- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

BIG_dif
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-19-96. NYP: "AT&T and Wells Fargo Investing in an Electronic Cash Card." The companies said that they would form the American affiliate of Mondex. Any one with a Mondex card can transfer electronic cash to anyone else with a card. This flexibility has raised concerns both about the possibility of counterfeiting and of money laundering. Because of these concerns, Mondex has been modified in the United States so that banks will be able to track card use. That will allow them to audit for fraud, if not recreate every transaction. Data from Mondex cards will be used for various product marketing. "We believe there should be privacy, but there is a big difference between privacy and anonymity," Dudley Nigg, executive vice president of Wells Fargo, said. ----- http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/bigdif.txt (4 kb) BIG_dif

1 0

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage >being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific >American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the >sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and >"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing >about. Choosing what you read and choosing what other people (including your children) read is the difference between filtering and censoring. I didn't say filtering was wrong, I said censorship was wrong. >If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away >from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where >there views are already basically set. I am sorry to hear. I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more harm than good. I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will leave it up to you to read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for very strong arguements in my support. >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the filtering programs we were discussing allow a user very little, if any, ability to "set his filters differently". >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. Again, I agree, and thought I had made that clear. However, that doesn't mean we can't object on a social (opposed to governmental) level. I repeat: just because a government doesn't have the right to oppose private censorship doesn't make it OK. >Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" >notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from >filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." I was under the impression that most on the list were avowed libertarians, and would rather the State didn't intervene in any part of your (or your son's) life. However, I would still argue that restricting your son's access is more of a detriment to your son than allowing it, then discussing why it is Wrong (or whatever) and why he feels it is necessary to read such things. I would also argue that you are right in that the State has no right to force you to raise your child in any way. But, as I stated in another post, the problem is not just the government. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). I fail to see how trying to breed attitudes that you allegedly avow is "propaganda". The book you cited is intended as a means of teaching acceptance, not necessarily approval. You say you tolerate homosexuals, but that is not a wide-spread practice yet. Violence and ridicule is the more common response to openly homosexual behaviour, and that book is meant to stop such bigoted reactions. You'll note that nowhere in the book does it say anyone *should* be homosexual, it merely says that it's okay if you are and you should accept others who are. >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). Please show me an instance where you or your children (if you had any) would have been forced into practicing homosexuality by anything taught in a public school or shown on a web page. Exposure to a lifestyle and having that life- style's practices forced on you are not the same. Would you allow your children to learn about Nazi Germany? I find the lifestyle of the Nazi positively disgusting, but wouldn't think to prevent my child from learning about it. Same thing with other cultures, religions, political principles, etc. The simple fact that this particular issue is regarding sexuality bears no significance to the arguement. A child (or any other person) should not be restricted access to any sort of information available about any topic, unless she is restricting her own access (filtering). <garbage regarding AIDS/etc ignored> //cerridwyn//

3 2

Monica, slavegirl of Gor (fwd)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This was found on a different mailing lists. names have been removed to protect the guilty. alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Re: Monica, slavegirl of Gor The best opinion I've heard so far on this topic: "If the government's going to spend $50 million on pornography, I'd rather it be by artists I support." Carol

1 0

No Subject
by weffross＠counsel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Inet unsubscribe weffross(a)counsel.com Thanks!

1 0

VRML
by brianh＠u041.oh.vp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Does anybody know of a mailing-list for VRML? I have tried www-VRML(a)wired.com but there is nothing, least not returned. Any help and/or direction would be appreciated. Thanks in Advance, brianh(a)u041.oh.vp.com UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN :-)

1 0

Netscape
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! There appears to be some new Netscape files with US encryption in ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming/ netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10 netscape-fts2-nt.exe Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz SSL 3.0 source code netscape32us-30b5.exe Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT By the way, is it possible to get a certificate for the Fast Track 128 bit servers outside of north america? Or would the certificate issuer be conspiring to export crypto if he exported a certificate?

