- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Pottery, Stalingrad , Fascists, Sandinistas, and settlement, of course
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wednesday 5/13/98 1:17 PM John Young J Orlin Grabbe Tuesday evening Patty and I journeyed to Placitas, NM. Patty was going to have some kindergarten student pottery projects kiln fired. Karl and Mary Hofmann are fine artists. Pottery. Both are graduate school graduates in fine arts. Karl is German-born. Karl told me his brother helped build the Russian pipeline system. And it isnt buried deep enough. Karl told me his brother was captured at Stalingrad. I think that I read that only about 10% who were captured at Stalingrad lived to return. http://www.semionoff.com/cellular/hacking/phreaking/ Patty and I bought you both identical gifts from Hofmanns. I am on the way to mail them. Thank you both for so much for what you both have done. Visibility. http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ The Hidden US Government was trying to bury us in their invisible grave yard. But NOW the WORLD is on to the composition of the US Hidden Government. FASCISM - a political and economic movement, strongly nationalistic, magnifying the rights of the state as opposed to those of the individual, in which industry, though remaining largely under private ownership, and all administrative political units, are controlled by a strong central government. Especially, after all of this, aggrieved Shiite Muslims. http://www.wpiran.org/ And now, perhaps, even Sandinistas too. Carlos brought Swiss Radio International audio tape to Nicaragua this spring from Moscow ... Idaho, that is. http://caq.com/cryptogate Lets all hope for prompt PEACEFUL settlement of this HORRIBLE chapter in US history. Later bill

1 0

an odd one at pub.anonymizer
by Quirk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--mark-- -hedges- reviews http://pub.anonymizer.com/~lcchrist The National Socialist Church of Christ espouses a turning away from the old era figuring Hitler and the current Destruction of the Earth Part II as the antichrist ending the cycle of Pisces. In the next phase of polar angular orientation we will understand each other, the universe, and grow into what we can be, because we figure out that otherwise we'll kill us all. They demand spiritual revolution. Therefore they demand obscene gestures and French Soltiers flipping dead cows with catapults at the Brits looking for the Holy Grail. They are not centric on any ism but expand their inclusiveness of what is sacred: the universe. Here I would speak of Godel and the beauty of the semi-organised chaos / order / balance / contrast forms inherent in the universe. In their site the message remains that Destruction is a necessary force in the world from time to time. That induces a feeling of condonence, not condolences. The site plays some interesting games with a lot of very uplifting philosophy for the understanding of the Holocaust and the genocide which occurs today, but then, using Biblical reference and passive-voice claims to the legitimacy of prophecy, it portrays Jesus risen again as Hitler: "Christ had warned us that when He would return, He would come as a thief in the night. Indeed, it had been prophesied that no man would know the day or the hour of His return. Indeed, no one could ever have expected that the Second Coming of Christ would mean His return to play the completely opposite role that He had played before, coming not to save the world, but to be its judge, baptizing not with water but rather with fire and force! The Second Coming of Christ came in such a completely unexpected fashion that mankind remained completely unconscious of His return and the fulfillment of Christian prophesy for more than fifty years!" The speaker is anonymous and does not provide the contact address.

2 1

Plot of the Platypus
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ********** WARNING!!! Plot of the Platypus !!!WARNING ********** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ********** Since the death of Dale Thorn, I have lurked silently in the list background while observing the creeping conspiracies continually compromising cypherpunk costs. I mean..."posts." {Damn, now I'm doing it, too.} Doing what, you ask? How did you know what I said? Are you with the MIND POLICE? AM I SURROUNDED??!!!?? {Oh...I see that I put that thought in brackets, where you could read it. Whew! Had me worried for a minute, there.} To continue... Being an anonymous coward who hides behind remailers the few times that I post, I have been somewhat hesitant, nonetheless, to reveal the observations and accompanying thoughts about the direction that the cypherpunks lissed has taken {Damn, that's twice, already. I may be infected, like many of the others} since the end of the Nazi moderation/censorship experiment. While other, more vocal, list members were celebrating the apparent 'victory' over the johnboot of fascism being lifted from our typing fingers, I had a troubled mind, worrying whether the evil forces were truly vanquished or whether they had merely escaped by way of the anonymous remailers, to the negative pole, where they would bide their time and prepare to strike again. I was counting on the shit-disturbers, chiefly Dale Thorn, to keep a practiced eye out for signs of the evil farces {Was that a typo, a Freudian slip, or another sign of the mind infection that is rapidly spreading on the list?} regrouping to once again try to destroy the cypherpunks list. Suddenly, Dale disappeared--faster than you can say, "Jimmy Hoffa." For a time, Toto attempted to carry on in his stead, but I *knew* Dale Thorn, and Toto is no John F. Kennedy. {Shit! Now I'm beginning to steal and corrupt the words of others. I'm not certain I like the implications of this. The plot may go even deeper than I previously thought...