- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Should the Feds ban spam? (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim wrote: >>Absolutely they do, but the right is that *they* must do the filtering and >>*not* the ISP (it's a business and doesn't have fundamental rights). At 05:00 PM 2/15/98 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >1. No, they can delegate that authority to the ISP. This is part of the >freedom to contract. Yeah. Netcom doesn't have the right to decide what I'm allowed to read, but it can decide what materials that it will transmit, if it wants, and I can decide whether to do business with them, if I want. Two of the ISPs I use for receiving email offer spam-filtering services; I'm not currently buying either of them, but if spam goes from 5% to 50% of my mail, I'll certainly consider it. (And one of them gives a summary of what it's blocked, which is good.) Ray Arachelian and Eric Blossom can't decide what messages on Cypherpunks I'm allowed to read, but they can offer the most interesting 5-10% and maybe I'll use their editing capabilities instead of reading the whole firehose myself. (I alternate between FCPUNX and the full list.) >2. People acting together have rights. A corporation is an artificial legal >construct, but a necessary one, and it has rights. Think of The New York >Times Co. and the First Amendment. Corporations aren't a necessity, just a convenience; the big law firms and accounting firms are all partnerships, and do just fine without being corporations. Corporations do have artificial rights, but as constructs of the state, the state can decide which rights to give them and which rights not to give them in return for the favor of granting corporate charters. But Jim should know better than to say that businesses don't have rights. Businesses are activities that people engage in, either as individual proprietors, or as contractors, or as partnerships, or as employees, or as corporations. One of my ISPs is a sole proprietor, though he's now got an employee or two. Doesn't diminish his rights any. Another of my ISPs is a corporation; they're big and clumsy, but I can still hire them to perform services for me, including editing if I want to. >>No true Libertarian would allow any 3rd party to censor or limit the >>information available to them. Such actions are fundamentally >>non-libertarian which believes in individual choice. Nonsense - there's far more stuff written every day than you or I have time to read; even on Usenet, I had to stop reading every newsgroup sometime around 1984 (a few years before Henry Spencer stopped :-) Depending on other people to find interesting stuff is necessary; the question is how you pick your sources and filters, and how much you trust them to tell you everything. >>Oh really? It is clear from many examples that the press is not to be >>trusted because of its interactions in past political and criminal episodes. Of course they're not - do you think anybody actually believes everything they read or see on TV (well, yeah, there seem to be people who do :-) If you want to be well-informed, you need lots of sources; one of the cool things about the net is that you _can_ get lots of information that seldom got through the official channels before. Some of it didn't get through because it didn't match the political biases of the editors or newspaper corporate owners; other stuff didn't get through because it was boring or bogus, and if you're filtering all the news yourself, you'll need to do your own guessing and fact-checking. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: Should the Feds ban spam? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:36:38 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: Re: Should the Feds ban spam? (fwd) > >At 16:36 -0600 2/15/98, Jim Choate wrote: > >>Newspaper editors work according to policies and trusts empowered by the > >>owners of the paper. They are allowed as a function of the views of the > >>owners to express that choice as an *employee* of those owners. Those > >>policies do not apply to the readers as would happen in the case of an ISP. > >>Unless you propose that each person should have multiple accounts at > >>multiple ISP's. > > At 06:43 PM 2/15/98 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >This is so incoherent that it's not possible to turn into a positive statement. It means the employee's of the paper act as agents of the owners and not as direct right-holders of the paper itself. In other word the job of the editor, not his civil right as an owner, is what gives them the privilige at the behest of the owners to edit what appears in the paper. The only people who have a right to 'freedom of the press' are the people who *own* the press. Employees don't have rights, per se, in this only duties and responsibilities to carry out the desires of the owners. Now if we address the issue, as some proposed, of ISP's having 'global filtering' rules (eg "All cyberpromo.com accounts are filtered") *and* the purchaser may for some reason *want* to recieve cyberpromo.com traffic they are left with the only option of going to a second (or third, or ...) ISP in order to get what they want. > I found it pretty easy to parse, though incorrect - > Jim assumes that each person will only deal with one ISP, Not at all, I assume that people can deal with as many ISP's as they have money for. What I do assume is that if we expect ISP's to filter spam they have only a single option open to them. That option is to impliment a filtering policy based upon an interview and oversight by the purchasers of that account. This will increase the costs of Internet access far above the current levels. This increase in cost will naturaly strain already limited budgets and force some people to drop secondary (or tertiary, or ...) accounts because of this basic access price increase. > and that getting spam filtering from that ISP means turning > over control of all your incoming mail/news to the ISP. Not at all, the purchaser defines a spam policy that the ISP impliments. Whatever filtering the recipient wants to do over and above this is left unremarked. However, for an ISP to filter ones email to determine if it fits the policy the purchaser/recipient has defined they *will* be required to review *all* incoming mail. Otherwise how do they determine if it fits one of the categories that were defined in the contract, whether we look at it from the perspective of what to filter or what to pass along and let the customer process on their own. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

