- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: My Most Abject Apologies
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

StanSquncr wrote: > > In a message dated 98-03-21 02:51:23 EST, you write: > > << OTOH I hear , liberally intermingled, >> WHat I mean is that 2/3 of the posts say they are screwing us out of our rights and 2/3 talk about proof and evidence. Yeah that means that some talk about both. > > Like what do you mean by "liberally intermingled"? > > << that the government blows off our > rights (and more importantly, what is Right) ... >> > > Starting with the Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 6 part III and > Amendment 14, in particular). > > << ... and themes like proof and > evidence. >> > > It's the right-wing that's doing that (and, see above). > > > << First, the Powers That Be feel free to invent the "evidence" that they > need. >> > > I'm sure it's happened (like anytime the police want to arrest a black person, > for instance). > Or anyone else they decide to do it to. > > << Second, I would not believe someone's own hard drive to give an accurate > depiction of EMail activity. Deleting anything incriminating is easy > enough, so it not being there shows (much less Proves) nothing. And it > is relatively simple to alter stored EMail, so that does no more good. >> > > Right. So delete your incriminating evidence, and save anything you send to a > list (which they could get a copy of anyway.) > The thing is that *I* can get the list stuff myself if it ever gets anywhere. (Methinks that algebra is having problems these days) > << If them people want to screw me, let them do all of the work for > themselves. >> > > Now THAT I totally agree with you on. :-) > > Stan Besides I find very little of all this that deserves more than a thought or two and those that do are stored in my "Mark VI Between The Ears Onboard Computer". PHM

1 0

Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu" 22-MAY-1996 14:51:29.42 >In the "normal" protocol, the payee has to go online. In the "anon" protocol, >the payer has to go online. Since you don't want to go online when you >walk into a shop, you can pay the shop with the "normal" protocol, and >the shop gives you change with the "anon" protocol. >That way, you never need to go online, and your identity is never compromised. However, the shop's still is, although the bank might not be able to determine as much about how much income is coming in. OTOH, we're talking about a physical shop situation; I'm not sure how critical it is to have shop anonymnity with payor cooperation for this, since the payor can break it anyway. -Allen

2 1

Re: FTC online workshop on privacy
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's unsurprising that some of the same groups backing the CDA are backing this, since they used danger to children as an excuse for it. (A rather transparent one, given the actions vs Compuserve). I am disappointed in EPIC for cooperating with them. From: IN%"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" "Declan B. McCullagh" 22-MAY-1996 17:46:10.71 >Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 22-May-96 Re: FTC online workshop on >.. by Declan McCullagh(a)CMU.EDU >> The legislation being introduced at 10:30 am will restrict selling >> mailing lists with childrens' names and other identifying info on them, >> including email lists. Another attempt to regulate the net, or a good >> thing? >Whoops. I should have said the press conference happened at 10:30 am. >The bill will be introduced in both houses later this week. >Interesting press conference. Enough is Enough! took quite a bit of time >to rant about the dangers of the Internet. Pedophiles, chat rooms, >illegal pornography. >You get the idea. Quite. -Allen

2 1

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 22-MAY-1996 18:40:57.71 >On Tue, 21 May 1996, Andrew Loewenstern wrote: >> IANAL, but I have one, and he said (a couple of years ago) that these >> shrinkwrap contracts are practically worthless without a signature. At >> least this was how things were being handled in some districts. Anyone >> care to comment? >I concur. Those (other) lawyers who I have read on the subject would also concur. >> crypto relevance: Can RSADSI __really__ enforce the silly "thou shalt not >> call certain functions" restrictions in their 'license'? I doubt it, but I >> would love for someone to prove me wrong. >This is closer. You're asked to accept the terms of the license or return >the product. It's a stronger issue and more likely to be upheld. Would this be extensible to the remailer question by saying "agree to hold us blameless for the contents of this mail or don't mail it back to us for decoding"? Admittedly, this might not get around the problem of overly long mail used for bombing, but with Mixmaster you'd get such a letter for each section as I understand it. -Allen

