- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: code vs cypher
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from hochiminh(a)alpha.c2.org 04/26/96 8:31pm -0700 = Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> writes: = = pm> tm> Timothy C. May writes: = pm> tm> Well, I was not invited to join the elite and secret = pm> tm> coderpunks list, = well, apparently that was not a problem. = pm> It is neither elite nor secret. It is fairly high signal to = pm> noise. = pm> I think only about one in every fifty or so cypherpunks = pm> messages has any content at all worth mentioning. = = Agreed! I wasn't "invited". I simply requested access and = was quickly welcomed to the list. = yes, and that was the intent. I do not think the intent of those of us who formed Coderpunks "conspired to form an elitest group." The basic problem was simple --even code topics were politicized in cypherpunks which resulted in scores and days of "re: " messages until someone finally prefaced it with [NOISE], or changed the subject. = pm> tm> but I still have some thoughts on coding and, = pm> tm> especially, on the opportunities offered by Java. = pm> tm> Sorry if this interferes with discussions of Rabbi = pm> tm> Heir and Morris Dees. = = pm> You have no right to grumble about the situation here. = pm> It is exactly what you wanted. Here you were, a person = pm> of some personal gravitas and moral authority, and you = pm> put your stamp on the "post whatever you like; don't let = pm> the grumbling censors stop you". Well, as you sow, so = pm> shall you reap. Its your fault, more than anyone else's. = = TC May was not the first person to substantialy digress from = chartered topics but he certainly "ran with the ball" when he = got his chance to expose his ignorance and intolerance of = other races and religions (the cypher-relevance or "charter = topicality of which always escaped me). I was discouraged = by the encouragement given to the murder advocating moron, = Jim Bell to post his insance littany. = as to jim bell, does this imply you believe in censorship? I think you are mistaken with your implication that tcmay is a racist. Bigotry, etc. is usually created in the mind of a reader who jumps to conclusions. I am somewhat older than tim, and I find the politically correct revisionism even more humourous (and very intellectually cheap): vertically challenged, horizontally challenged, mobility challenged, mentally challenged, or whatever the current fads are. and, to top it off, I am disgusted with the high and mighty moralism of the revisionists. I fully agree with EEO, but I thoroughly disagree with quotas and preferences. I have more than an even tendency to call a spade a spade, and I may live where guns tend to outnumber our many children, but the only way a stranger can be bounced from my table is to interfer with grace --and there are some, as they are attending for the extra plate which is always set, who would protest that my prayer offends them. does anybody still have manners? tim finds humour in many things --and, he has the courage to challenge the politically correct revisonism which is being shoved down our throats by a bigger and bigger, but certainly not better, creeping vine of vipers we call our government, which is nothing more than a ship of fools. = pm> If Cypherpunks has become a cesspit, well, its YOUR cesspit, = pm> Tim. Its the list you always strove to create, but it appears = pm> that you now don't like the smell of your own wallow. Well, = pm> sorry. Deal with it. = = Well put, Perry! well, the premise may be correct on what cypherpunks drifts into with the endless political back and forth --the open forum; however, the creation of the cesspit is not one party's fault --we _all_ have contributed to the problem --which is compounded by direct, on-line connections. so, how about a little moderation in all things? -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

2 1

Windows remailer source code
by Bob Bridgewater 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Please could you tell me if you know of any remailer source code that will run under Windows NT3.51 to enable me to set-up a remailer myself. Somebody told me that one has been announced recently and you may know where to find this. Any suggestions would be welcome. Bob Bridgewater bob(a)bridgew.demon.co.uk