} Where was I...? Oh, yes...the Plot of the Platypus... William H. Geiger III writed: > A prime example is the welfair class in America. *^^* Anonymous rote: > Many in the welfair class have their basic needs met by... *^^* Then, in a startling development, ? the platypus wrote: >(Australia, most of europe ect have higher welfare rates). ... *^^^^^^^* >Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Notice anything a little bit *strange* in the above quotes? Suddenly, "? the Platypus" is the the only one of this group that can spell welfair...warfair......welfare. {Damn! What's that clinging to my back?} What is going on here? As the Platypus's spelling gets better, the other list members' spelling gets worse. For example: Ray Arachelian sayhed: > what shal be the punishment? If the one who takes the order... *^* > reposability, then the one giving the order must be doubly... *^^* Tim May wroted: > Agraphia or not, this is one of the lamest posts I've seen in years. > Wealth is to be taken from those who have worked for it or put their > capitcal at risk *^* The Cypherpunk Philosophist King, lame-ing while flame-ing? Worse yet, while flame-ing about lame-ing? Lame-ing while flame-ing about lame-ing? Fucking up his spelling while taking a cheap-shot at someone's disability in their ability to 'dis' someone with proper spelling? And then, after his "capitcal" misfire, the object of his scorn returns fire with a correct spelling of "redistribution?" ? the Playtpus correctly scripted: > The US has one of the lowest rates of wealth redistribution in the... Am I making too much of this? A few simple typo's, you say? Perhaps an occasional slip of the finger--a momentary lapse of mind and/or memory, leading to a misspelled word? {Or is it 'mispelled'? I don't know, and I'm afraid to look it up. I could use the spell checker, but... No! It's too dangerous.} It's the Plot of the Platypus, I tell you...I AM NOT CRAZY!!!! I did extensive analysis of the list posts in the last few months, and I can state with absolute certainty that for every slight improvement in the quality of the Platypus's spelling, there is a court responding decease in the Kuala-T of many of T ohter libsp mambors spealing. {See? Do you SEE!?!? IT'S EVEN HAPPENING TO *ME* NOW.} That's not all. Just like before, others on the list are acting as the shills for the chief instant gator of this spelling tragivesty. Bill Stewart, a consciencious speller, said: > [If you're going to rant about government-provided education, > _please_ spell most of your words correctly, or let technology help > you...] See? Do you SEE?!? The subtle slams by the co-conspirators are beginning. It's the next stage... "Having a little trouble with your spelling there, pal? There's no more censorship, so you can say anything you want...as long as you can SPELL it! Haaa...haaaa...haaa." The ebil fartses are once again attempting to split the cybferpukes lissed in2 too kamps--the good spellers and the bag speelers. Think about it. Have you ever heard of "agraphia" before? Ever known anyone that had it? Of course not! It was developed in an underground lavoratory in Area 51 by reptilian Nazis. Well, maybe not "reptilian", but Nazis, just the same. And LOOK! I'm using double-quotes! *Misplaced* double-quotes, nonetheless. THE MARKS OF THE *TOTO*!!! The conspiracy is spreading fast. It's everywhere. Kent Crispin, government schill {Damn! I even spell 'shill' like Toto, now. At least I managed to use single quotes this time, like we did in the old days, before the censorship crisis...which just 'happened' to happen shortly after Toto happeared out of nowhere...} Where was I...? Oh, yes... Crispin, who has long previously been the target of many vicious attacks by both Toto and the Platypus, is now showing signs of the government generated Platyagraphia and the double-quote marks of the Toto. Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> say-heyed: >will force the "welfair class" to become productive citizens or die. ^ ^^^ ^ Or is Kent Crispin, gubormint chill, marking funds of the wrist of U.S.? Is he laughtering at uds B-hynd R backs? Is he a bubble agent in the Plop of the Paperplutz? Still skeptical? Wait!! There's more!!! {No, not the Ginsu knives, you fools. I'm talking about the Plop of the Pretty Puss.} Think about the following pots, which wah *snot* sent to the list in order to hide the troops from the simplefucks lips dismemberers. Since it was not cent 2 the lips, I had to make it up, and now I'm a forager, like Tutu making those bag fridgeries of ohter cheaples pastes when he abuses their names without having their parsimmons to accuse their name for making his own pissed to the cyberhunks lost. ------- Begin Pretty Good Pretending------- PGP: Bad Spelling Virgin 0.1 To: ciderpundits(a)tao.dot.commie From: TheBadSpellingForger <i_can__spell_good(a)anytime.I.please> Subject: Make Con$piracy La$t Date: {I'm typing it *now*, you idiot.} Tired of being a LOSER? Tired of failing in your list takeover bids while others, like the _fuck_you_morons_ spammer, AOL'ers, and blonde bimbos with huge breasts are getting ahead in life? Tired of not getting your secret cypherpunks decoder ring, like the others, because you don't use an "authorized" operating system, and you can't spell "welfare" even though you're on it? Join the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST today, and turn your life around. {No Bullshit! This conspiracy is so fucking secret that *nobody* knows about it--NOT EVEN ME! I had to make it up! That's how secret it is.