- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Pseudonym server: Jenaer Anonymous Service
by Lance Cottrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:37 PM -0700 9/1/96, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: >* stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >It's strongly recomment to use a reply server to forward your requests to. >The server sends all outgoing messages via mixmaster chains. >(mixmaster(a)as-node.jena.thur.de can is always the first one in the chain). > This is very important. You don't want to send it your real address to deliver to. I strongly recommend using alt.anonymous.messages. A program called "newscan" is ideal for checking news based message pools. It scans news on a server of your choice, and saves messages based on criteria that you specify. -Lance ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:03 PM 9/18/96 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: >Judge Patel to Decide if Government Restrictions on >Cryptography Violate the First Amendment >San Francisco, CA -- On Friday, September 20, 1996, Judge Marilyn Hall >Patel will hold hearings in a case with far-reaching implications for >personal privacy, U.S. competitiveness, and national security. Mathematician >Daniel J. Bernstein, a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of >Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science at the University of Illinois at >Chicago, has sued several Federal agencies on the grounds that the >agencies' requirement that he obtain a license prior to publishing his >ideas about cryptography violates his First Amendment right to freedom >of speech. [trimmed] >LEGAL ARGUMENTS > >* Any legal framework that allows a government bureaucrat to >censor speech before it happens is an unconstitutional prior restraint. >The government is not allowed to set up such a drastic scheme >unless they can prove that publication of such information will >"surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our >Nation or its people" and that the regulation at issue is necessary >to prevent this damage. At the risk of being a devil's advocate, let me suggest that you are conceding too much even with the preceding paragraph. The 1st amendment says nothing about preventing speech which (even admittedly) would result in "direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our nation or its people." Indeed, if you follow the news over the last 5-10 years, you see numerous examples of news items getting publicized (sometimes 30-40 years late) which might arguably have cause "irreparable damage." That recent revelation about the POWs being left in Korea would have been one such example. The intentional detonation of that H-bomb in 1954, knowing that prevailing winds would shower thousands of people with fallout was another. The US military's experimentation with chemical weapons on our own people after WWII is another. The fraud of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is another. The Pentagon Papers incident is another. The Tuskeegee syphillis experiments on blacks which ended in 1972 was another. The massive pollution at decomissioned military bases. The Iran/Contra arms smuggling deals, along with the cocaine smuggling stories which are more recently being pursued, are yet another. I could list many more, but won't because of lack of space. But notice that, presumably, each and every one of these incidents was AT ONE TIME kept secret, arguably because it would be better for the country to do so. Thus, presumably it was thought or at least asserted that to reveal them would cause "damage to our nation or its people." The way you've written the paragraph I've quoted above, it appears that you are somehow acknowleding that there are certain circumstances where certain types of speech are controllable because they are "harmful," but you fail to explain how even this constitutional restiction is tolerable. Frankly, I don't see it! What you need to do is to be far more specific about such speech and exactly where it can be controlled. I should point out, also, that this is the second time I've mentioned this. You're doing us a disservice if you concede too much in this area. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:58 PM 9/20/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote: >> My comment: Once the big Corp.'s get used to the new game, they'll put >> the non-critical stuff out there for Mr. Freeh, and for the really >> secret data, if the cops confiscate anything they can't read, the Corp. >> security will put it off on a fall-guy, even as high as the CEO if >> necessary. I just wanna see one case where a federal judge will try to >> bleed a big company for contempt for "refusing" to decode and hand over >> some ostensibly encrypted data. Matter of fact, there are probably cases >> similar to this that have already been through the appeals courts. > >Several. Most involve foreign banks refusing to turn over records to U.S. >courts. Most result in powerfully large fines imposed on banks, often on >a per diem basis. But as usual, you ignore the obvious solution to the problem. Let's suppose the amount of the fine is set at $1000 per day. Actuarially, this works out to be the interest (at 5% per year) on $7.3 million dollars in principle. In other words, if you can eliminate the fine for less than $7.3 million, you're better off doing it. Naturally, you won't even consider the possibility of going outside the system to solve a problem. The rest of us notice that there are probably thousands of terminally-ill people who would gladly act as a human kamikaze and get rid of any judge inclined to impose such a fine, for a payment of 1% of this principle amount to a family member or loved one, leaving 99% available for the few other judges foolish enough to basically commit suicide by taking up a futile gesture. This kind of operation is best arranged by what might be described as an "insurance company," which will divide the risk among client companies until everyone learns what the score really is. It wouldn't take long before no such fines are ever imposed. But nah, this is much too complex for you. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