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- From: sethf(a)MIT.EDU Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:37:48 -0400 Message-Id: <9604270337.AA22787(a)frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> To: angels(a)wavenet.com Subject: Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and cyberseraphim Cc: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu, mnemonic(a)well.com, cp(a)panix.com I have been researching the issue of ratings for some time, and thinking of getting a SafeSurf rating for a few pages as an experiment, so this "patrolling" is pretty interesting: "Gabriel" writes: > The answer is yes. So how can Safesurf be sure that sites registered with > them are indeed genuinely kidsafe? Simple - someone has to go and check > out all the sites who register with Safesurf. Now, would you be kind enough to tell me what happens next? Suppose you check out a site and find it is in your opinion not "kidsafe". What do you do in that case? This is not clear from your message. If the essence of the the SafeSurf system is "voluntary" ratings, are you not substituting your own standard? After all, in reference to Declan McCullagh's point about the fight-censorship archives, you say: "Why ask? Clearly a site with a message like this would not be suitable for children to read. That would be an adult site rating." Clearly then, you have some standard you are applying, which seems in this case be roughly "any archive which contains any message with any sexual content, no matter what the context or proportion, does not qualify as "kidsafe" in the CyberAngels view." So, in reality do we not have two standards here, the site's "voluntary" one, and the one the CyberAngels apply to the site? Only if the two coincide will all be well. Thus, is it not reasonable to ask that the CyberAngels at least make clear their criteria? I collect items such as this (ratings systems), I would be very interested in what the CyberAngels have come up with. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu P.S. I don't know if you're a recent recruit or not, but Curtis Sliwa has a checkered history at best. Given the fabrications in the Angel's past, what can we expect in their future? References: AUTHOR: Goodstein, Laurie TITLE: Guardian Angels' Chief Clouds His Reputation SOURCE: Washington Post SEC,PG:COL: A, 3:1 DATE: Nov 29, 1992 ABSTRACT: Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, has admitted that some of his 1980s exploits were fabricated to get publicity. AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David TITLE: Police Union to Sue Sliwa over Hoaxes SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: B, 6:6 DATE: Nov 26, 1992 ABSTRACT: Ron Reale, the president of the New York City transit police union, said Nov 25, 1992 that his group would file a lawsuit against Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, on the grounds that he had injured the union's reputation by faking crime-fighting exploits in order to garner publicity for the Guardian Angels. AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David TITLE: Sliwa Admits Faking Crimes for Publicity SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: B, 1:4 DATE: Nov 25, 1992 ABSTRACT: The Guardian Angels' founder and leader, Curtis Sliwa, admitted in a New York Post article on Nov 24, 1992 that he faked six of the group's early crime-fighting exploits to gain publicity. Some former and present associates contend that even more of the group's activities were publicity stunts. TITLE: Curtis Sliwa's Confession SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: A, 32:1 DATE: Nov 27, 1992 ABSTRACT: An editorial wonders why so many New Yorkers got taken in by Curtis Sliwa, the Guardian Angels' leader who recently confessed that he and his Angels fabricated several exploits in order to gain public support.

1 0

Keyserver at jpunix.com on WWW
by John A. Perry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Everyone, I just got through implementing and testing Brian LaMacchia's code for WWW access to the PGP keyserver at jpunix.com. This means that the Web page for jpunix.com can now perform interactive, realtime searches and adds against the keyserver database. If you would like to try it, the URL is: http://www.jpunix.com/pks-toplev.html John Perry - KG5RG - perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com - PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry(a)jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by mkpgp2.0, a Pine/PGP interface. iQCVAwUBMYN2llOTpEThrthvAQEyqwP5AT14+2NbvdXdEnr8nxaSUVcLUmA2M0+z PDdOXidleU4P5BesHe0cIO0FdrpLC7EHi7mhg3XgwEeooCv2wGsOf59oGGikaqSl 4WLEvoQQOftVQNeE5vv7mbiYo4M5CZBm/QSu1QK3SD37ohT/pRy+RFu0ldRuxrAl aPSro/koBN8= =pFGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Book: The President's Eyes Only
by hoz＠univel.telescan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just finished reading "For the President's Eyes Only", a book by Christopher Andrew. It describes the uses that US presidents have made of intelligence and intelligence organizations, from George Washington to George Bush. What caught my eye first was a quotation by David Kahn that says: "This is the most important book ever written about American intelligence." The cypherpunks relevance (Besides the David Kahn quote) is the frequent mention of NSA decrypts and SIGINT. The frequency that nations and individuals have used (and apparently continue to use) breakable encryption is incredible. The intelligence that has been derived by breaking them is worth a great deal, in dollars and maybe lives. This book has made me understand a bit, why a government might try to limit strong cryptography. I suppose I tended to look upon ITAR restrictions on cryptography as a sign of a power-hungry, self-agrandizing, government that has lost track of the fact that its legitimacy depends on protecting the blessings of liberty for its citizens. That's partly true, but there's more to it than that. After reading "For the President's Eyes Only", I can understand that many in government believe that they are protecting the public by outlawing cryptography. After careful reconsideration, I still believe in strong free crypto, but it made me think very hard. I think that some on this list and in sci.crypt should be ashamed of their ad hominem attacks in an area where reasonable people disagree. The crypto-game is being played "for keeps". Someday, all crypto may be too strong to break, but for right now, many "bad guys" (and whatever your philosophy, I bet you can find some) use weak crypto, and this allows the US Govt. to know more about what goes on in the world. As long as Uncle Sam keeps his finger on a nuclear trigger, I can see a strong case that knowing what he's doing and not getting too surprised are (mostly) good things. There will be a price to pay when everyone uses strong crypto. There will be great benefits derived, as well. It will be very expensive, but worth it. If we want to make it happen sooner, we should understand (and respect) our opponents in this debate. Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)