} Good gays Finnish lost. Why do they "Finnish lost"? Because they waste their time with correct spelling, proper placement of quotation marks, and trying to develop a consistent list persona when there are already millions of Internet identities out there already, just waiting to be abused. Face it, its the assholes that usually end up on top, and not just because most people sleep on their stomaches. So why are you WASTING YOUR TIME being a good gay, when the assholes are making the BIG BUCKS by putting naked pictures of big bucks fucking big butts on their "Native American Nude MLM" web site? Tired of being an anarchist? Tired of waiting for Jim Bell to rat you out as being a co-conspirator in his evil plot to overthrow the government? Tired of standing in front of your mirror, trying to practice acting surprised when armed forces from a dozen government agencies kick down your door to announce that someone nuked D.C., and they'd like to "ask you a few questions?" Join the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. Do it TODAY, and you will be guaranteed a secret cypherpunks decoder ring when the people who pull our strings pass a law criminalizing them (except for use in meeting the legitimate needs of secret conspirators against the cypherpunks list). Listen to what these Secret Conspirators have to say: Peter Trei: "Hi. I used to be a boring guy. I was so boring that none of the assholes on the list even bothered insulting me, or forging posts in my name. "Then one day, my life suddenly changed. Someone forged a post to the list in my name, and it was exciting. It was like getting robbed at gunpoint. What a rush! "When I woke up the next morning, I couldn't face going back to my normal, moral, ethical, boring life. I sent an anonymous post to the list--as TruthMonger! It felt good, like being elected to a government office by lying to people, but I wanted MORE. I began forging posts to the list using other people's identities. If they complained to the list, then I killed them, and assumed their list identities. It felt like driving INSLAW into bankruptsy, stealing their software, and murdering those who knew too much! "Now I am Peter Trei, boring cryptographer, by day, but I am any exciting, unethical asshole I want to be, at night. "I liked the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST so much that I *stole* the conspiracy. "? the Platypus" has nothing to do with the Plot of the Platypus, I'm just making fun of his disability, like a real asshole. Toto has nothing to do with it, either. He's such a loser that everyone on the list can spot his forgeries. (Well, they "used to could". But now that I can mimic his style and have hacked his sympatico account, I can deny all of this from my real list persona tomorrow, and nobody will be the wiser.) "I'm not just a user of the cypherpunks list, I'm an abuser." Kent Crispin: "This isn't Peter's conspiracy, its MINE! I mean, get real, I work in a secret underground lavoratory as a government shill. "Think about it. Who would you expect to conspire against a bunch of anarchists...the government! You all know how much I love the government and authority. I'm Louis Freeh's secret lover. Janet Reno is going to have my baby. "It's me! *I* am the one behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. I'm a STATIST, for God's sake, why won't you believe me? "Because I'm not one of the elitist 'chosen?' Fuck you." Tim May: "God, I *love* this list." Robert Hettinga: "Hey! If you check the archives, you'll find that I said that in a post, long before anyone else did." TruthMonger: "Now Hettinga is stealing Tim May's lines. What the hell is going on, here? Has *everybody* on this list gone crazy? "*I* am the one who is *really* behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. Think about it. Everyone knows that I'm a 33rd degree Mason. No...that's Tim May. "Fuck this shit. From now on, I'm posting as Toto." John Perry: "This has gone on long enough. I'm killing this thread. ...I mean..."post." ...I mean... "Shit! I'm not the list moderator, yet. That's *after* we take over the list." "Sorry." ------- End Pretty Good Pretending------- ... ~~~~~~~ Begin Note From Igor ~~~~~~~ Do you all remember the Perl script I was working on for mimicking the posts of other people? Well, this post is the latest product of that script. What do you think? Is it convincing? Did you really believe that it was actually written by one or more of the people mentioned in the post? I think that I finally have the Perl script to the point where I can effectively fool most people about the true source and method of a computer generated post's actual origins. I was thinking about adding a conspiratoral part about myself. I was going to intimate that the fact that I was so active on the list during the censorship crisis, playing the skeptic who was gradually brought around to the truth of Dale Thorn and Toto's claims, then volunteering to host the list and quietly disappearing into the background, might indicate that *I* was really behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. In the end, I decided against it, because then the readers would be left with the notion that perhaps even this explainatory note from me was bogus, and that there really was an ongoing SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. ~~~~~~~ End Note From Igor ~~~~~~~ ********** DISCLAIMER ********** THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! There is no conspiracy by a secret government to destroy the Constitution, enslave the people, and rule the world. Individual cypherpunks are not being imprisoned and murdered and replaced with Identity Bots. There is no need to worry. Declan McCullagh can confirm all of this. You can trust him. He is your representative in D.C. He did *not* give secret testimony against