1 0

Re: PROPOSAL
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 22-MAY-1996 20:48:51.42 >Motion: To create the alt.politics.assassination.politics newsgroup and >the "AP" mailing list so as to clear the meaningless traffic (for which I >am significantly responsible) out of this forum. >Any seconds? So long as the AP list is specifically for debates about the ethics of such, seconded. If it would remove from cypherpunks discussion of implementation or of social consequences, that wouldn't be good, since the implementation of this is definitely cypherpunks material. -Allen

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 PM 5/22/96 -0600, David Rosoff wrote: >>But even "knowingly" needs to be carefully defined. A remailer operator >>today KNOWS that his system COULD be used for illegal activities; he merely >>doesn't know that they are, currently. I think that the definition should >>be so narrow that it is impossible for a third party (or the government >>itself) to incriminate the remailer operator by having his system forward >>arguably illegal or copyright-violating material. >> >> >>Jim Bell >>jimbell(a)pacifier.com > >Can the same sort of standards as per the U.S. CDA be applied? The first >draft of the >CDA would have held ISP's responsible for, e.g., porn transmitted using their >services. Isn't this the same sort of thing - that is, that remailer >operators provide a service, and they cannot be held responsible for people who abuse that >service? I think that this line of thought is reasonable. "Reasonable," yes. But remailers provide a service that governments won't consider politically popular; ISP's provide a nominally popular service. The government will find a way to interpret the actions of a remailer entirely differnetly than that of an ISP. Sigh. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Democracy...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I woe the day that government and church are not seperated and I am forced to side with one religion. It would be another freedom wrongfully taken from me. I would fight back, the same way the country secured it's independence the first time. I take my freedom very seriously. Facists like you that want to distort the constitution to make introduce a non-existant person at the top will hopefully get blasted down in the senate as you have been before. I would consider laws restricting my freedom as an attack and will be forced to defend myself. ---"Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> wrote: > > On 9/15/98 10:27 PM, Jaeger (Jaeger(a)hempseed.com) passed this wisdom: > > > > >hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is > >to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and > >wrong is not a religious belief (necessarily).. your religious beliefs > >do not affect the nature of reality. there are absolute truths by > > [snip] > > >> Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of > >> > >> the individual? While you certainly have the right to practice your > >> religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone > >> else > >> does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL > >> faith decisions is outragous > > The first amendment states only that there shall not be 'an > establishment of religion' it says nada about 'separation of church and > state.' The intention was simple; that there would never be an > 'official' state religion. It didn't say religion had no place. They were > escaping a regime with an established state religion that used the > goverment to stamp out religious deviationism. That was the sole reason > for that clause in the 1st amendment. > > Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr > For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> > > "...if you drink much from a bottle marked "poison." > and it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later" > _Alice in Wonderland_: (Lewis Carroll) > > >

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"bruce(a)aracnet.com" "Bruce Baugh" 22-MAY-1996 17:00:33.67 >Pointing people at legitimate uses of anonymity, as various folks have >suggested, is undoubtedly a good idea. Would anyone care to suggest a few >newsgroups where the vast majority of anonymous posts have really good >reasons for being so? While it isn't usage of true cypherpunk remailers, the sexual abuse survivors newsgroup(s) would appear to be a place to start. Some of the groups discussing human rights cases are also a possibility, as is alt.religion.scientology. -Allen

