- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

{Rich Graves Only} Enclosed
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power Subject: Re: Nomination: The Right Reverend Colin James III for Kook of the Month References: <gRqNTD2w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> <50i362$71q(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> In <50i362$71q(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> llurch(a)stanford.edu (Rich Graves) writes: ! shlomo(a)bwalk.dm.com () writes: ! >The Right Reverend Colin James III got Andrew Mathis <fresh(a)jews4jesus.org> ! >fired from his second job in two months (at the Princeton Review, on Thursday). ! >I hereby nominate the dear bishop for both the Kook of the Month for September ! >1996 and for the Golden Killfile Award. Vote early and often! ! ! Vulis, you've already earned your Kook of the Month laurels. It's nap ! time. Since you know that is Dr. D, why did you blame the harassment of Ingrid on Rev. Ron?!????? It looks like you did it to pin it on the doctor, or more likely, you saw the opportunity to harass Rev. Ron, even after you feigned praise of him! It's the same damned header, IDJIT. Of course, I never saw the headers for the unidentified harasser to the Zgrams list, was that the same header, too? It looks like you did it or you know who did it and you want to compound harassment on to nswpp! How Gravesian! Is Dr. D your friend your talking about? Dr. D, defect, defect! He's a jerk, jerk! -- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | _|__|__|__|__ /--------------\ | | | 0 0 |--\ | * | | | \-------/ | | | \_____/ |__/ \______________/ Æ×õ áîšõä

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:33 PM 9/3/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 10:41 PM 9/3/96 -0500, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >>The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is >>unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility >>for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to >>sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like >>setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it >>prevents nothing. >> >>Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed >>making remailers illegal? > >The Leahy crypto bill introduced early this year made (paraphrasing) "the >use of encryption to thwart a law-enforcement investigation illegal." I >immediately pointed out that while this wouldn't make _encrypted_ remailers >illegal, per se, effectively it would because the moment an investigation >(even a phony or trumped-up one) is started and is "thwarted" by the >encryption used, the remailer operator became guilty of a crime. Is that true? Or is it that the individual user would be guilty of a crime? The real problem, to me, is that the remailer operator might be required to breach anonymity; cf the decision in Finland that led Julf to squash anon.penet.fi. -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: Reputations
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:40 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >And so on. Many of the debates about anonymity seem to ignore reputations, >filters, kill files. It is almost as if the critics of anonymous speech are >saying "If there is not accountability for restaurant recommendations, >we'll all be buried in garbage food." This ignores the _emergent order_ or >_evolutionary_ nature of actors in the restaurant and restaurant evaluator >market. Could be a lack of understanding of the possibility of authentication, which IMO can be necessary for 'reputation' to be viable. >Free speech is often messy. 98% of everything I read or hear is crap, to do >Sturgeon one better. But I use judgement to decide what to read, who to >listen to, and what to mostly ignore. I use _reputation_ to choose >restaurants, books, movies, speakers to listen to, etc. > >Sometimes I listen to anonymous speech, but mostly I don't. Pseudonyms take >a while to gather a "positive reputation," and some never do. This is the >way speech works. "Accountability" is a red herring. I wouldn't exactly say that...but it's more of a personal responsibility thing. Our model should be default acceptance of responsibility for words and deeds, but I see that as a personal issue, not a matter for 'enforcement.' -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: Message Digest
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:31 AM 9/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >> I'm interested in a 256 bits (or more) message digest algorithm >> (C source is better). Any URLs ? >Try HAVAL. It is a variable one-way hash function that is apparently secure >against collisions. It should be on any of the standard crypto FTP sites. Or there's the simple "MD5(x),SHA(x)", which is 288 bits long and has the advantage that the two parts have different characteristics and have been looked at (separately) by many people, so concatenating them should be fairly strong. Or "MD5(SHA(x)),SHA(MD5(x))" if you're paranoid. # 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