Jim Bell in return for a byline in the "Time" magazine cover story. That is just a rumor. Well, not yet, maybe, but it will be, very soon. Remember, this is just a normal mailing list with a few list members who are a little odd. There are no spooks. There is no background intrigue. This whole privacy thing has just been blown a bit out of proportion. It's really not that important. Waco was just a tragic accident. Ruby Ridge was a simple error in judgement by a government agent who really feels bad about following his superiors orders. Heavily armed U.S. Marines are no match for a goat-herding boy with a .22, and it is only by the grace of God that they are alive today. Oswald acted alone. lai;ekrjke ^C THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! There is no conspiracy by a secret government to destroy the Constitution, enslave the people, and rule the world. dakl;jdafkl;jad;jfa ^C ^C Oswald acted alone. Bears are Catholic. The Pope shits in the woods. The government is concerned for your welfair. *^^^* ldfafd;ljfd; ^C^X^C THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! da;lkdf ^C THERE IS *NO* welfair ad;fljadf; *^^^* ad;sljf;afj ^C ^C ^C THERE IS *NO* SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST! SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST!

1 0

Say No To Christ
by Michael Stutz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's not an _Onion_ satire: <http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9707/update.html#aliens> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: bofus? Subject: Pat Robertson advocates stoning for UFO enthusiasts Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:39:49 -0800 Message-ID: <33FDB249.335F(a)mindspring.com> RuffinP(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > > FREEDOM WRITER PRESS RELEASE > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 28, 1997 > CONTACT: Skipp Porteous (413) 528-3800 > > > > Robertson advocates stoning for UFO > enthusiasts > > > Great Barrington, MA -- In a recent > pronouncement, television evangelist and > head of the Christian Coalition, Pat > Robertson, advocated death by stoning for > UFO enthusiasts. > > Freedom Writer magazine, in its July/August > issue, mailed today, disclosed Robertson's > statement. Freedom Writer is published by > the Institute for First Amendment Studies, > a group that monitors the right. > > Robertson used the news of the July 4th > Mars landing to promote his extreme > beliefs. A segment on the July 8, 1997 > broadcast of The 700 Club featured news of > the Mars Pathfinder mission. Employing the > historical event as a starting point, the > program delved into the possibility of the > existence of UFOs and space aliens. > > While Robertson viewed the space program > with suspicion, on a more serious note, he > launched into a diatribe against those who > entertain the existence of space aliens and > UFOs. He said, in a rambling discourse, that > if such things exist, they are simply demons > trying to lead people away from Christ. > According to Robertson, the threat is so > serious that people who believe in space > aliens should be put to death by stoning -- > according to "God's word." > > "The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, > but the heavens belong to the Lord," > Robertson said. > > "He has given us the Earth. He also warned, > way back when Moses was writing down not > only what is the Ten Commandments, but > Deuteronomy, which is almost the Second Law. > > "Here is what he said to the children of > Israel about this whole matter: > > "'If there is found among you, within any > of your gates which the Lord your God gives > you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in > the sight of the Lord your God, in > transgressing His covenant, who has gone > and served other gods and worshipped them, > either the sun or moon or any of the hosts > of heaven which I have not commanded you, > and you hear of it, then you shall inquire > diligently. And if it is indeed true and > certain that such an abomination has been > committed in Israel, then you shall bring > out to your gates that man or woman who has > committed that wicked thing, and stone to > death that man or woman with stones.'" > (Deuteronomy 17:2-5, NKJV) > > "Now, that's what Moses said to the > children of Israel about those who worship > the sun and the moon and the hosts of > heaven, because these things, at best, are > lifeless nothings, or, if they are > intelligent, they're demonic. And, yes, > there is a host of heaven. There are angels > and there are fallen angels. There is no > question about it." > > "Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, > funny-looking creature? Of course he can, > or it can. Of course they can deceive > people. And if they can lead somebody away > from the true God, or away from Jesus > Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't > matter, you will lose your salvation. It > doesn't matter how they get you. The > question is, did they get you, and under > what guise? > > "This is man in rebellion against God, who > refuses to take God's Law. And God says, > 'My covenant says you won't do this. And if > I find anybody in Israel,'-- "which is his > pure nation" -- 'If I find anybody in > Israel that's doing this sort of thing, > then I want you to take him out and dispose > of him." > > "It's a clear violation of God's word." > > Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer publisher, > commented: "As the founder and chairman of > the Christian Coalition -- a group > dedicated to becoming the most powerful > political force in America -- Robertson's > extreme ideas need to be taken seriously, > for they not only negate pluralism, but > condemn to death those who dare to believe > differently." --------- End forwarded message ----------

