- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 16 Jul 97 at 18:12, Lizard wrote: > At 04:47 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: > >Marc: > > > >What a bunch of crap! Keep out of the internet, you government > >flunky. Let business, commerce and freedom of speech remain in > >it's new home, Cyberspace. And save your regulations for someone > >who needs them. > > You will get a lot more respect on the net once you learn how to > read messages. I'll leave it you to figure out what you got wrong. Umm, I think I understood the message, and Mr. Rotenberg's involvement in the politics of censorship, as it relates to the Internet. > Sheesh. And I retreated to mailing lists to get away from this kind > of stuff on USENET. What? I just feel that there should be no laws or resolutions or promises made or kept by the United States Government about the internet. On or About 16 Jul 97 at 14:42, Declan McCullagh wrote, about something that Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> wrote: >On the other hand, without a proper law, See, when they say "without" that means they think we need one. >parents can purchase and >activate measures to protect their children from adult material and >still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. Ohhhh, so scary. Not safe in the home! Imagine that. >This is >because negligent publishing of data eventually allows material that >can harm the child to enter the home. Once this material is >experienced by the child, its damage is done. There is no "oops" >factor, no way to undo the unwanted intrusion into a child's >innocence. Parental supervision? What ever happened to that? >Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may >regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content. Most importantly, I don't want any Internet law. ANY. Just my opinion. >With the goal of achieving a greater spirit of cooperation between >the publisher and the receiver of online data, we propose the Online >Cooperative Publishing Act. I don't want ANY Act. Knock it off. Keep out. Stay away. Save your Acts for someone who needs them. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

Re: Fuck You Rating Systems, Inc.
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > ANNOUNCEMENT: Fuck You Ratings Software Escapes Beta-Test! ... > {Offer not valid in states where having sexual relations with animals > is against local ordinances.} Are there any cypherpunks in Montana who are willing to serve as a mail-drop for the rest of us?

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:'The Failure to Do Your Job' amendment (was Re: White House
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:15 PM 7/16/97 -0500, John Deters wrote: > A Constitutional amendment that would call for the impeachment of the > President for failing to veto any three bills that are overturned by the > Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. This however, presupposes that the supreme court is likely to veto unconstitutional bills, and refrain from vetoing constitutional bills. This does not appear to be the case. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Risks of using usually-reliable information sources in your programs
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been thinking about building remailers and cover-traffic generators, and there's a need for a convenient up-to-date list of remailers. Raph Levien's remailer pinging service is definitely convenient, and even produces some of its output in perl for use by perl programs. However, it's important to be really careful when depending on information like this, e.g. when building it into programs, because otherwise it's easy to trick them into using bogus data, such as the crudely forged article sent to Cypherpunks earlier today. The natural implementation is to pick the more reliable remailers based on "Raph"'s statistics, so adding records for very reliable bogus remailers is a win. The security would be improved if Raph signed the weekly file, but that also requires people using the file to check it with PGP and not just grep out the relevant lines for their programs' use. >X-Sender: stewarts(a)popd.ix.netcom.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) >Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:06:56 -0700 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Raph Levien <raph(a)CS.Berkeley.EDU> >Subject: List of reliable remailers >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net >Reply-To: Raph Levien <raph(a)CS.Berkeley.EDU> >X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >ADVERTISEMENT: Proudly Sponsored by the Electronic Forgery Foundation, >http://www.eff.com >ADVERTISEMENT: Digicash Software - Download Today! http://www.digicrime.com > > I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed >information about remailer features and reliability. .... >recovery remailer(a)biglouie.fbi.gov ############ 0:01 99.99% >payswell remailer(a)digicrime.com ############ 0:01 99.99% >trustme trustme(a)trustme.nsa.mil ************ 0:59 99.99% >mulder mulder(a)juno.com #*#*##*#*#*# 0:57 99.98% Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

2 1

Verisign gets export approval
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded from PGP-USERS list: > First PGPInc and now VeriSign? Hmmm. Is this telling us something? "VeriSign on Monday said it received permission from the U.S. Department of Commerce to export 128-bit strong encryption software and issue digital identifications to approved organizations based on that software. " "Under the 128-bit scheme approved by the U.S. government Monday, companies will not need to place their encryption keys in escrow, or submit to U.S. government key-recovery requirements in order to use VeriSign's software, company officials said." # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

