- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

?????
by FreedomFound＠t-1net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, If You Qualify, You Could Net Yourself Well Over $150,000 By The End Of 1997... Guaranteed! Greetings: We are Dale and Gwen Yancy. We would like to ask you to please take two minutes of you time to read the following. If you don't like what you see then please trash this mail and except our apologies for this disturbance. We promise you we will not send you another. We are writing to introduce you to a strong, wealth building home based business that is NOT a Multilevel Marketing venture or some get "rich quick scheme"... a business that is more profitable than any network marketing, direct sales, franchise or investment opportunity in existence today. Who Will Be Allowed To Work With Us? We are looking for a limited group of serious minded entrepreneurs that have been looking for a solid business opportunity. We are not looking for a huge response. We only want to work with people we feel have a "burning desire" to be successful. Can you visualize yourself earning $30,000 + net per month within the next year, if provided with the right opportunity to do so? Are you willing to commit to doing whatever it would take to be successful in this business once you completely understand it? How To Find Out If You Qualify To find out more, call toll free for more details: 1-800-322-6169 Ext. 0650. This is a recorded message that is available 24 hours a day. It is NOT a telemarketer. If you are seriously interested...REPLY NOW! If you don't really feel you've got the right stuff to be successful, then please don't bother to respond. We only want to work with the motivated people who seriously want to make insane amounts of money! Again, if we have reached you in error, please send mail with REMOVE in the subject. You will be immediately removed from any subsequent mailings. Prosperous Regards, Dale and Gwen Yancy P.S. Once again, this is NOT MLM. Serious inquiries only please! 1-800-322-6169 EXT 0650 DAY OR NIGHT

1 0

Memme: Crypto=Bullet Proof Vests
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I came up with this while on a bio break.... ITAR classifies crypto as munitions, but this is the same thing as telling someone who wishes to travel to a warring country that they may not buy a bullet proof vest, but they may buy an vest that will stop pebbles being thrown at them. This is equivalently reasoned that such vests could be used to rob banks and the theives could get away from the police - but how many bank theives have you known that were shot by the cops and not caught by other means? It believes that only the USA has bullet proof vests and it is a matter of national security that no one else have bullet proof vests. These aren't tactical weapons equivalent to 20MegaTon nukes, these are devices that help save lives. Meanwhile other countries have also created bullet proof vests, some that protect against high velocity bullets. We can understand that vest piercing bullets kill policemen and that they are reasonably outlawed, but if someone built a vest that would stop those we wouldn't be able to mail them to those fighting for democracy outside of the USA. In the case of crypto, crypto is a tool that saves your privacy. Why are we not allowed to have the ability to ship the tools needed to help protect privacy of say the students in China (for example) where any suspicion of disidence would be instantly punishable by death. For a country that is intent on making the world safe for democracy, we are sure doing a very bad job. Sure, a bullet proof vest can be used to protect a pornographer or a terrorist, but it will also save the lives of citizens, freedom fighters and children. How many parents who live in bad neighborhoods would object to their kids being able to wear bullet proof vests, could they afford them, while going to school? The recent bills thrown around in congress are attempting to do the equivalent of outlawing bullet proof vests, and only allowing pebble proof vests to be sold, or bullet proof vests that can be pierced by police. Would you want your kid to wear a vest that can be pierced by police fire? Maybe a stray bullet aimed at a drug dealer hitting your kid? Or maybe a criminal getting their hands on the same type of ammo and shooting your kid? We need our kids to wear Strong Bullet Proof vests! Next time they yell "But if it saves the life of one child" give them this. "But if strong crypto can save the life of one child freedomfighter, who are we to limit its use? Support strong crypto and protect the kids of the world!" (Preaching to the choire of course, but who knows maybe the crypto=bullet proof vest arguement will be useful to someone who can talk sense into the crypto clueless cognresscritters.) =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

