- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Cypherpunk Policeman?
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Guy wrote: > Has 'cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net' replaced 'cypherpunks(a)toad.com'? Apparently it hasn't, because I never got a copy of my own post back. So, here it is again... > From aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 23 16:26:58 1998 > > Guy <guy(a)panix.com> claims that he managed to persuade PSInet (who > Dimitri used as his ISP) to pull his plug. Leaving him with full access to a minimum of three other accounts. Don't cry for him, Ukrainia... > I'd just like to feed back to Guy that I think this is uncool, and > that it is counter productive. Hey, maybe _you_ would get a warm and fuzzy feeling when Dimitry posts a death threat (including to this list) and signs your name: not me. ! I will gladly pay the $50,000 (canadian) reward to whomever KILLS ! Chris Lewis and his family, who reside in a suburb of Ottawa. ! I'm putting the notice of the CAUCE reward on http://www.panix.com/~guy ! ---guy > Guy, you may not have hit it off with Dimitri, but this is no reason > to go attempting to censor people. Ever heard of a kill file? Censor? Yeah, and the "Freedom Fighters" who are against any spam cancellation do so because they are fighting "censorship". I don't think so. > As an aside I don't think getting into a dirty tricks contest with > Dimitri is a good idea, I am pretty sure Dimitri could win by a large > margin if he cared to. No dirty tricks involved: I complained to PSINet using traffic analysis. If he had simply called me a cocksucker, I would not have complained. > Guy <guy(a)panix.com> writes: > > PSINet terminated Vulis for stalking, which I documented he did to a > > minimum of four people. > > What is your working definition of stalking as applied to a mailing > list, USENET or email? What are you talking about? In addition to death threats, forging death threats: he tries to get people fired from their jobs. But Dimitry can't figure out where I work (MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA), reducing him to saying I was fired from where I _used to_ work. <snicker> This stalking: attempting to deprive someone of their right to work. ---- > From tcmay(a)got.net Mon Feb 23 17:14:50 1998 > > At 1:24 PM -0800 2/23/98, Adam Back wrote: > >Guy <guy(a)panix.com> claims that he managed to persuade PSInet (who > >Dimitri used as his ISP) to pull his plug. > > > >I'd just like to feed back to Guy that I think this is uncool, and > >that it is counter productive. > > > >Guy, you may not have hit it off with Dimitri, but this is no reason > >to go attempting to censor people. Ever heard of a kill file? > > I agree with Adam. As one who has borne a frontal assault of Vulis' insults > and raves, and (in all probability his) ASCII artwork, I dealt with it by > filtering as much of it as I could into a trash file. Oh, great, an independently wealthy person is telling me it's not a problem that a known stalker has posted angrily to this list asking if anyone knows where I work. > In my 10 years of actively being on the Net (though my first ARPANet > account was in 1973), I've complained a handful of times to postmasters, > and only _once_ because of content. The rest were about spam, mail bombs, > etc. > > The one content-based complaint I made was about Lawrence Detweiler's > attachment of my name to pro-Hitler, anti-Jewish rants he sent to > newsgroups like alt.culture.jewish and alt.culture.german. Then please explain why you agree with Adam, since I decided to complain to PSINet about Vulis stalking me and signing my name to death threats? > If Vulis can have his account yanked for calling Guy a pedophile, what > about all those who have called Arthur C. Clarke a pedophile? > > Has there been any determination (and what does that mean anyway?) as to > whether either Guy or Clarke are pedophiles? Ahhh, that's the wrong question. Look past your nose. Calling me a pedophile is one part of Vulis' patented style of stalking attacks. Add to that him saying I was fired from consulting work for being a pedophile, asking if anyone knows where I now work, etc: stalking. It wasn't merely him being insulting, but part of a larger Simon-Barr-Sinister pattern of behavior. Certain behavior is not permissible regardless of the venue. Not a direct analogy, but: you would censor (CENSOR! CENSOR!) people who work for you who wanted to speak "Ebonics" on the job. Gosh, how dare you deprive them of their right to free speech!. ---- > From aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 23 21:35:47 1998 > > John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> writes: > > Since Guy's death notice Dimitri's telephone has not answered > > several tries. The number of his sig: 1-718-261-2013, in Brooklyn > > across floater bay from here. > > > > Was he whacked as well as unplugged? Or is he hiding from the > > peds, plotting anthrax terror posing as Jim Kallstrom? > > OK, Guy, could you fill us in on what exactly you did to get PSInet to > pull Dimitri's plug? Exactly what I said: I submitted traffic analysis reports ("the big picture") regarding Vulis' stalking activity via PSINet to their legal people. I have previously posted to this list a dejanews URL for an early traffic analysis report on him that I posted to Usenet. It was like that, only more complete and specifically oriented towards getting him spanked. > Did it involve calls to law enforcement? No. He used an anonymous remailer for the death threat. His personal stalking of me didn't get far before I blew him off PSINet. I'm sure he's learned his lesson. ;-) He's still here, but sulking silently. He's run out of dirty tricks. > Is it likely that your claims would have been relayed by PSI to law > enforcement? Oh, I _wish_ I had that kind of influence. Of course, in the Cryptography Manifesto polemic, I have said not-nice things about law enforcement, as part of complaining about Key Recovery and the general Orwellian state of affairs. Guy's CM: Louis Freeh is a Scary Man with the morals of a styrofoam cup. On the other hand, I do believe most FBI personnel are good people who perform an invaluable service for all of us. Guy's CM: This posting isn't about the many good FBI and other law enforcement people. Gee, could I do a better job of offending both "sides"? ;-) > If you have taken this far enough to get Dimitri into legal trouble, > and your claims are untrue, or exaggerated, I think you owe it to > Dimitri to try to undo some of this stuff fast! Hell. Freeze. Over. > What did you tell PSInet? I documented his stalking behavior via PSINet, documented that he had begun stalking me via PSINet, and stated that if they didn't terminate him and he continued stalking me, I would sue them. And that the traffic analysis report they were holding was what a jury would use to decide PSINet was liable for their continued (after _years_ of people's complaints) inaction. ---guy With Vulis, the best defense is a good offense.