2 1

Re: Responding to Pre-daw
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Except that getting killed in a traffic accident IS an accident (mostly :) > > > while having black clad Fed's storming into your house was _consciously_ > > > decided by them, because THEY have a problem with YOUR guns (?!)... > > > > I think the original point was that they MIGHT storm into your house > > by mistake (say, because they incorrectly accepted a informant's > > story). Therefore, it is truly a mistake. > > Well, not really. It would be severe case of neglegence which is not the > same as a mistake. When you drive, you have to prove that you know what > you are doing by getting a driver's licence. Uh ... I think you missed the point of my mail. I think I explained it later on, but here it is in different words. It may be clearer this time. > If you are a SWAT guy and some informer would come along and say "This > and that person is a terrorist, I know for sure" and you go into that > house and shoot everything that moves, well, doesn't sound much like an > accident to me... I think it would be unfortunate if you think that SWAT team members are trained to storm in and shoot anything that moves. They are trained to provide protection to themselves while attempting to apprehend the target. That, to you, may be a subtle difference, but it make a big difference to me: 1. In your interpretation, they literally rampage through the target site without much regard for the destruction they may cause. 2. In my interpretation, they are trying their best to balance the need to quickly apprehend the target, with the serious potential of being harmed in the process. In circumstances where there is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the target is criminal, then I would support their actions fully. But it is clear that mistakes have been made in the past. The tragic consequences of those mistakes are unforgivable. Therefore, the mistakes MUST be prevented. That said, I think, in most cases (and I believe most LE believe this too), there does not need to be a violent conflict. I believe they can choose a different scenario. They do not have to choose a scenario where they have to be in immediate danger. The recent Montana standoff is an example where government agents did NOT choose to storm in (good or bad decision is another debate). It is not unreasonable to be scared into doing irrational things if someone storms into your house at 4am. However, if you get a phone call saying your house is surrounded, you might have more time to think straight and realize that there is some horrible mistake. And, as far as I know, it is perfectly legal to be a little paranoid. Ern

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:21 PM 7/19/96, Arun Mehta wrote: >I must admit all this talk about what kinds of bullet best >penetrates Kevlar makes me >shake my head and wonder what's happening to the world -- >particularly since you are >far more likely to use this weaponry in a rage against a loved one than >against >someone breaking down your door. The "good" guys arming By "you," I have to presume you mean "me." No, I am not at likely to use this weapon in a rage against a loved one. Trust me. In any case, by far the most common weapon used for family killings is the ordinary knife. Easily available, in multiple forms, it kills efficiently (if not always quickly). >themselves so that the "bad" >don't invade reminds me of the stupid arms race between the US >and the Soviets: I >wonder how many burglars in Western Europe carry guns -- in the US, you'd >be real stupid if you didn't carry the latest weaponry. It may sound "stupid" to you...I suggest you read up on evolutionary game theory. Sometimes one has no choice but to respond to an arms buildup. Unilateral disarmament rarely works. By the way, many burglars consciously and carefully choose to be unarmed, as confrontation is _not_ what they want, and they know that possession of a firearm during a robbery significantly worsens their situation if they are apprehended. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: MSNBC and cookies
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"junger(a)pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu" "Peter D. Junger" 19-JUL-1996 13:57:57.15 >It's a nuisance, but I suppose there is no reason that a commercial >service can't do such a thing. But what happens when one tries to >access it with Lynx? At least with VAX/VMS Lynx (I assume the other version would be doing the same thing), you get stopped at "Welcome to MSNBC [IMAGE]". Both links lead to the same page, namely the one you're already on. -Allen

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:42 AM 7/19/96, snow wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Doug Hughes wrote: > >> If people break into my house with the element of surprise wearing >> all black in the middle of the night, they have the element of surprise >> FIRMLY on their side.. I'd have to believe that reaching for a gun >> was the most stupid thing I could do in the entire world in this sort >> of circumstance. >> "You'd be right, but you'd be dead" - Dr. SNMP >> If you don't reach for a gun, at least you have the 'chance' for >> restitution on your side. If you're dead, you have no options. > > If you are trained a certain way, you _are_ going to reach for >a weapon, and hell, at least then my kid will have enough money to go to >whatever college she wants. Snow is absolutely right! Surprised in the night, with no clear identification of the entrants (and yelled "Police!!" claims are used by home invaders, so I would not trust this anyway), a trained person will instinctively reach for his weapon. I again ask what was so wrong with the "You are surrounded. Come out with your hands up." routine of years past. Instead of anonymous ninjas in paramilitary black raiding a house and shooting anything that moves, use some "due process." And "due process" is what it's about. Presentation of a warrant, or at least pretty careful announcement of identity. Blasting down doors without presentation of an arrest or search warrant is just not the American way. Are there circumstances that can ever justify no-warning attacks? I suppose so, such as when clear evidence of, say, a bomb-making or terrorist cell is invovled. Neither condition was met at at either Ruby Ridge or Waco, nor in the vast number of midnight drug raids. If a black-clad ninja enters my house without warning, I'll have to react the only way I know how, by reaching for my gun. I don't have the luxury of freezing, exposing my neck (wolf-style), and hoping that the ninjas are "just" the police. And very interestingly, many cops are saying the same thing. They realize that the dangers of being killed in a firefight in the confusion of a pre-dawn raid are not worth the meager gains. And SWAT-raiding the wrong house has resulted in many a million-dollar judgements agasint police departments. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

7 10