"E-Money" is trademarked
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI, I learned tonight that Electronic Funds Clearinghouse, Inc., holds the trademark "E-Money" which is licensed to E-Money, Inc. a Delaware Corporation. See the Web page http://www.efunds.com I guess I will have to rename my E-Money mini-FAQ. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

3 2

consent
by amp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- [ From: amp * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm not completely sure of the attribution here, as cypherpunks appears to be sending batches of messages to me with grunged From lines. VN> . How exactly is consent extractedH^H^H^H^H^H^ requested? "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." G. Washington. Consent is extracted by force of arms. VN> . When exactly is consent identified? I believe that the rulers of this country consider the lack of politicians hanging from town squares to indicate implied consent. VN> . How exactly is government applied to the consentees? VN> (caning, jailing, fines, etc.) And death. VN> . How exactly do consentors change methodologies when they VN> suddenly realize that they, too, can be subject to their own device? I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are asking how the rulers react when they find themselves subject to their own evil devices, I would say that they generally attempt to change the rules. An example of this is that it is almost impossible to sue a federal officials because of the broad immunity to prosecution afforded by current federal law. VN> . Why should non-consenting citizens live with governing methods VN> which in fact conflict with the pursuit of those three human VN> virtues: life, liberty, happiness? Fear of the goverment monopoly of force? VN> Supposedly, government is devised for ruling the "unruly"; a matter VN> for definition and (dis)agreement which can provide endless hours VN> of amusement for authoritarians, especially in court. And those courts can be used to further browbeat the citizens through inconsistant rulings on vaguely written laws. I believe vague laws are one of america's great evils because of the uncertainty they bring. VN> I hear tell that many who are no longer amused are now learning the VN> many uses of encryption. Thus the list. And arming themselves with more lethal munitions as well. Interesting questions. I believe that there is a larger groundswell of resentment here and elsewhere than governments believe. Consider, when breaking federal law is this easy... #!/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL $m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%Sa 2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*',$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length$n&~1)/2) Then something is _truely_ wrong with the laws. replies to amp(a)pobox.com please. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMS6lIodTfgZXlXydAQEgiAf/ZEqghXk424n4ybj/QXl6yZL21FWvjLJE 37IrvYslw6HLERd3t9k28LC4hUXvhm56c7of3YeUHKsrbTsZyydqrxLE4DaiRkCB mTTkChzvB+LH8V2q5PxMOW/YZQqzcyTnufVQKKHYy68RajLjUErLU5MSl9ICPgMh Kicx04xsueYGPcwD88m5v18uLJPf+LJTZhliqBehHI4Ta7BIi96VgF9lIXfx/GTS FeSru0EMYSn9S82WfnnsZX4sYeVHhvsxWPdRyeFOQHtlJ9hlH6/ehv+94Rzrh2yo s2AoUh/aUfVrZBboCiJCDF9E4gOX1PfsS/Dn9yKo/vW52/cbA1UPjQ== =SjfE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks vs. Coderpunks
