- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Dr. Denning
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimwit Vermin is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. _<_ (_|_( Dimwit Vermin \-._|_,-, `-----'

1 0

My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks, My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m. PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a "flame"). Has anyone else seen it? I've looked, but there's always a chance I somehow spaced out and missed it. (I doubt it though.) If I have missed it, despite carefully scanning for it for the past 8-12 hours, my apologies. If it has not appeared on either the Censored list or the Flames list, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark. By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the Flames messages are dated much later than my message. (Bill Stewart got a message through dated Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:06 -0800, Mark Henderson got one through at Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:56:19 PST, and so on. One would thus have thought that my message, dated Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800, would by now either have been approved and hence on the Censored list, or rejected as unfit for Cypherpunks to sully their neurons with, and hence passed on to the Flames list. By the way, some of the "Flames" messages are also dated late afternoon or evening.) So, is my message just sitting around someplace, awaiting some final decision? What's the basis of this decision? (Perhaps Sandy has "kicked it upstairs" to John for him to decide on? Just a hypothesis....) I will repeat my message below. As you will be able to see, my message contains no "flames" of its own, and the messages it quotes do not seem flamish to me, either. (It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA stooges.) I think a delay of greater than 11 hours in being distributed on one of the two lists (even if my message is sent out in the next hour or so) is unacceptable. If a moderator cannot get to traffic in the order in which it was received and disposition it promptly, he or she has no business being a moderator of a high-volume list. (Eric Blossom's and Ray Arachelian's "best of" compilations are a different matter, for reasons discussed many times here.) So, why hasn't this message appeared on one of the two lists? --Tim May >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > >I decided to subscribe only to the "cypherpunks flames" list, just to see >what was being filtered into it. > >The message below is one example of what is going there. I received it, >and the header includes the line: "Sender: >owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com", so I am surmising that it was indeed >filtered into the flames list. > >Now, admittedly, the _content_ of this kind of post is "off-topic," but I >sure don't see any evidence of _flames_. > >Is Sandy now filtering based on his notions of list relevance, and not >just on the basis of insults, jabs, flames, and "lack of comity"? While >lack of relevance may be a criterion for someone to filter by, it doesn't >square with anything I recall Sandy citing, and it introduces a new and >dimension to the debate. > >--Tim May > >(The entire post is included, to ensure that no one claims I am editing >out any flames, insults, etc.) > > >At 11:06 PM -0800 2/5/97, Dale Thorn wrote: >>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >>> Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: >> >>> > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as >>> > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in >>> > > > fact drunk, watch out! >> >>> > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm >>> > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. >> >>> > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) >> >>> > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial >>> > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit >>> > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. >> >>> I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about >>> one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. >> >>Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at >>the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the >>Coors. > > > > > Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 3

remailer-operators DEA agents?
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > c.musselman(a)internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > C'punks -- > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > remailer? > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. Examples, please?

2 1

remailer-operators DEA agents?
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > c.musselman(a)internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > C'punks -- > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > remailer? > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. Examples, please?

3 2

My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks, My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m. PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a "flame"). Has anyone else seen it? I've looked, but there's always a chance I somehow spaced out and missed it. (I doubt it though.) If I have missed it, despite carefully scanning for it for the past 8-12 hours, my apologies. If it has not appeared on either the Censored list or the Flames list, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark. By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the Flames messages are dated much later than my message. (Bill Stewart got a message through dated Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:06 -0800, Mark Henderson got one through at Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:56:19 PST, and so on. One would thus have thought that my message, dated Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800, would by now either have been approved and hence on the Censored list, or rejected as unfit for Cypherpunks to sully their neurons with, and hence passed on to the Flames list. By the way, some of the "Flames" messages are also dated late afternoon or evening.) So, is my message just sitting around someplace, awaiting some final decision? What's the basis of this decision? (Perhaps Sandy has "kicked it upstairs" to John for him to decide on? Just a hypothesis....) I will repeat my message below. As you will be able to see, my message contains no "flames" of its own, and the messages it quotes do not seem flamish to me, either. (It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA stooges.) I think a delay of greater than 11 hours in being distributed on one of the two lists (even if my message is sent out in the next hour or so) is unacceptable. If a moderator cannot get to traffic in the order in which it was received and disposition it promptly, he or she has no business being a moderator of a high-volume list. (Eric Blossom's and Ray Arachelian's "best of" compilations are a different matter, for reasons discussed many times here.) So, why hasn't this message appeared on one of the two lists? --Tim May >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > >I decided to subscribe only to the "cypherpunks flames" list, just to see >what was being filtered into it. > >The message below is one example of what is going there. I received it, >and the header includes the line: "Sender: >owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com", so I am surmising that it was indeed >filtered into the flames list. > >Now, admittedly, the _content_ of this kind of post is "off-topic," but I >sure don't see any evidence of _flames_. > >Is Sandy now filtering based on his notions of list relevance, and not >just on the basis of insults, jabs, flames, and "lack of comity"? While >lack of relevance may be a criterion for someone to filter by, it doesn't >square with anything I recall Sandy citing, and it introduces a new and >dimension to the debate. > >--Tim May > >(The entire post is included, to ensure that no one claims I am editing >out any flames, insults, etc.) > > >At 11:06 PM -0800 2/5/97, Dale Thorn wrote: >>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >>> Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: >> >>> > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as >>> > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in >>> > > > fact drunk, watch out! >> >>> > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm >>> > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. >> >>> > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) >> >>> > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial >>> > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit >>> > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. >> >>> I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about >>> one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. >> >>Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at >>the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the >>Coors. > > > > > Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