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >The reason this is such a hot button for Cypherpunks is that "responsible >freedom" and "accountability" are often code words for controlling some >very basic freedoms. Placing limits on anonymous speech would involve some >very fundamental restrictions on freedoms of various sorts. Even if >"safeguards" are built-in, the effect would almost certainly be to >illegalize remailers (unless they had "escrow" features!). And a wide array >of other freedoms, too numerous for me to write about here. The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it prevents nothing. Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed making remailers illegal? jonl -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:40 PM 9/2/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >> what *constructive* >> alternative to EFF do you propose? if you have none, please shut up. > >I think any organization that would apply political pressure rather than >bow to it would be an alternative. I think an organization in touch >enough with its own policy to prevent its staff and board from making >embarassing big brother type proposals to curtail the ability of any of us >to post without attributation would be an alternative. I think an >organization without the internal conflict and strife that has clearly >marred EFF in past and made it a laughable attempt at cohesive political >persuasion would be an alternative. I think an organization that had >official policies on the core issues which it proposes to influence would >be an alternative. > >In short, an organization that had even one of the needed elements of >legislative influence. (Cohesive, directed, persistent, and >uncompromising). "Uncompromising" is not an "element of legislative influence," at least not on this planet. -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

3 2

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:33 PM 9/3/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>The Leahy crypto bill introduced early this year made (paraphrasing) "the >>use of encryption to thwart a law-enforcement investigation illegal." I >>immediately pointed out that while this wouldn't make _encrypted_ remailers >>illegal, per se, effectively it would because the moment an investigation >>(even a phony or trumped-up one) is started and is "thwarted" by the >>encryption used, the remailer operator became guilty of a crime. At 07:10 AM 9/4/96 -0500, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: > Is that true? Or is it that the individual user would be guilty of a crime? Since the individual user would already be guilty of a crime, if he is using the remailer to conceal his crimes, the paragraph in question would be fairly useless and irrelevant unless it had the meaning that Jim Bell attributes to it. I believe that judges have a policy of interpreting deliberately ambiguous statutes in whatever way makes the most sense. The only sensible interpretation of Leahy's bill is that it criminalizes strong remailers, that it is intended to punish ANYONE, not just the criminals themselves, who obstructs investigations. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: rc2 export limits..
by Kent Briggs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > However, the usual guidelines for systems like RC2 and RC4 is > 40-bit keys, and RSA keys up to 512 bits for encrypting > session keys and 1024 bits for signatures Can you list a source for the 1024-bit signature restriction? I know about the 40-bit RC2/RC4 and 512-bit public encryption keys because they are specifically addressed in the State Dept's "Procedure for Submitting a Commodity Jurisdiction Request for a Mass Market Software Product that Contains Encryption". However, digital signatures are not mentioned in this procedure. I can't image what justificication could be used to restrict the strength of digital signatures. Kent - ------------------------------------------------------------ Puffer & CryptaPix available from http://execpc.com/~kbriggs - ------------------------------------------------------------ - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMi2o9SoZzwIn1bdtAQEBoAF+PjxvtAuPUnlMr9UGoIYhjgjPQ0Bs0GeE 5077GFz/pASkMfFvsh5uO6I9BBtpGMpI =P92s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:52 AM 9/4/96, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >At 07:44 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >>At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >>> Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you >>> use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which >>> removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and >>> should be addressed, not evaded. >> >>No: The harassment is the problem, not the anonymity that makes it >>possible. > >The harassment is one problem, the lack of accountability another. Which is >not to say that 'lack of accountability' should be 'fixed' by some sort of >blanket restriction...but it should be acknowledged as a problem. It has been. In many hundreds of articles addressing aspects of the issue. The fact that Esther Dyson and others think advocates of the right to be anonymous claim that these issues are not being considered just shows that Esther and others are not aware of these many articles. Nor can every brief post--such as the one James Donald made above--include a fully-nuanced, fully-balanced discussion of all issues. Saying that an advocate for a position has not considered the alternate positions is usually incorrect. --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: 2^1,257,787-1
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:54 PM 9/4/96, John F. Fricker wrote: >Ok so maybe here in Organ we are a little behind the times but I just heard >about this 378,632 digit prime. Grab your HP11C's and crank out >2^1,257,787-1 courtesy of David Slowinski at Cray. The news sites on the Web I looked at had the announcement, but not the number. Thanks. I've already modified my .sig. --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."

1 0