedom of speech" in > order to disrupt and hamper the work of Cypherpunks who are > dancing into the arms of the "Establishment." [some snip] > This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did > not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse > in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. If most > list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we > can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the > meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show > John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. > Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot > more than homesteading. Actually, it is a certifiable fact that the list subscribers can jump to the unmoderated list whenever they want to. It is also a certifiable fact that they (97% or so) have *not* done so. Because of these facts, I must conclude that either: 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that they've just left things as is. Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between).

3 2

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis > However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should > not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their > civilians > in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. > The U.S.G. has many more resources than most of us to do these things, > including equipment, cooperative troops, money, and recognition from other > governments. If other nations disagree with the U.S.G. they have the > resources to discuss, bargain, negotiate, criticize, form alliances, take > their chances and retaliate, etc. I wish this were true, at least of nations which would be friendly to someone like me (white, Western, etc.). A bully on a school playground can always be knocked down, no matter how big or how vicious he is. Sadly, the U.S. bully cannot be knocked down. Bad enough you get nuclear, chemical, and/or biological stuff waved at you - if you get into a hot war like Desert Storm, your country is carpet-bombed with fleets of B-52's until it is thoroughly debilitated. How does one country get on top and terrorize the whole world? By following Tom Wolfe's intimation concerning the pirates: "The people on the East coast were constantly victimized because they couldn't comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were" (quote approximate). People who read this might argue that the "true power" is international now, and not confined to the USA. I say it doesn't matter which end you look at it from, the "true power" has been concentrating and centralizing itself for some years now, and you can use any nation-label you like.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:30 AM 1/26/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: >> The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the >> vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as >> someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not >> be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes >> out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come >> from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. >> >> It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens >> of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or >> "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of >> us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those >> who would take it away". > >However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should >not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians >in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. "I have a solution to that problem." Seriously! Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see any recognition of this fact. For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps. Simple. Economical. And, dare I say it, fair. I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war, and they didn't even get rid of Saddam. I'm sure AP would have done the task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes. Much of that money would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.) There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused among the people. Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected, except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded. Reminds me of the punchline to that joke. "He sent two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want?!?" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

WinKrypt
by Frank Willoughby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Out of curiosity, is anyone familiar with WinKrypt by Syncronsys? I picked up a copy & there is no mention in the documentation which encryption algorithm it uses & what the key lengths are. FWIW, my impression is that the documentation seems to deliberately avoid mentioning the algorithm/key lengths. Hmmmm. (food for thought) I was curious how it compares to McAfee's PC Crypto which uses 40-bit DES or 160-bit Blowfish (user-chooses) & other PC/laptop encryption products. BTW, I would also appreciate your input on any crypto products which you believe to be robust, easy-to-use & secure. (I know I can only have 2 out of 3, but it's worth a try anyway). 8^) Please send marketing info to me directly at: frankw(a)in.net and **NOT** to the entire mailing list. (BTW, I mentioned WinKrypt & PCcrypo because they are the only two which are available at many computer stores as COTS s/w). TIA for your help. Best Regards, Frank

2 1

Re: DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program
by bernard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Newsgroups: comp.security.misc > > * DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program > > * at; http://www.xs4all.nl/~bernard > > Bernard, thanks for an interesting post. I am Cc-ing your message to > > Cypherpunks mailing list which is ostensibly dedicated to discussions > > of cryptography. > > > > As follows from info on your home page, you do use simple XOR to > > encrypt your data. It was not clear to me though, how do you generate > > the keys to encrypt the data. I am sure that many readers of cypherpunks > > mailing list will be interested, so please send a copy of your reply > > to cypherpunks(a)toad.com. You can enter a short key or import one with command [Get Key]. This is, you point any file, and the key will become the 30000 first characters of this file. You can get this file any where on your machine, the network, the internet, foppy,,,,, If you add (paste or type) or delete characters at the begining of the imported key, the reste will shift right, and this imported key become a new key. You can't remember a key of 30000 chr (so you have to store it) but you can remenber the the change you made (10 to 100 or more chr) and of course, don't store it. Thank you for your interest. DPT dos / DPT16 / DPT32 http://www.xs4all.nl/~bernard

1 0

Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> > > > > Nonsense - the net doesn't "belong" to "Singapore or China" - > > The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of > 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. > I have the right to do whatever I want to anything that comes through my part > of the net, including censoring or editing any mail that comes through it, so > that it reflects a point of view consistent with mine, since I am the one > paying for it. > The net is a bunch of computers, > running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and > EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility > support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody > else is along for the ride. > Those who pay the money, like myself and others who have bought the right > to control the net, are justified in acting without outside interference > on anything that passes through our part of the net. > If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on > the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. > The net belongs to those with the money to control it, and people who do > not have money have no rights on the net. > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > understand what is going on. > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > anything that passes through his part of the net. > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com Jim, Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over the part of the net that I have paid for. I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose they choose. As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was set up to espouse. Toto

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > California is know for very beautiful girls ... wrong. - Igor.

1 0

RE: overview.htm (fwd)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only > cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY OBJECT TO. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Assination
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > > > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > > > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? > > > > If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, > > that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* > > in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors). > > But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant > and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them. > > A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like > usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets, > would be a good demo. I have a feeling that you are missing the point. The point of AP is not to bet on whether a certain event will occur or not. The point is that only a person who really makes it happen (assassinates someone) will know enough to get the money. All other betters who do NOT intend to bring the event about will expect to lose money, because they will not be able to make a sufficiently good prediction. It is not a bookie system, it is a collective anonymous hire-a-hitman scheme. Yuor suggestion about trying a demo about homophobic posts is good, BUT what needs to be added to make it a good demo is a danger for the poster to lose an account. I.e., the requirement to such a homophobic post should be that 1) it should be PGP signed by a real person and 2) it should have a correct return address. Any fool can send an anonymous message, and that would have no educational value and no value for the AP demo. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > > understand what is going on. > > > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > > > Jim Choate > > > CyberTects > > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > > > Jim, > > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > > the part of the net that I have paid for. > > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > > they choose. > > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > > set up to espouse. > > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that > party did not write them is a crime? cite the statute - Igor.

1 0