1 0

Government sues to "eradicate" ebonics joke e-mail at FreddieMac
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text MIME-Version: 1.0 Priority: normal Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:35:52 PST Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Eugene Volokh <VOLOKH(a)LAW.UCLA.EDU> Organization: UCLA School of Law Subject: Government sues to "eradicate" ebonics joke e-mail at FreddieMac To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM (Please feel free to forward; copying authorized by copyright owner) A National Speech Code From The EEOC by Eugene Volokh Washington Post, Aug. 22, 1997, at A23 Telling "ebonics" jokes, the federal government says, is unlawful. Yes, that's right. You may burn the American flag, advocate violent revolution, post indecent material on the Internet, but "disseminating derogatory electronic messages regarding `ebonics'" to your co- workers is against the law. So says the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in a lawsuit filed in federal court late last month. The EEOC is now trying to force the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. to "take prompt and effective remedial action to eradicate" such speech by its workers. Remarkably, the EEOC, aided by some courts and by state civil rights agencies, thinks it can get away with this, and so far it has. Without much fanfare, the law of "workplace harassment" has turned into a nationwide speech code. Under this speech code, it's illegal to say things that are "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile or offensive work environment" -- whatever that is -- based on race, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status and an ever-widening list of other attributes. Here is a brief catalogue of some of what's been described by various agencies and courts as "harassment": Co-workers' use of "draftsman" and "foreman" (instead of "draftsperson" and "foreperson"). "Men Working" signs. Sexually suggestive jokes, even ones that aren't misogynistic. Derogatory pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini and American flags burning in Iran. In the words of one court's injunction: remarks "contrary to your fellow employees' religious beliefs." "Offensive speech implicating considerations of race." What could the government possibly be thinking about here? The Supreme Court has never suggested that the workplace is somehow a First Amendment-free zone. Many of us talk to more people at work than we do anywhere else. The workplace is where we often discuss the questions of the day, whether they be the Oakland School Board's ebonics policy or affirmative action or religion. Private employers, like private newspaper publishers or private homeowners, are not bound by the First Amendment and may thus restrict what is said on their property. But the United States government, which is under a constitutional obligation not to abridge "the freedom of speech," can't go to court to insist on the "eradication" of political speech that it thinks is reprehensible. Of course, many harassment cases involve more than just impolitic jokes. The ebonics case, for instance, also involved some threats, which are constitutionally unprotected, and some one-to-one insults, which might also be properly punishable. If the EEOC had just sued over this conduct, there would be little constitutional difficulty. But the EEOC has no business claiming that toleration of e-mailed political opinion is "an unlawful employment practice." Why have the free-speech implications here been so widely ignored? Hard to say. Maybe everyone was misled by the law's mushiness. It's always easier to build consensus behind vague terms such as "hostile or offensive work environment," which can mean all things to all people. I like to think that if the EEOC proposed a regulation that explicitly barred ebonics jokes, someone would have made a fuss. But the breadth of harassment law has now become pretty clear. The federal government seems to think it's entitled to control what we say in our workplaces so long as a "reasonable person" would find that our speech makes the environment "hostile or offensive." Pretty remarkable how far we've let things come. [The writer teaches free-speech law at UCLA.] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "irregardless of the type of insurance coverage, Eugene Volokh the limits of liability . . . shall be governed UCLA Law School by the amounts specified in subsection A . . ." 405 Hilgard Ave. 36 Okla. St. Ann. 6414 (enacted 1986). L.A., CA 90095 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: Mathematics > NSA + GCHQ
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Thus, as bright as Brian Snow or Don Coppersmith or John Conway may be, the >"edge" the NSA may have once had is largely gone. Which is not to say that >they are not still a formidable technical organization, with substantial >computer resources. > >But modern crypto systems are, as we all know, based on fundamental >mathematical results ... Along this line: A few days ago we received an 8-page excerpt from "Shift Register Sequences," by Solomon W. Golomb (at USC), Holden-Day, Inc., no date, with a handwritten note: NSA has tried to suppress knowledge of this stuff. Nearly all NSA 'good' algorithms are based on this technology. IANAM, so would any of the mathematicians here give any credibility to this claim? We'll scan and put the excerpt on our Web site if worthwhile. It's composed of the book's 3 page preface and 5 pages of text and diagrams of Chapter 2 on The Shift Register as a Finite State Machine, with principal focus on de Bruijn diagrams for shift registers.