2 1

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:21 AM 4/28/96 -0400, mkj(a)october.segno.com wrote: >Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> Income tax is the Godzilla of taxes. It is THE TAX when it comes >> to the US. (Perhaps VAT has a similar status elsewhere, but both, >> as pointed out, are subject to crypto-anarchistic subversion.) >> >> > ...taxes existed, and governments sustained themselves perfectly >> > well, long before these systems arose. >> >> But at nowhere near the voracious levels of modern states. > >This is a point I hadn't considered. If the govt doesn't know where >most of the money is, they can't "harvest" it nearly as efficiently. >Although they will almost certainly try to extract as much as possible >from the poor, you can't get blood from a stone. Hence the size of >current governments will undoubtedly have to shrink. >Most other arguments put forth so far in this thread, about how people >"won't stand for" certain government behaviors and so forth, I don't >find convincing. Modern military technologies, especially in the >U.S., make the prospects of a sucessful popular uprising dubious. Then you obviously haven't read the essay (AP) I sent you yesterday. "Military technologies" only work effectively against a military target. Kill civilians and you just make other civilians angry. At that point they'll be look for a weapon that "military technologies" cannot effectively oppose. That weapon is already known to be possible. Quite the contrary, I think that a "successful popular uprising" will require only a very small investment in time and money, in which some of they key players in government are targeted and the prospect exists for easily and cheaply getting the rest. At that point they will resign in droves. > >When you cut off someone's air supply, even the nicest, gentlest >person will go into an unrestrained, murderous frenzy. I expect >something similar will happen to even the most "civilized" governments >within the next few years, as popular crypto begins to cut off their >money supply. As I see it, only those relatively few citizens who can >afford to flee will dare to resist. Please read the essay. I think it may enlighten you. Even with "conventional" analysis, there is no reason to believe that governement will be able to avoid shrinking. Aside from making it easier to avoid taxation, the vast increase in information communicated by the Internet is taking a huge amount of power away from the traditional media, and the media is (despite the illusion they want you to believe!) the main backer of the government in most cases. In addition, this information flow is making it ever more difficult to pass abusive laws; if the government does something stupid in the morning, by noon they are being flooded with faxes and emails. And the whole concept of having a "governement" tends to be based on the assumption that people are incapable of making decisions for themselves. That's an increasingly unrealistic position. Government feeds on its own size; once government is dramatically reduced below its current size, it will become even less able to resist further contraction. Probably few government employees realize this. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 3

Re: RSA Algorithm
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Drunkard Vagina has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Drunkard Vagina

1 0

Re: Defeating fingerprints
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Burglars and safecrackers sand the ridges off. > > This sounds like it'd work, but quite tedious. > Two words - "power tools" !!! ;-) I've sanded my finger tips down rather well with a belt sander and a fine grit belt on numerous occasions. While I've speculated that I probably wouldn't leave much of a finger print, I've never actually tried to take prints after such an operation. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: concerning Ben Franklin
by David Farber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My favorate Ben Franklin quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784