1 0

Re: Anonymous remailers and Leahy bill
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:06 PM 3/7/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: >Do not agree with you. Do support your right to disagree though. > P.fla That's all this guy said. Here's my more verbose response. >Do not agree with you. You are _entitled_ to not "agree" with me. What you are NOT entitled to, however, is to have a government that violates my rights by attempting to restrict crypto and other freedoms, even if it is with the support of 51% of the Congress or 51% of the voters or 51% of the population. (or even substantially more.) If you actively support such a government, or even encourage such a government, you are doing what is analogous to "inciting a riot": You are guilty of inciting the government to take improper, illegal, unconstitutional, or simply immoral actions against me and others, and in my opinion if such actions are taken you enter into that conspiracy. You may be alarmed that I might consider you a criminal for just exercising your "free speech." (If you're not alarmed, you SHOULD be!) I myself would greatly prefer to live in a society where speech was totally free: There would be no laws against libel and slander, and you could "yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" without the possibility of prosecution. (All the other potential customers will be home watching on tape rental, which will make what you can do in a theatre less significant.) But until we live in such a world, I consider that yelling "child porn!" or "terrorism!" or "drug smuggling" in "a crowded Congress" or _to_ "a crowded Congress" that's anxious to restrict our rights ever further, is an incitement to violate my rights. > Do support your right to disagree though. No, I don't think you do. You've done NOTHING to actually _support_ my right to disagree, except possibly waste a few bytes of information space on a message that you did not see fit to publicize. (I did, however.) Clearly, your "support" for my "right to disagree" is essentially non-existent. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMT866/qHVDBboB2dAQHqfAP9F1vYWiHVT67QXNXwuDWpR9n6THRL4S2W vJq256khHXs4pMawUiGitkovVEDSBM8Tc6t6NpgNbwEojZ40dF147gqq7iTLOrf0 TU4RrUvBKiRJbTXnJM6YdHL7gOHQtU5TqHRft3R9JAHR5zEpetUSIo7+uVbklqqd Du1cZlTbu68= =M+dV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

http://www.grfn.org/~blacktar/KilltheNewbies.htm
by uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!gordius!news.service.uci.edu!usenet＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.grfn.org/~blacktar/KilltheNewbies.htm

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Elder wrote: > > trei(a)ziplink.net wrote: > > >>Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C, > >Second Edition, by Bruce Schneier. Copyright 1995, John Wiley & Sons, > >Inc. All rights reserved. > >For those wondering: Applied Cryptography includes the source code > >appendix. I have not checked if it has the 5th printing corrections. > > Just a little note of interest, AC is currently in its sixth printing. I > just got it last week. > > -E. I noticed the sixth printing in Barnes and Noble 2 weeks ago. I didn't have too long to peruse thru it... Are there any big error corrections/ other reasons to pay any close attention to the new printing? -Anon