3 2

Re: Shooting the taggers
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Here in Santa Cruz, graffiti spray-painted on the walls of businesses >is a >big, and growing, problem. And laws require the businesses to paint >over >>he grafitti, or otherwise render it invisible, in a quick and timely >manner. (The idea is that the grafitti is offensive to the >sensibilities of >others, or somesuch, and that it encourages rival gangs to counter >with >their own grafitti.) No, the idea is that the taggers do their thing in order to see the results of their work on display. Paint over the results promptly, and there is no point to tagging. >There's a solution for taggers: snipers. A punishment far out of proportion to the crime. It is a mistake to think that all crimes should be punished by the most violent means possible. Notice that most proponents have never raised children. They need to learn the importance of proportionality. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Marc Rotenberg on Time cover story on privacy (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:12:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Marc Rotenberg on Time cover story on privacy [My comments on privacy that I forwarded yesterday under the Subject: line "Response to Time cover on privacy" were in response to Marc's criticism, attached below. -Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:49:13 -0400 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: Response to Time cover on privacy ---- Josh - I appreciate the excellent coverage of privacy issues in this week's Time Magazine and at the Pathfinder site, but I am concerned about three particular points made in your article and the general tenor of your reporting. First, much of your discussion of the privacy issue assumes that there is a necessary trade-off between privacy and social benefit. Give up some data, get a good parking space. I think this is a very shallow view of privacy rights. A person who lives in a prison has very little privacy and very little benefit. An affluent person in a democratic society, however, may have both. Clearly, there is something more going on than a zero-sum game. Many of the current efforts to promote genuine privacy enhancing techniques, such as anonymous cash, are based on the belief that we can obtain many of the same benefits of customized service without giving up personally indentifiable information. In this context, the discussion of cookies is critical -- a non-actual user identified cookie is very good for service and privacy, but a user-identified cookie can be good for service but bad for privacy. But your discussion of cookies glosses over this critical point. These questions come up all the time. Should intelligent highways capture actual IDs? Can medical services be delivered psuedo-anonymously? What about communication services? Web access? You substituted an old privacy cliche ("in the modern world we give up some privacy for some benefit") for coverage of the interesting, cutting edge policy issues that the net and the debate about identity has raised. Second, following Alan Westin's line, you suggest that we have generally avoided privacy legislation in the private sector. This is simply not true. We have federal privacy legislation for credit record (1970), school records (1974), bank records (1978), cable subscriber records (1984), stored email (1986), video rental records (1988), junk faxes and auto dialers (1991), and dozens more at the state level for everything from insurance and health records to library records. You can say that these laws are at times ineffective or incoherent -- why federal privacy for video records but nor medical records? -- but it is just wrong to start tearing pages from the history books and the US code to support a bias against privacy laws. Alan should know better; you should as well. Finally, you and Kevin K. take a big swing at my call for privacy legislation and a privacy agency. I appreciate that it is a cardinal rule of some to oppose any government anything, but at least understand the argument for the privacy agency "We need new legal protections to enforce the privacy act, . . ." The Privacy Act was established in 1974 to restrict the ability of government to collect information on citizens and to give citizens the right to get access to their own files. But since '74, federal agencies have shown little interest in upholding the law and privacy concerns *across the federal government* have mushroomed. Do I take from Kevin's criticism that he would prefer that there was no effort to improve enforcment of the Privacy Act, limit record sharing in the government, and ensure people get access to their own files? Is that right? Can we at least agree that the Privacy Act plays an important role in protecting citizen rights and that efforts to strengthen it should be supported? " . . . to keep federal agencies in line, . . .' So that, for example, when law enforcement agencies in the federal government press the White House and the OMB for new law enforcement authority there is a counterveiling agency in the government that requires that privacy concerns are addressed before the proposal reaches the President's desk. And if they aren't adequately addressed, maybe the proposal doesn't get to the President's desk. It is obvious after both the Clipper episode and the OECD Crypto Guidelines that governments with privacy agencys have done a better job resisting these calls for extended government surveillance. The problem is that the one-dimensional critique of government provided in the article (and Wired and Netly) simply doesn't allow for the possibility that one of the best ways to constrain government power is through checks and balances. That, btw, was the key to controlling government authority in the US Constitution. In the absence of a federal privacy agency, you can almost be guaranteed that administration proposals will always tip in favor of surveillance. And the irony of the opposition by some to a federal privacy agency is that it has made it easier over the last few years for