William Torbitt (pseudonym)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:53 AM 9/22/96, Dale Thorn wrote: >A few years ago, William Torbitt (pseudonym) wrote in part: "Penal codes >have had two historic purposes - to deter crime and reform the offender. >.....However, when the head of the National Police agency joins with a >handful of other govt. leaders, and they both in turn throw in with >organized crime to murder the president, and the people have an uneasy >feeling that something of this nature has taken place, it is only >natural that crime and violence increase, and the basic deterrent to >crime has broken down." (quote approximate) Presumably the same William Torbitt (psuedonym) who wrote the Samizdat-distributed "Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal." (One of the best treatments of the various swirling connections surrounding the JFK assassination and related CIA-Mob-Giancana-Hughes-Castro-etc. connections.) That Torbitt was a pseudonym has some connection to the themes of our list. It is believed by many--and it sounds plausible to me--that the actual author was a knowledgeable Texas attorney who had gained much familiarity with the facts of the case and, circa 1966-68, wrote his extended pamphlet "The Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal." Fearing likely sanctions, both professional and personal, he chose not to use his real name, and pamphlet circulated informally, without a formal publisher. (It is not written in a wacko-style, so I don't dismiss it as the ravings of a loon.) I haven't checked to see if its on the Web. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:30 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At the risk of being a devil's advocate, let me suggest that you are >> conceding too much even with the preceding paragraph. The 1st amendment >> says nothing about preventing speech which (even admittedly) would result >> in "direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our nation or its people." > >I believe there is one section in the Constitution that says that speech >harmful to national security is not protected under the 1st amendment. I can't think of what portion of the Constitution you're referring to. But chances are, somebody else will see this reference and comment. > However, >I don't agree with this provision at all. "National security" is a phrase that >is applied to anything from information on the JFK assassination to DES source >code. ...and it's one of the most abused concepts there is. >> I could list many more, but won't because of lack of space. But notice >> that, presumably, each and every one of these incidents was AT ONE TIME kept >> secret, arguably because it would be better for the country to do so. Thus, >> presumably it was thought or at least asserted that to reveal them would >> cause "damage to our nation or its people." > >If secret information was released, it would cause most people to completely >lose respect for the government (some people call this damage -- I call it >progress). Yes! I, of course, agree with the latter interpretation as well. It is precisely this distinction which, I believe, makes it so vital that lawsuits such as this Bernstein one NOT "concede" what doesn't need to be conceded. All they should say is that even if there are secrets which the law should protect, they cannot include information known by civilians in peacetime. >> The way you've written the paragraph I've quoted above, it appears that you >> are somehow acknowleding that there are certain circumstances where certain >> types of speech are controllable because they are "harmful," but you fail to >> explain how even this constitutional restiction is tolerable. Frankly, I >> don't see it! What you need to do is to be far more specific about such >> speech and exactly where it can be controlled. > >There may be certain circumstances under which speech can be directly harmful. >Military operations and missle launch codes are things that should be kept >secret. Information about high-powered weapons should be too. If the Japanese >had been able to get information about how to build A-bombs during WWII, major >cities in the U.S. probably would have been completely wiped out. I don't like >the idea that the government has the power to decide what's harmful and what >isn't, but there are beneficial uses of the provision. The few examples that exist, as you've selected them above, seem to be almost entirely based on military secrets in time of war. It is not clear whether a non-security clearance civilian is restricted in any way, nor should he be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Kill 'em and let God sort it out, was Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> jim bell wrote: >Naturally, you won't even consider the possibility of going outside the >system to solve a problem. The rest of us notice that there are probably >thousands of terminally-ill people who would gladly act as a human kamikaze >and get rid of any judge inclined to impose such a fine, for a payment of 1% >of this principle amount to a family member or loved one, leaving 99% >available for the few other judges foolish enough to basically commit >suicide by taking up a futile gesture. > If AP came to be seen as an acceptable way for business and citizens to right egregious wrongs it would quickly lead to a 'law of the jungle' situation, which I think any sane person would reject as the cure being worse than the disease. However, if governemnts (especially ours) continue to expand their implied authority and greatly diminishing personal liberties we all took for granted were inaliable human rights (in our own best interest, of course), a time may come when a bit of rebellion may be the only viable alternative for self-correction. I pray it never comes to this, but Thomas Jefferson contemplating this said: "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. . . .What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?. . .The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, regarding Shay's Rebellion and anarchy. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Voice: 1-702-655-2877 Sacred Cow Meat Co. | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to prescription DRUGS.