2 1

Re: Whut it sez
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:33 AM 3/6/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: > >Note: downloaded from www.vtw.org so cannot guarentee correctness- > > "§2804. Unlawful use of encryption to obstruct justice" > "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, > impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance > to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, > to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall-..." > >Interesting wording - sounds almost like if you impede the *commission* of >a felony, you is been had. Keyword would seem to be "willingly". You need to learn to read more carefully. The word they (according to VTW) used was "willfully," not "willingly." In any case, assuming they either never made the error you noticed, or they manage to correct it before the bill becomes law, they will have just outlawed the used of encrypted remailers, because: 1. They use encryption to hide the sender and/or the recipient of a note. 2. Any law-enforcement agency could get a "cooperative", computer-literate criminal to upload a message that might, arguably, be part of a larger criminal offense (but really wasn't; the purpose is simply to justify an investigation) . The encrypted remailer is then guilty of violation of this section, even if the underlying crime is never completed or even attempted. Remember, you can have a "criminal investigation" without having a crime. Or a "crime" can be fabricated at the appropriate time, just like they did to those operators of a California BBS, called from Oklahoma by the cops, and using a kid to turn the whole fraud into a crime. > Suspect they meant to say "...obstruct (etc) the investigation of a felony..." Probably. This section is their wish-list to Santa Claus. It's easy to make mistakes when you're excited about something. They're hoping you suckers will support the whole bill despite this booby-trap. You're the fish, the rest of the bill is the worm, and this section is the hook. Will you bite? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMT4JOvqHVDBboB2dAQFgDQQAmWrTqEaFUC6eFH79cGLeSHXqrXxXb25H 79I+SHT1chhrDQjHYvlPlpovcv/ShyqJB47w8z9XfGTggGKp+WvFVk10du9iviFF GZRsNgkjtdEpattuw/tZpmCrWW+aOAtM0Ziw+cYQsGdDlbkdHZueJTuCjDwUndGm BARsyesyGzA= =kEFi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

test
by uunet!in2.uu.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!athos.itribe.net!logrus!page＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test. d. -- Homo vult decipia; decipiatur. page(a)itribe.net

1 0

test message
by uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.emeraldis.com!news.emeraldis.com!not-for-mail＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a test message... .. ignore it.

1 0

Re: Your Mama's so......
by uunet!in2.uu.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!lamarck.sura.net!mother.usf.edu!luna!panagopo＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak

1 0

Lawz to be.
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cut & Paste > "§2804. Unlawful use of encryption to obstruct justice" > "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, ... >Interesting wording - sounds almost like if you impede the *commission* of >a felony, you is been had. Keyword would seem to be "willingly". Jim: >You need to learn to read more carefully. The word they (according to VTW) >used was "willfully," not "willingly." Agree, problem was that to get into E-Mail had to cut/paste in 255 bytes segments but the quoted part is what I got off VTW with minor line length adjustment and separation of elements for clarity. >In any case, assuming they either never made the error you noticed, or they >manage to correct it before the bill becomes law, they will have just >outlawed the used of encrypted remailers, because: No, what the wording seems to outlaw was the use of encryption to obstruct the commission of the crime, not the investigation. Read it again please. >> Suspect they meant to say "...obstruct (etc) the investigation of a >>felony..." >Probably. This section is their wish-list to Santa Claus. It's easy to >make mistakes when you're excited about something. They're hoping you >suckers will support the whole bill despite this booby-trap. Thought the gotcha was down in the part about the Secretary of Commerce. My reading is that the secretary will still be required to grant approval for commercial export. Is past the part about no regulation inside the US (which is true now - still would be nice to see a "Congress shall make no law..."). The puzzler is the requirement that a comperable foreign product must exist before permission to export will be granted. Will this be like "comparable product" price matching in discount houses ? Somehow there never is one... Warmly, Padgett ps did you mean the Thomases and Memphis ? Not aware of similar prosecution in Oklahoma. Besides my understanding was that the online stuff was dropped, the conviction was for stuff sent through the mails. Is that incorrect ?

2 1

sci.crypt archive?
by Paul Rubin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone on cypherpunks archiving sci.crypt? I'd be interested in getting hold of some articles from some years back... thanks

1 0