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I will quote an anonymous AP proponent with the initials EAS >>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing, >>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means" >>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is >>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? for g*d's sakes, promote your >>depraved scheme under any other heading, but do not claim it is >>"ethical" unless you want to further demonstrate how far from >>morality you have twisted your brain. > > In other words, if I'm shooting at you, it's unethical for you to >shoot back? get a clue. I didn't argue against someone shooting at you. I argued against the claim that you should be allowed to shoot anyone in the government because you think the government is corrupt. While I'm not sure whether I approve of Assasination Politics or >not (I'm not sure whether it'd lead to more or less violations of rights than >other possible means of changing the current setup), as I wrote, there is no such thing as a "right" in a society in which people decide who they would like to kill based on their own whims. there are no rights in a socieity in which killing is considered an everyday part of life, period. note I do agree this applies to some forms of government. I do achnowledge the >rightness of self-defense against governmental evildoing. ah, now there's where the silly non-sequitur of AP proponents comes in. "the government is corrupt, therefore we should be able to shoot any government employees we choose". the government is not sticking a gun down your throat this minute, are they? well, why are you seriously contemplating the converse? oh, you say that FIGURATIVELY the government is doing this to you? and you want to respond LITERALLY? I wonder who is the tyrant in this situation? "the government might shoot me if I don't pay my taxes". uhm, can you point out who this actually happened to you? what? you have an example? out of the 250 million people in this country, you actually found one? and you are concerned this will happen to you? well if you keep making a lot of noise, maybe you can achieve what appears to be your wildest fantasy!! AP proponents piss on the english language in their quest for "justice". the ways that AP proponents are twisting language, AP trash is almost worse than much classic government propaganda that has started past wars. "we have rights. we want justice. our rights are being violated. we are acting in self defense." TRASH, TRASH, TRASH To use your >example of Hitler, somehow I think an assasination of him would have been >ethical. I used him as an example of the kind of thinking that "murdering your enemies solves all your problems". yes, that was his point of view, and you inform me that you share it? well, congratualations!! hitler doesn't have too many friends and can use all the sympathy he can get. murdering Hitler would not have solved all the problems of WWII. the problem was militarism that was embodied by many cultures outside of his own, e.g. Japan and Russia. AP proponents believe that: 1. the world is full of people that are part of the problem or part of the solution 2. I can tell precisely the difference 3. I'd like to kill those that are part of the problem. 4. if AP existed, and it appeared there was a way to kill other people without trace, I would go through with it. 5. I have a lot of teachers I hated in my childhood too. I think I will go for them next. possibly not before seeing if they beg for mercy.

1 0

Alleged abuse of anonymnity/pseudonymnity
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone's forgetting that it would be smart - and should be possible - for the men in question also to be anonymous/pseudonymous. As it was, they could have been, and were evidently too dumb. Edited for fair use. -Allen >Kansas veterinarian extorts husbands on 'married but looking' chat line >Copyright 1996 Nando.net >Copyright 1996 The Associated Press >(May 21, 1996 10:41 p.m. EDT) Men flirted shamelessly with "Rita" in >America Online's "Married But Looking" computer chat line. The typed chatter >often got steamy, and she even offered them provocative photos of herself. >But some men found that "she" was a "he" -- with printed copies of their >explicit exchanges and blackmail on his mind. >Veterinarian Ron Hornbaker, 29, of Shawnee Mission, Kan., pleaded guilty to >extortion Tuesday in a case that some say illustrates problems in the >unpoliced Internet. He faces two years in prison and fines up to $250,000. >"It's an old crime, just new tools," said assistant U.S. Attorney John >McKenzie, who prosecuted the case in U.S. District Court in Rockford, Ill. [...] >In August 1995, Hornbaker created an America Online profile of himself as a >married woman named Rita, authorities say. He would log into "Married But >Looking" or similar chat areas and start engaging male victims in typed >conversation. After a while, he would ask them to go to a more confidential >area called a private chat room "to get to know each other better. >"There Rita would engage each man in erotic conversation, asking the victim >to get her "hot" and offering a sexy photograph. >Hornbaker, meanwhile, stored the conversation and printed out transcripts. >Victims awaiting the nude photograph instead got a threatening letter. In it, >Hornbaker -- now posing as Rita's enraged husband -- said he'd found a >transcript of the conversation between the victim and Rita. >Hornbaker set up boxes at private mail services to handle the bribes, >usually between $500 and $2,000. None of the recipients paid him.

1 0