13 22

Re: Censorware Summit Take II, from The Netly News
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can't wait until the tags include information on *political* content, or *credibility factor* (i.e. sanctioned by medai conglomerate or not) etc... At 02:06 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >*********** > >http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html > >The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) >July 16, 1997 > >At The Censorware Summit >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > If you host a web page or publish online, be >warned: soon your site might become invisible. Search >engines won't index it and web browsers won't show it. >Unless, that is, you agree to attach special labels to >your web pages identifying how violent, sexually >explicit, or inappropriate for kids your site is. > > This was the thrust of today's White House >censorware summit, where President Clinton sat down >with high tech firms and non-profit groups in a >private meeting to talk about pressuring the Net >community to make cyberspace childsafe through labels. >"We need to encourage every Internet site, whether or >not it has material harmful to minors, to rate its >contents," Clinton said after the meeting. Vice >President Gore was there, too, giving a quick >demonstration of how labeling works. > > Spooked by the threat of a revised Communications >Decency Act, high tech firms are seriously backing >labels for the first time. Joining Clinton in coercing >Internet users and businesses to label all their web >pages were Yahoo, Excite, and Lycos. "I threw a >gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting >saying that collectively we should require a rating >before we index pages," Robert Davis, the president of >Lycos, told me. Translation: if you don't play ball, >and label your site, search engines will ignore you. > > As will future users of Microsoft's Internet >Explorer browser. The next version of IE will default >to displaying only properly labeled web pages, >according to Ken Wasch, the president of the Software >Publishers Association. Since many users won't turn >off that feature to reach unrated sites, many large >web sites now are facing hefty pressure to self-label. > > Other high tech firms rushed to join the >presidential limelight. Netscape promised to join >Microsoft and include label-reading software in the >next version of its browser. America Online's Steve >Case thanked Clinton for "backing industry's efforts >to make cyberspace a safer place." IBM announced a >$100,000 grant to RSACi, a PICS-based rating standard >originally designed for video games but adapted for >the Web. The industry giant also pledges to >incorporate RSACi into future products. > >[...] > > > > >

16 23

Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:42 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: >On or About 16 Jul 97 at 18:12, Lizard wrote: > >> At 04:47 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: >> >Marc: >> > >> >What a bunch of crap! Keep out of the internet, you government >> >flunky. Let business, commerce and freedom of speech remain in >> >it's new home, Cyberspace. And save your regulations for someone >> >who needs them. >> >> You will get a lot more respect on the net once you learn how to >> read messages. I'll leave it you to figure out what you got wrong. > >Umm, I think I understood the message, and Mr. Rotenberg's >involvement in the politics of censorship, as it relates to the >Internet. > No, you do not. >> Sheesh. And I retreated to mailing lists to get away from this kind >> of stuff on USENET. > >What? I just feel that there should be no laws or resolutions or >promises made or kept by the United States Government about the >internet. > That's not the kind of stuff I'm referring to. >On or About 16 Jul 97 at 14:42, Declan McCullagh wrote, about >something that Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> wrote: > >>On the other hand, without a proper law, > >See, when they say "without" that means they think we need one. > >>parents can purchase and >>activate measures to protect their children from adult material and >>still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. > >Ohhhh, so scary. Not safe in the home! Imagine that. Sigh. While occasionally I am prone to fits of charity and altruism, today is not one of those days. I shall leave it to someone more merciful than I (such as, perhaps, the Marquis de Sade, or Attila the Hun) to explain your error to you. Perhaps Marc himself will enlighten you, though, frankly, I hope he doesn't, as this could provide much amusement over time.

1 0

de minimus non curat lex
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

frissell(a)panix.com wrote: > At 11:16 AM 7/16/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >As for Lucky's point #2 -- Yes, I've read drafts of bills that would make > >it a Federal crime to misrate. --Declan > What ever happened to "de minimus non curat lex." The social damage from a > misrated website is too trivial to be believed. Punishing it is like > executing you for farting. The correct translation of "de minimus non curat lex" is: "No fart, no foul." In order for order to prevail, society must have the authority to punish those who fart in a crowded theater. On the other hand, if someone farts in a forest and nobody smells it... Never mind. I was having an AOL flashback. FartMonger

1 0

sorry
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My foot in my mouth. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

CDA II
by President 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear CypherPunks, I will shortly have one of my schills introduce CDA II to Congress, with provisions for declaring martial law on the InterNet and bombing any country which allows terrorists to fight for freedom, liberty and the right to privacy. Please be assured that our dictatorial powers will only be used to meet the legitimate needs of Fascism. Our first step will be to eliminate the scourge of drug dealing the same way we eliminated the scourge of gambling--the government will take over the industry. Our second step will be to eliminate child pornography by eliminating all the children. (It's so simple that I find it amazing that we hadn't thought of it before.) Originally, all we wanted was Poland, but lately we've had so many corporate lipstick marks on our butts that we've decided to go for the (Netscape) gold and require all future computers to contain our newest facistechnology, the "Slip'er A Dick" chip. In the past, the CypherPunks have been a pain in the ass during our attempts to subvert the Constitution, but we are willing to forgive and forget. Accordingly, we are adding an amendment to CDA II which provides $10,000,000 in funding for the continuation of the CypherPunks list. The amendment will put Kent Crispin in charge of moderating the list, and in return for this small compromise we are willing to add another amendment which makes it legal for CypherPunks to import and export air from their lungs. {This major concession is the result of the efforts of the EFF on your behalf.} I realize that abandoning your beliefs in order to feed at the public trough will lessen your reputation capital, so I am also willing to institute a bonus system for those who maintain the party line. I am certain that this will more than compensate for any loss of reputation you may suffer by becoming beltway lackeys. Example: You load 16 tons. What do you get...? Bad Billy C.

1 0