4 4

RE: [NTSEC] Hotfixes (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wheee, check this out... there's thing called a Download Wizard that "offers suggested updates" for software on your hard drive... Now buys and girls, can we guess what else it will do? i.e. give to Microsoft a list of? Hrrmmm? =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ========================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 01:00:48 -0400 From: "Donald M. Barnard Jr." <barnardm(a)tiac.net> To: "ntsecurity(a)iss.net" <ntsecurity(a)iss.net> Subject: RE: [NTSEC] Hotfixes Meanwhile MS gets a nice database of installed software?<G> Don -----Original Message----- From: Paul Leach [SMTP:paulle@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 1997 12:56 PM To: 'Russ' Cc: ntsecurity(a)iss.net Subject: RE: [NTSEC] Hotfixes As it says on the page you refer to: The Download Wizard will now check your computer for exisiting Microsoft software files and make suggestions for file updates that may be appropriate for your computer's configuration. The Download Wizard will NOT automatically change, add, or delete any files on your computer. You will be given the choice to download and install each of these files yourself. Important: Before downloading any files, be sure to check with your system administrator. I.e., we make it easy to find out if there are updates that _may_ apply to you (and screen out lots that for sure _don't_) -- you still have to decide if you want them. The backend for this is pretty heavyweight and labor intensive -- it's not ready to be a product. ZAW is the product that is supposed to support automation of admin of workstation and servers in a corporate environment. > ---------- > From: Russ[SMTP:Russ.Cooper@rc.on.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 1997 4:15 AM > To: Paul Leach > Cc: ntsecurity(a)iss.net > Subject: RE: [NTSEC] Hotfixes > > Paul, > > Can you then comment on the Download Wizard available from > http://www.microsoft.com/kb/softlib/default.asp which supposedly > detects > which files/patches etc... you need and automates the installation of > these? I haven't tried it with a machine that was "Ok" in its eyes, so > I > haven't seen what it actually does, but the concept is quite cool for > Intranet server management. Would seem to be parts of SMS for > Intranets, > which despite having risks that would have to be managed, could > seriously improve the remote configuration management of machines. > > Can you get someone to comment for us as to precisely what it does and > how it does it? Is the underlying dB available with some instructions > on > how we might modify it for our own use? > > I'm asking on behalf of the list because I think this would seem to be > the answer to this thread's questions. > > Cheers, > Russ > R.C. Consulting, Inc. - NT/Internet Security > owner of the NTBugTraq mailing list: http://www.ntbugtraq.com >

1 0

Tim to Speak
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim McVeigh, who has finally realized who his defense lawyer, Stephen Jones, was really working for, plans to speak for the first time at his sentencing tomorrow. I certainly hope CNN carries it live. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch(a)zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

1 0

WEBMASTERS - MPEG CLIPS!
by linkhost＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HOT of the press for WEBMASTERS - MPEG CLIPS! Images are always in high demand for adult sites but so are short MPEG clips of hardcore action. We now offer MPEG clips under 2 meg each of XXX action your traffic has been demanding. 25 clips per CD...variety of scenes. Enjoy some great samples, new MPEG packs will be added monthly. Just go to http://www.zmaster.com and get the URL from the MPEG CLIP Pack #1 description, and go see for yourself. We also have SOFTCORE centerfolds and ASIAN softcore as well as hardcore images for licensing too- Cheap!