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from Perry E. Metzger <perry(a)piermont.com> 02/13/96 1:29pm -0500 [snip] = The thing that makes Cypherpunks worthwhile is that its a place where = you could, once, get news updates about GAK, information on the latest = research into cryptography, organize mass key crackings, discuss APIs, = talk a bit about the politics of cryptography, etc. = sounds like we're having the sme problems as "democracy" --it soon becomes irrelevant! example: I was out of town for 6 days: I returned to find 1056 messages in the sorted mailbox! yes: 1056 messages which it took close to an hour to delete almost 800 of them as irrelevant. some you can discard automatically depending on the author, some by content, etc. but I agree: it is clutter. = Now, we get anonymous posters putting up bits on corruption in the = DEA, sections of Tsutomu Shimomura's sex life, and other garbage. I = don't give a damn if you think "Perry's a whining asshole; no one = appointed him God", the stuff I'm mentioning is almost totally = irrelevant to the topic at hand. (I *still* see no relevance to the = late great Kevin Mitnick discussion, and frankly, I don't give a damn = if he's in jail.) I also really am not impressed enough with the = justification for why Jim Bell's "ideas" need to be discussed here. = well, it's probably worthwhile to announce the events, but not to comment ad infinitum on the gossip, the inferences, etc. --as you put it: the sex life of TS, particularly at the expense of one long term member. jim bell had the chance to publish his ideas --I read them --once. I may be an "idealistic anarchist," but they are anarchy after the fact of submission to a government. OK, they have been stated, but further discussion needs to move to another forum. auto-trash filter.... another major part of what I auto-trashed were two 50+ threads on some senseless topics which I have already forgotten. I suspect the poor snake was beaten to death by the BC Fat Lady.... = For some people without jobs (I won't name names) there is no problem = with this. However, some of us have trouble keeping up, and = unfortunately Cypherpunks has content that is key to our work and = interests. = THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Even if you do not have a fixed schedule, are not most of not data miners? It cost me over an hour to trim the message list from 1000+ to 200+. WE NEED SOME SELF-RESTRAINT. = Sadly, there isn't another place with the momentum where people are a = bit more polite and talk about the same information. = unfortunately, the more publicity we receive, the more extraneous nonsense will be copied or target to us as a group. = Yet. = well, I justify coderpunks since it breaks the ongoing technical discussions away from the mainstream cypherpunks. most of the information appears in cypherpunks itself, but if I must restrict my time, coderpunks comes first = Perry as you say, Perry: 'I don't give a damn if you think "Perry's a whining asshole; no one appointed him God"' I agree: 'I don't give a damn if they think "Attila's a whining asshole; no one appointed him God"' after all, as far as I know, I'm still "nobody" in the overall scheme, even with a Piled higher and Deeper! who _really_ cares what I think? -attila "Fools fear adversity, but the wise man listens only to his conscience; or in other words, "You've got exactly thirty seconds to get off my property before I start shooting, hippie." --Ching Chow cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com