1 0

Continuing spam from Timmy May and his friends
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recently sent the following article to this mailing list: ]To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com ]Subject: Re: DL in exchange for fingerprint ]From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) ]Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! ]Message-Id: <awTLuD1w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> ]Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 08:00:57 EDT ]In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960921021401.2717A-100000@polaris> ]Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. ] ]Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: ]> > Do you simply drive without a valid driver's license? I know some folks who ]> > do, of course, but it's not something that's "worth it" to me. ]> ]> Some jurisdictions (D.C. is a good example) are such a joke it's not ]> funny. An associate of mine literally MADE his own Italian Driver's ]> license and turned it in, took an eye test, and walked out with a nice new ]> D.C. license. ] ]In NYC a very high percentage of drivers don't have licences, have suspended ]licences, etc. Generally no one has the time to bother with them unless they ]want to nail them for something else. A couple of years ago we were involved in ]a minor car accident with a Chassidic Jew who tried to leave the scene of the ]accident. My wife chased him and stopped him. :-) The cops came and discovered ]that he had no papers (including no driver's licence, no insurance, etc). They ]gave him about $500 worth of tickets for driving without a licence, leaving the ]scene of an accident, etc (which I rather doubt he was planning to pay) and let ]him drive on (still without the licence). ] ]--- ] ]Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM ]Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps I received the following e-mail from either Timmy May using an alternate account, or someone whose IQ is similar to Timmy's, in response: ]From Adamsc(a)io-online.com Sat Sep 21 22:40:36 1996 ]From: Adamsc(a)io-online.com (Adamsc) ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> ]Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 19:40:29 -0800 ]Reply-To: "Chris Adams" <adamsc(a)io-online.com> ]X-Mailer: Chris Adams's Registered PMMail 1.52 For OS/2 ]X-Filtered: By PMMail 1.52 For OS/2 ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ]Subject: Re: Re: DL in exchange for fingerprint ]Message-Id: <19960922023957609.AAA206@GIGANTE> ] ] You are being gently flamed because. ] ] [X] you continued a boring useless stupid thread ] [ ] you repeatedly posted to the same thread that you just posted to ] [x] you repeatedly initiated incoherent, flaky, and mindless threads ] [x] you posted a piece riddled with profanities ] [ ] you advocated Net censorship ] [ ] you SCREAMED! (used all caps) ] [x] you posted some sort of crap that doesn't belong in this group ] [ ] you posted the inanely stupid 'Make Money Fast' article ] [ ] you threatened others with physical harm ] [x] you made a bigoted statement(s) ] [x] you repeatedly assumed unwarranted moral or intellectual superiority ] [x] you are under the misapprehension that this group is your preserve ] [x] you repeatedly shown lack of humor ] [x] you are apparently under compulsion to post to every threat ] [?] you are posting an anonymous attack ] ] >>> Thank you for the time you have taken to read this. Live n' Learn.<<< ] ] ] ]# Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp ]# cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 ]"I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on ]a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, ]spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it." ] -- Duncan Frissell ] ] Just now I received about 2 dozen similar e-mails from this address, which therefore must be Timmy May's - I can't believe that there are two people on the 'net this stupid and obnoxious and prone to lying. In particular, I receive this spam from Timmy in response to each 'crypto-relevant wire clippings' post. Timmy May is definitely turning this mailing list into a political rant menagerie where cryptography discussions are not welcome. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