NSA/FBI to push forward crypto standards and roll the Department of Commerce. What in the federal government should stop them? Absent an office to push back, they have a clear course to the President's desk. " . . . to act as a spokesperson for the Federal Government . . ." This is for the fairly obvious reason that privacy is one of the biggest issues today in the US and there is no office in government that can even say authoritatively what the position of the US is. (Note that this problem doesn't exist over on the surveillance side or with copyright protection. The government values both. So David Aaron was given the title and the authority to promote the Administration position on key escrow/key recovery, and Bruce Lehman did the same at WIPO for copyrights interests. Do you understand now what's going on?). The result is that there is not even a basis for trade discussion or government negotiation. . . . and to act on behalf of privacy interests." So that when SSA is putting PEBES on line there is some privacy evaluation. Or, to take a recent European example, the new German communications law encourages the development of anonymous payment schemes to promote on-line commerce and to protect privacy. Where did the idea come from? The privacy agency. So, I have to ask, what is it exactly in my proposal that you/Kevin/Declan object to? Is it the fact that there will be a government <something>? I can't argue against that. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, but it has nothing to do with reporting or policy. Is it the fact that Trustee, OPS will do all of this better? If you have been following my point, you'll realize now that doesn't make any sense. Or what if it costs taxpayer dollars? In 1993 I backed creation of a federal privacy agency. Total cost: $5 m. The industry balked. "Too expensive. We have to trim the federal budget." The following year they backed Digital Telephony and a $500 m authorization to make the phone system easy to wiretap. I am also getting a little tired of the myth of the small town where everyone knew everything about everyone else and that there was no privacy. First off, this myth runs directly contrary to another, better description of American society -- the unexplored frontier. Where exactly did all those frontiersmen come from? The answer is the small town. People were constantly picking up and moving, building new homes, and establishing new identities. Many people born in these small towns left and went to school, joined the military, started businesses, moved to the city. Mobility, more than any other characteristic, is central to the American experience. Read Tocqueville. Civic association was and is constantly formed and reformed. Finally, I do agree with Kevin that privacy is very much about social relations. In fact the tag line for the book that Phil Agre and I edited for MIT Press, "Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape" http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl?isbn=026201162X begins "Privacy is the capacity to negotiate social relationships by controlling access to personal information." Privacy rules essentially establish the base lines for negotiating social relations between individuals and organizations. If you collect personal information, you take on some responsibilities. If you give up some information, you get some rights. You'll find those principles in just about every privacy law and policy in the world. Not only is this commonsense, but it has some nice benefits for an era when technology allows us to shape new forms of social relations -- we can design techniques that allow organizations and inviduals to interact without disclosure of personal information. Indeed, the web and the Net provided all of this to us, but now it could be quickly lost. I don't know what it will take to persuade some of the opinion leaders in the on-line world that law will play a critical role in protecting individual privacy in the coming years, but I'm willing to listen and learn.And I hope, whatever form this dialogue takes, we can all move beyond ideology, myth, and charicature. Marc Rotenberg. EPIC. ================================================================== Marc Rotenberg, director * +1 202 544 9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301 * rotenberg(a)epic.org Washington, DC 20003 USA + http://www.epic.org ==================================================================

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:30 PM 8/22/97 +0200, A druken remailer user wrote: > To continue... > Being an anonymous coward who hides behind remailers the few times Did Patrick Oonk send this one? > Tired of being an anarchist? Tired of waiting for Jim Bell >to rat you out as being a co-conspirator in his evil plot >to overthrow the government? Tired of standing in front of your >mirror, trying to practice acting surprised when armed forces >from a dozen government agencies kick down your door to announce >that someone nuked D.C., and they'd like to "ask you a few >questions?" If someone nuked D.C., most of those bastards would probably be dead. Then again... they propably have em stuffed in capsules, to be opened when communication is lost with Washington D.C. Millions of theses bastards!!!! All located on the surface of Uranus. Upon losing the signal with D.C., they'll fly to Earth, to once again enslave the free. What's the solution???!!!??? We must send all our nuclear arsenals to the surface of Uranus, and set them off, ONLY THEN WILL WE BE SAFE!!! >Peter Trei: > "Hi. I used to be a boring guy. I was so boring that none of the >assholes on the list even bothered insulting me, or forging posts in >my name. > "Then one day, my life suddenly changed. Someone forged a post to >the list in my name, and it was exciting. It was like getting robbed >at gunpoint. What a rush! Heheheh >Kent Crispin: > "This isn't Peter's conspiracy, its MINE! I mean, get real, I >work in a secret underground lavoratory as a government shill. > "Think about it. Who would you expect to conspire against a >bunch of anarchists...the government! You all know