1 0

Re: REM_ote
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alex Strasheim <cp(a)proust.suba.com> wrote: >> Marianne Mueller, Java security engineer, also said the chances of such >> hacking occurring are "remote." > >This is the sort of bullshit that gets companies in trouble. Reminds me of this old saying: When you put your head in the sand, do realize what part of your anatomy is most visible to the rest of the world... :) JFA **** OLD KEY: DO NOT USE ANYMORE UNLESS FOR VERIFYING SIGNATURES **** 1024 bits Key ID:57214AED 1995/10/04 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Key fingerprint = 84 96 76 AE EB 7C AB 15 88 47 87 B0 18 31 74 9F

1 0

SGI Nabs Crayfish
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-24-96. NYT: John Markoff reports that SGI will buy Cray Research. It notes Cray's last gasping, grasping at SGI's grab hand nabbing crawfish. An SGI/Cray super-gabfeast Monday.

1 0

fwd: Federal Internet Enforcement Policy
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: oldbear(a)pop.tiac.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 17:56:31 -0500 To: rah(a)shipwright.com From: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> Subject: fwd: Federal Internet Enforcement Policy --- Forwarded message follows --- The "Federal Internet Indecency Crawler" has determined your Newsgroup or Web Site posting to be in violation of the "Exxxon Communications Indecency Act of 1996". In an effort to comply with the "Federal Paperwork Reduction Act" you are hereby directed to complete the proper arrest warrant paperwork and submit same to the Federal Court in your district, then obtain a valid copy of the approved arrest warrant and serve said warrant upon yourself. To properly initiate this procedure, you are required to submit Form A-16844787033 -83259 (rev.02) in triplicate, which may be obtained from the US Government printing office. After completion, send the original to the Federal Courthouse by certified mail with one copy mailed to your local FBI office. Please make certain to include all pertinent information, including the specific word, words or phrases that constituted the violation, together with your name, address, telephone number, social security number, and the policy number of any health insurance contracts in which you are currently enrolled. Also, please be reminded that as a citizen of the United States and a lawfully appointed officer of the Federal Court "for the purpose of serving the above arrest warrant only", you are exempted from any prohibitions regarding carrying of handguns, rifles, shotguns or any other type of guns or assault weapons while in the act of serving said warrant. However, please be advised that this provision does not apply to you as the recipient of Federal arrest warrants, and as such your constitutionally protected right to bear arms is hereby waived in this instance. It is important that you obtain your signature, thus showing the warrant was properly executed. Kindly note any undue resistance encountered in the appropriate space provided. Because of the large amount of court resources which must be diverted from other judicial efforts in order to accommodate the new "Exxxon Communications Indecency Act", the Democratic and Republican National Parties have made the following kind offer to assist us in enforcement of these new policies. As an alternative to the above process, you may at your option, send a contribution of not less than $100 to the Clinton Presidential Campaign Committee or to the Republican Presidential Nomination Committee. If you should choose one of these alternatives, it will not be necessary to obtain and complete the paperwork outlined above, nor will it be necessary to contact the Federal Court or your local FBI office. Simply copy the Newsgroup post in question or the URL and header information from your web page, and mail to either party committee, with your cashier's check or money order for $100 or more in US funds. In addition to relieving you of the responsibility of filing legal paperwork with the court and undergoing a traumatic arrest procedure, you will have the comfort of knowing that you have contributed in a meaningful way to the political process of your country. In addition, we are authorized (by Senator Exxxon himself) to inform you that after receiving your contribution of $100 or more, we will send you a special alpha- numerical code which, when placed in your header information, will prevent the "Federal Internet Indecency Crawler" from recording your indecency violations until after the November election. Remember, because of the "Exxxon Communications Indecency Act" constitutionally protected free speech is now in limited quantity. So, don't pass up this golden opportunity to avail yourself of unlimited free expression for the next eight months. This may be your last opportunity to do so! 127-A/4 rev. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

S/MIME outside the US?
by volley＠lls.se 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I'm doing some research on different security standards, as I'm about to write an email/news program. Have been reading this list for quite a while, and it's time to delurk.) This is a quote from the S/MIME FAQ, as found on RSA's WWW server: "S/MIME recommends three symmetric encryption algorithms: DES, Triple-DES, and RC2. The adjustable keysize of the RC2 algorithm makes it especially useful for applications intended for export outside the U.S. RSA is the required public-key algorithm." If I got things right, DES is "exportable" as long as the keysize is kept under a certain size, which is too small to be really secure? If that's the case, I guess RC2 is the last resort? Is it good enough, or do I have to leave out S/MIME support, and just communicate with people outside the U.S or something? IMHO, these export restrictions on cryptography are completely insane. Is there *any* way to bypass them (except for breaking the law)? -- volley(a)lls.se

2 1

Testing
by Chris Grantham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, my name is Chris! casper(a)optima.mme.wsu.edu -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzEvXtUAAAEEALtwrsq7zqQdTDRRpgJeCXYCuA6M49Yp93IE3ScaMwPPi297 EIEbpSyv3ZB9UBjTNHcsPADhfwDs8/yBS4SWW+NF1BwnRLUbNpZ5E6BGxGojQnF4 yC5MKNIuxDgY8FYYpsXWpxWIOJZOf5LY6E4BhZ9fGK/MfuhSvUFD9HN4zM2hAAUR tC1DaHJpcyBXLiBHcmFudGhhbSA8Y2FzcGVyQG9wdGltYS5tbWUud3N1LmVkdT4= =xznQ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0