AP [was: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet] [NOISE]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Phill wrote: >[AP drivel deleted] >If it could the US would have assasinated Saddam by now. It can't because it >is too difficult to find out where exactly a person will be. It's perfectly doable, it's just not politically expedient. One reason is that if they kill Saddam, they no longer have an excuse to keep threatening and attacking Iraq and making themselves look good. Another is that National Leaders have a tacit understanding between themselves never to assassinate other politicians [well, hardly ever....] If you break the taboo, you're implicitly inviting everyone else to go gunning for you, and it's too easy to do if there are enough people who really want you dead, especially well-organized people like a foreign army or spy service. If the US _had_ really wanted to assassinate Saddam, they could have hired professionals to do the job (like Mossad.) Instead they killed 200,000 other Iraqis, including civilians, draftees, and a few tens of thousands of real soldiers. >In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I* >would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules Yup. >I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of >people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone >is going to act on it. I think a more realistic danger is that the government will use it as an excuse to attack all the techniques for private communications that cypherpunks have been suggesting will make AP possible. >PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder. Nonsense. It certainly _is_ censorship, and it's hypocrisy to suggest otherwise. You can argue whether it's _justified_ censorship, just like the AP advocates argue whether assassination is justified murder, but censorship it is. # 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

3 2

Re: LACC: Re: Australia now has information police
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Hello: > > I have one short, short question regarding this item. I really > hope that you know the anwswer and have the time to answer it. > > 1- International document: any idea who else had signed it? [re COCOM trade agreements] All COCOM countries most likely. That said Australia does not seem to be actively enforcing this relic of the cold war. However around 8 years ago, I recall that the NSA found out about a telephone encrypting device developed here in Australia, and preassured the Australian government to forbid export of the device, under COCOM provisions until it was weakened. At the moment it is politically untenable to enforce COCOM export provisions over cryptographic software in this country. The COCOM treaty is seen, quite rightly, as a U.S barrow which COCOM countries had to sign in order to avoid U.S trade sanctions and tarrifs, but not something that needs to be enforced for smaller concerns (arms shipments are bigger concerns). COCOM is being replaced with new controls, according to the PARI DAILY. (anyone have better details?) PARI DAILY FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1996 BULGARIA IGNORED AT POST-COCOM TALKS Bulgaria did not take part in the first plenary session of the member-countries of the Wassenaar Arrangement, also known as the New Forum, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mr.Pantelei Karasimeonov told a briefing yesterday. Of all the 28 participants in the session, it was only USA that opposed Bulgaria's participation in the arrangement, a control regime which is to succeed the Cold War's COCOM export controls of technology and equipment usable for military purposes, too, it was revealed at the briefing. Bulgaria has stated many times, and at different levels, its willingness to join the new control regime, the Foreign Ministry spokesman emphasised. In a statement, disseminated by BTA, Bulgarian News Agency, Foreign Ministry pointed out that obviously some of the participants in the Wassenaar Arrangement talks are still under the rather depressing impressions of the suitable conditions created in the country for wide-ranging scot-free ruin and lack of ownership, which apply also to the military-industrial complex and foreign trade in spesial-purpose production. Mr. Karasimeonov said that these impressions have sprung from the period of radical economic and political reforms in the country; he voiced his hopes that the founder-states of the Wassenaar Arrangement would soon change these views of theirs and would put their trust in Bulgaria's export control abilities. Trade Ministry officials said that bilateral talks are due to be held between Bulgaria and each of the New Forum member-countries, which are expected to result in Bulgaria's joining the arrangement. An expert group is to visit USA from April 29 till May 3 aiming to acquaint American high officials with the measures Bulgaria has taken to control trade in spesial-purpose production, Mr.Vladimir Velichkov, head of Internationally Controlled Trade Department at Trade Ministry, said in a recent interview for the PARI Daily. By June an expert group of the Wassenaar Arrangement is due to visit Bulgaria to lead discussions about our participation in the New Forum. -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

3 2

A daily word of caution regarding Tim C[ocksucker] May
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

`A pen is mightier than a sword', not to mention Tim C[ocksucker] May's pea-sized penis. He would be better served by a safety razor, possibly applied in a bathtub filled with warm water (something he has surely never been into).

1 0