1 0

Responses to "Leotards and the Law," from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:11:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Responses to "Leotards and the Law," from The Netly News My own reading of the opinion is that Judge Conti doesn't address the most interesting aspect of this law, for instance the case of the South Pacific researcher who wants to create a sexplay animation. To the extent he does, he substitutes assertion from the Senate report for analysis (I agree with Prof. Freedman here). He didn't have to go further, really, since the plaintiffs explicitly said they weren't selling such animations. Conti only explores this idea in a footnote, which reads: "These incidental harms include the depiction of images created within the imagination of the artist. If the images depicted are of children, albeit imaginary ones, and not of actual adults of imaginary people who unequivocally appear to be adults, then the evils associated with child pornography cannot be avoided." This discussion of the imagination of artists strikes me as telling. You see, Judge Conti would like to ban thoughtcrime. -Declan --- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:19:08 -0400 (EDT) From: David Greene <dgreene(a)artswire.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: "Leotards and the Law," morphed child porn lawsuit, from Netly I read Judge Conti's decision to be more consequential than Professor Freedman does. Three of its features are particularly disturbing to me: 1. Judge Conti held that the law is content-neutral. As the law is targeted directly and very specifically against the content of the depictions, I don't buy his "secondary effects" reasoning (that is, the law is meant to prevent the unavoidable secondary effects of simulated child pornography -- namely, the seduction of children into pedophilic situations -- not the simulated images themselves). The result of Conti's finding is that the law was subject to less demanding scrutiny than it owuld have been had it been found to be content specific. 2. Judge Conti notes that the statute sweeps within its reach "the depiction of images created within the imagination of the artist" that are "of children, albeit imaginary ones." He acknowledges that the illegaliztion of these depictions is an unavoidable incidence of the fight against child pornography. To me then, not only are Photoshop-synthesized images of half-naked children and an anthropology professor's computer-generated movie of the sex play of South Pacific teens be illegal but so would less realisitic depictions such as cartoons or paintings and various types of computer art. Conti tries to bail on this later when he talks about the affirmative defense written into the statute that exempts works not marketed as child pornography or in such a way that exploits its sexual nature as child pornography. However, this affirmative defense is avialable only to works that were produced using an actual adult person. 3. With respect to images of youthful-looking adults, Conti relies heavily on the affirmative defense as curing any constitutional ills the statute might otherwise have had. However, is it really clear when something is marketed "in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"? Is the affirmative available to anything that does not call itself KidSeXXXX (or the like)? It still seems vague to me. The opinion seems to criminalize serious works that will use real adults or simulated (computer generated, drawn, etc) children to depict pedophilic situations in order to discuss pedophilia and admit that that is what they contain. Lolita? A Human Sexuality text book? National Geographic? The Supreme Court in the Ferber case and those that followed it was especially concerned with the harm caused to children that participated in the production of child pornography (or identifiable children who were made to appear as though they participated). Whether the mere viewing of child pornography was an equally weighty concern was a question on the outside of the constitutional analysis. Judge Conti's opinion is consequential in that assumes that this is the central issue. --- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:17:44 -0500 From: jc <jch159(a)flash.net> To: declan(a)well.com, fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: "Leotards and the Law," morphed child porn lawsuit, from Netly suppose somebody alters a picture of a child in an erotic pose into a mouse, lets say. Or the lower half is of a mouse but the top half a child? is the person still liable? suppose a dog looks vaguely like its human owner (hey, there are even contests to that effect) and the dog is eating the leg of another human. Would the human most closely resembling the dog be in trouble? thank god there are judges out there like conti who will save us. Stupid prick that he is! --- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:25:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea(a)netcom.com> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Law limiting child pornography on Internet upheld (fwd) This decision seems, on a preliminary reading. to validate the views of those of us who say that existing laws are sufficient to prosecute child pornography violations that appear on the Internet. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea(a)netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 05:31:39 -0700 From: NewsHound <NewsHound(a)hound.com> To: newshare(a)rmc1.crocker.com Subject: Law limiting child pornography on Internet upheld NewsHound article from "NEWSPAPERS" hound, score "92." Law limiting child pornography on >>Internet<< upheldBY HOWARD MINTZ Mercury News Staff Writer A San Francisco federal judge has upheld a year-old law aimed at restricting child pornography in cyberspace, rejecting arguments that it violates free-speech rights and chills legitimate art and literature. In a 16-page decision, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti on Tuesday found that the Child Pornography Act of 1996 is constitutional and a valid way to deal with the ``devastating'' effect of computer-generated kiddie porn ``on society and the well-being of children.'' ``Given the nature of the evils that anti-child pornography laws are intended to prevent, the (law) can easily be deemed a content-neutral regulation,'' Conti wrote. The American Civil Liberties Union, the adult entertainment industry and others have challenged the constitutionality of the law, saying it is so broad that it would criminalize everything from Calvin Klein ads to the recent movie rendition of ``Romeo and Juliet.'' [...]

1 0

Re: Sign up on YoungSluts click thru Program
by YoungGirl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sorry to bother you but did you want to sign up on the click thru program if you did as you see below we did not get any info if your browser cant send forms just e-mail the information and we will get you up and running tonite Thank you At 07:46 PM 8/13/97 -0700, you wrote: >Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by > (cypherpunks(a)toad.com) on Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 19:46:18 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >site_name: http:// > >first_name: cypherpunks > >last_name: cypherpunks > >mode: add > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >

3 2

CIA/NSA Index
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a provocative list of forbidden CIA and NSA/CSS records which are not available under the Privacy Act, and which constitute a sort of negative awaiting development: http://jya.com/cia-privacy.htm (82 categories) http://jya.com/nsa-privacy.htm (19 categories) There are similar lists of national privacy proscriptives for most federal agencies available at the source for these. The one for Defense is an elephantine 1.4 MB, with tiny tims for the TLAs.

3 2

Re: Stronghold
by Casey Iverson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:35 PM 10/12/97 -0400,John Young wrote: >Dimitri, Allah bless his carcass, is a learned and deft provocateur. Wrong! Vulii is a KGB loving, decrepid, diseased ridden sack of Russian puss and excrement. His only reason for existence is to spread lies, disinformation, and filth. He shouldn't have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and the toleration of this list.

1 0

Remailer hating Nazis (was Re: The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses))
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The remailer hating Nazi called Patrick Oonk wrote: >At least I don't hide behind a remailer. There's no cowardice to it, dumbass. Our founding fathers and others wrote things anonymously. I guess they're cowards? If so, then burn in hell, Nazi scum-sucking weasel!

3 2