5 7

Crack a Mac and win a fortune.
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A Swedish company, http://www.infinit.se/hacke/crack.html is offering a 10,000 Swedish Kronor reward to the first person to successfully attack (change information on) their web server. See their press release at http://www.infinit.se/hacke/release.html for details and the URL of the system to hack. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

1 0

Re: anonymous remailers
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com," thus I surmise it is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) While I don't believe this assertion about collusion by the remailer operators is true, generally, this claim is clearly: 1. Not a flame, but an assertion of opinion. 2. Possibly not true, but it is not the job of the Moderator to decide on truth. 3. Dealing with an important issue, to wit, the willingness (putatively) of some remailer operators to talk amongst themselves to deal with "problems." (If this is not a meaningful and important topic for the Cypherpunks list to discuss, then what is?) Here's the message: At 10:22 PM -0500 2/6/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >c.musselman(a)internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > >> C'punks -- >> When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >> FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >> anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >> remailer? > >Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" >remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their >remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific >person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

IEEE Communications
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A friend called this evening to let me know the February issue is dedicated to electronic cash and its implications. I'm no longer an IEEE member. If any of the various list members care to excerpt and comment on some of the more interesting portions, I'm sure it would be appreciated. --Steve

1 0

[PICS] forgery detection
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. /\ \ / /\ //\\ .. //\\ Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM //\(( ))/\\ / < `' > \

1 0

Re: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997")
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>--- begin forwarded text >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST >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: "Jonathan I. Ezor" <jezor(a)NEWMEDIALAW.COM> >Subject: Congressional Bill worse for 'Net than CDA? (crosspost) > >Sorry for the crossposting, but I felt this one might be important enough >to do it. The following is a shortened version of an article I've written >for my firm's client newsletter about H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet >Privacy Protection Act of 1997", introduced by Rep. Bruce Vento (D. MN) on >January 7, 1997. [snip] > >Jonathan I. Ezor >New Media Attorney, Davis & Gilbert, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 >Tel: 212-468-4989 Fax: 212-468-4888 E-mail: jezor(a)newmedialaw.com >-----------------------------Cut here------------------------------- > >Congress Tackles Internet Privacy > Recently, there has been significant press coverage over real and >rumored revelations of personal information such as Social Security numbers by >online services, including the alleged availability (later shown to be untrue) >of mothers' maiden names and Social Security numbers on LEXIS' P-Trak database, >and various governmental bodies have held hearings on issues of online privacy. >On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce F. Vento (D. MN) introduced the >"Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997," (H.R. 98) This bill >provides that "an interactive computer service shall not disclose to a third >party any personally identifiable information provided by a subscriber to such >service without the subscriber's prior informed written consent." Gee, this sounds great! Sounds like it would become illegal for ISPs to "cooperate" (aka: getting strongarmed) by the local thugs (cops) to reveal information about subscribers. Except, as is so often the case, they seem to always figure out ways to explain that cooperation with cops was somehow not covered in the law above. One of the non-obvious dangers of having laws such as this apply to ISPs is that they increase the likelihood that legal force could be applied to them in order to get them to sell-out their customers. And, obviously, the average citizen isn't going to have a lot of luck getting these laws ENFORCED unless he has friends in the prosecutor's office. One of the numerous advantages of an AP-type system is that a person will be able to make a violation of his privacy a crime regardless of whether the powers-that-be agree. Also, he can enforce that "law" on anyone, including government agents, without the cooperation of the prosecutor. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0