how much I >love the government and authority. I'm Louis Freeh's secret >lover. Janet Reno is going to have my baby. > "It's me! *I* am the one behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY AGAINST >THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. I'm a STATIST, for God's sake, why won't >you believe me? > "Because I'm not one of the elitist 'chosen?' Fuck you." Heheh, well, at least they got Kent summed up in 3 paragraphs. >TruthMonger: > "Now Hettinga is stealing Tim May's lines. What the hell is >going on, here? Has *everybody* on this list gone crazy? > "*I* am the one who is *really* behind the SECRET CONSPIRACY >AGAINST THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST. Think about it. Everyone knows >that I'm a 33rd degree Mason. No...that's Tim May. > "Fuck this shit. From now on, I'm posting as Toto." heheh > There is no conspiracy by a secret government to destroy > the Constitution, enslave the people, and rule the world. "Like them new Stealth Helicopters, equipped with devices to drown out the sound." "Dale, where the hell did you hear that!?" "Alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters" > Remember, this is just a normal mailing list with a few list > members who are a little odd. There are no spooks. Except for Kent Crispin. > Waco was just a tragic accident. Ruby Ridge was a simple error > in judgement by a government agent who really feels bad about > following his superiors orders. Heavily armed U.S. Marines are > no match for a goat-herding boy with a .22, and it is only by > the grace of God that they are alive today. Oswald acted alone. Yeah, no one's safe when those god-damn goat herding sniper kids, lucky those good soldiers hit him fast! There is, however, a secret-conspiracy by Paul Pomes to shut down remailers. ConspiracyMonger "Ahhh, look, another mutilated cow." "Musta been them aliens." "Nah, it's them damn black helicopters. Killin' all my friggin livestock."

1 0

None
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's not an _Onion_ satire: <http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9707/update.html#aliens> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: bofus? Subject: Pat Robertson advocates stoning for crypto enthusiasts Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:39:49 -0800 Message-ID: <33FDB249.335F(a)mindspring.com> RuffinP(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > > FREEDOM WRITER PRESS RELEASE > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 28, 1997 > CONTACT: Skipp Porteous (413) 528-3800 > > > > Robertson advocates stoning for UFO > enthusiasts > > > Great Barrington, MA -- In a recent > pronouncement, television evangelist and > head of the Christian Coalition, Pat > Robertson, advocated death by stoning for > crypto enthusiasts. > > Freedom Writer magazine, in its July/August > issue, mailed today, disclosed Robertson's > statement. Freedom Writer is published by > the Institute for First Amendment Studies, > a group that monitors the right. > > Robertson used the news of the July 25th > Senate Commerce Committee hearing to promote > his extreme beliefs. A segment on the July 27, > 1997 broadcast of The 700 Club featured news > of the Senate hearing. Employing the > historical event as a starting point, the > program delved into the possibility of the > existence of anonymous free speech on the > Internet. > > While Robertson viewed the Internet with > suspicion, on a more serious note, he > launched into a diatribe against those who > entertain the existence of uninhibited free > speech on the Internet. He said, in a > rambling discourse, that if such a thing > existed, it would simply create demons that > would lead people away from Christ. > According to Robertson, the threat is so > serious that people who believe in free > speech should be put to death by stoning -- > according to "God's word." > > "The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, > but the Word belongs to the Lord," > Robertson said. > > "He has given us the Earth. He also warned > us in the book of Matthew of the dangers of > corrupting forces such as the Internet which > can be used for evildoers: > > "'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can > a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that > does not bear good fruit is cut down and > thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their > fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:17-20)' > > "And you see, there is only one Word, and > that is the Word of God: > > "'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word > was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)'" > 'For the Word of the Lord is right; and all his > works are done with faithfulness. He loveth > mercy and judgment: the earth is full of the > mercy of the Lord. (Psalm 32:4-5)' > > So there is no question about it." > > "Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, > funny-looking computer hacker? Of course > he can, or it can. Of course they can deceive > people. And if they can lead somebody away > from the true God, or away from Jesus > Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't > matter, you will lose your salvation. It > doesn't matter how they get you. The > question is, did they get you, and under > what guise? > > "This is man in rebellion against God, who > refuses to take God's Law. And God says, > 'My covenant says you won't do this. And if > I find anybody in Israel,'-- "which is his > pure nation" -- 'If I find anybody in > Israel that's doing this sort of thing, > then I want you to take him out and dispose > of him." > > "It's a clear violation of God's word. > Stone them." > > Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer publisher, > commented: "As the founder and chairman of > the Christian Coalition -- a group > dedicated to becoming the most powerful > political force in America -- Robertson's > extreme ideas need to be taken seriously, > for they not only negate pluralism, but > condemn to death those who dare to believe > differently." --------- End forwarded message ----------

1 0