2 1

Increase your website traffic dramitcally!
by tlmjc＠msn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Increase Your Website Traffic Within 72 Hours! We'll put YOUR website at the top of the search engines! If your site isn't getting the traffic it should, chances are it's because it's not ranked well on the major Internet search engines. According to recent studies on Internet commerce, over 90% of consumers find the websites they visit by using "The Big Eight" search engines. If your website isn't located in the top 20 pages of those engines, chances are your site will never be seen. What's the point of having an "invisible" website? The SINGLE most important thing you can do increase your website traffic is to increase your search engine rank. That's what we'll do for you. HUGE RESULTS... LITTLE EFFORT... You can spend hours marketing your site using every technique around, but they will all pale in comparison to getting your site properly ranked. By getting to the top of the search engines, you can have HUGE amounts of visitors at your site in as little as 72 HOURS! HOW THE SEARCH ENGINES RANK YOUR SITE... When you submit your website to a search engine to be indexed in its database, it sends a "robot" out to scan your page. Then, using complex algorithms to rank your page for keyword relevance, the "robot" determines whether you'll be ranked # 1 or 1,000,000 when potential visitors conduct a search looking for sites like yours. Because the search engines are constantly changing their algorithms to help provide users the best possible search results, there's only one true solution to high search engine placement. Us. WIN THE SEARCH ENGINE WARS! We understand these algorithms and will use them very ethically and legitimately to get your website on top. Now you can experience the on-line success you originally built your website for. If you're not happy with your website's performance, let The Search Engine Success Group put YOU on top. IT WILL BE THE BEST THING YOU EVER DO TO IMPROVE YOUR ON-LINE SUCCESS. HERE'S WHAT WE DO... In order to counter the ever changing search engine algorithms, we create an entire series of "entry pages" that is optimized for the search engines - one for EVERY keyword you give us! Each entry page is optimized to do well for a different set of algorithm variables. So instead of having ONE page struggling to rank well, we simply create separate entry pages for each keyword! It's through this unique approach that we're able to help YOU conquer the search engines. Now understand, we don't use "tricks" to fool the engines. That's unethical and something we won't do. After all - it's your reputation we have to protect. What we will do is simply present very relevant keywords for your site to the search engines in the way that they like to see it. Consequently, your pages rank well because they DO contain information HIGHLY relevant to the search query. We NEVER build pages for irrelevant yet "popular" keywords. The "entry pages" act as a welcome screen for your website. They will say a few introductory things about your site and then ask the visitor to "Click Here To Enter," taking them directly to your current homepage. In creating these entry pages we DO NOT make any changes to the existing structure, content, or functionality of your current site. All pages we construct will link directly into your existing site. As a result, you can rest assured that your current website will remain exactly the same. HOW WELL DOES THE SERVICE WORK? We'll send you a detailed report of your current search engine ranking on The Big Eight engines before we begin. Then, once your new entry pages have been indexed, we'll send you a second report showing how they've done. You'll be able to confirm the results yourself. Here's a sampling of some results we've gotten for previous clients. These examples are for COMPETITIVE keywords - not obscure words that nobody's looking for... <> 6 top 10 rankings on Infoseek for DIFFERENT relevant keywords <> 18 top 10 rankings across the major search engines <> 3 top 10 rankings on Alta Vista for ONE keyword <> 16 total #1 rankings (and an astounding 40 top 30 rankings across the different engines!!) <> 1-2 hits per week exploded to 500 per day <> 45,000 hits per month grew to 108,000... (and it's still growing!) CLIENT COMMENTS: "INCREDIBLE!! Our site is now receiving more hits in a day than we used to get in an entire month. [My boss] is still eating his words!" -Bob W. "I knew the search engines were an incredible marketing tool, but my company simply didn't have the time to devote to search engine placement. It has proven to be the best money we've ever spent on marketing. We'll be sending you some referrals for sure! Thanks." -Shelley H. "I worked for weeks to get good search engine placement, but I could never crack the top 80...my site was deserted. Within a month [after using your service], I'd had more hits than I'd had in the last year. I wouldn't believe it if it hadn't happened to me. Please don't mention a word to the competition." -Chris L. WHAT'S THE COST? Our services are just $385. This includes: <> Construction of optimized entry pages for up to 20 keywords - This gives you good "coverage" <> Submission to the major search engines <> A complete report of your search engine rankings before we begin <> A complete report of your search engine rankings AFTER we've finished ****BE SURE TO ASK US HOW TO GET LISTED ON YAHOO!**** WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO GET STARTED? <> Call Us - we'll answer any questions. <> Give us your keywords / keyword phrases (up to 20) <> Pay us $385 <> Sit back and enjoy the show! Your confidentiality is assured; we NEVER release any information about our clients. --Search Engine Success Group-- 410-783-8269 *** Remember - our job is to increase your website's rank. That's what we do. We can't guarantee, however, that this will increase the number of visitors you get. Some highly-ranked websites still don't get much traffic. Much depends on your particular industry and choice of keywords. ----------------------- If you're not interested in any potential future offers, just click reply. Thank you.

1 0