- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

POT_hot
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct, Lead Essay: "Postmodern Terrorism. The terrorism of the future may be far more destructive than terrorism as we have known it." An informative survey and pot-heat by Walter Laqueur. Terrorism's prospects, often overrated by the media, the public, and some politicians, are improving as its destructive potential increases. Terrorism has replaced wars between nations of the 1800s and 1900s. In the future, terrorists will be individuals or like-minded people working in very small groups. An individual may possess the technical competence to steal, buy, or manufacture the weapons he or she needs for a terrorist purpose. The ideologies such individuals and minigroups espouse are likely to be even more aberrant than those of larger groups. And terrorists working alone or in very small groups will be more difficult to detect unless they make a major mistake or are discovered by accident. Society has also become vulnerable to a new kind of terrorism, in which the destructive power of both the individual terrorist and terrorism as a tactic are infinitely greater. The advanced societies of today are more dependent every day on electronic information. That exposes enormous vital areas of national life to mischief or sabotage by any computer hacker, and concerted sabotage could render a country unable to function. Why assassinate a politician or indiscriminately kill people when an attack on electronic switching will produce far more dramatic and lasting results? If the new terrorism directs its energies toward information warfare, its destructive power will be exponentially greater than any it wielded in the past -- greater even than it would be with biological and chemical weapons. The single successful one could claim many more victims, do more material damage, and unleash far greater panic than anything the world has yet experienced. ----- http://jya.com/pothot.txt (30 kb) POT_hot (in 2 parts)

1 0

Kill all "libertarians"
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From nobody(a)REPLAY.COM Mon Sep 2 12:26:36 1996 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:42:57 EDT for dlv Received: from basement.replay.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA18013 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 96 12:26:36 -0400 Received: (from replay@localhost) by basement.replay.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA11752 for dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199609021626.SAA11752(a)basement.replay.com> To: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Xcomm: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting Xcomm: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse(a)REPLAY.COM> Subject: All russians are scum. No exceptions. Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials" From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 01:19:37 EDT Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> writes: > On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, James A. Donald wrote: > > > > I agree with what you are saying but not all polititions are that bad. > > > You make it sound as if their are no politisions are for freedom of the > > > net. > > So who is the exception? > > Harry Browne Libertarian Party Candidate. Harry Browne is a fucking statist. All politicians are scum. No exceptions. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: DON'T Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:06 AM 9/2/96 +0800, James Seng wrote: >that). I have a long argument with this person, telling him that despite >what they have done, i could still access to those stuff which they ban. >his reasoning is "how many people can do it? 10%? 5%? That's fine with us. >If the people really wans it, they can get it". The flaw with this view is that it is no harder to deploy software that defeats Singapore's proxy than it is to establish a tcp/ip connection in the first place. For civilians (such as myself) establishing a tcp/ip connection is as hard or as easy as establishing an encrypted tcp/ip tunnel to defeat government control efforts. For both these tasks, I am dependent on software writers who know more than I do. Since the software of the Net is written by people not governments, the governments will find it hard to hold "free users" down to a 5% or 10% figure. The Net is nothing more than the software that it runs on and we (not governments) write the software. In addition, we are not imposing our ideology on Singapore. If Singapore changes, it will be because an encounter with the realities of the free flow of information changes it. DCF

3 2

Anonymity and free speech
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Instead of discussing whether or not Esther Dyson or other EFF board members are personally comfortable with anonymity, let's talk about whether or not the EFF and its board members believe that the First Amendment provides a right to speak and associate anonymously. (I believe that the First Amendment gives everyone the right to wear a t-shirt which says "I am an asshole." But I have no interest in wearing such a t-shirt. And so on.) I believe that it does, and that the Supreme Court has already made that clear. In cypherpunks(a)toad.comparticular, I'm thinking of _NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson_, _Talley_, and _McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission_. (Sorry for the lack of cites; 95% of my stuff is still in boxes and I'm sending this via laptop and a Ricochet modem.) If the right to speak/associate in "real life" is protected by the First Amendment, I don't see why it wouldn't be on computers and networks which are located inside the United States. And if that right is based upon the Constitution, it will take a constitutional amendment or a big sea change in the Supreme Court to take it away. (I wonder if the decision in _McIntrye_ would have gone the other way if Ms. McIntrye were selling drugs via anonymous message pools instead of discussing school funding via windshield flyers.) Discussions about the utility of anonymity would be more useful if we were designing a communication system or a constituion from scratch; but that's not our current situation. Is there serious debate about whether or not the Constitution and the Internet allow anonymous communication? (I'm not asking a rhetorical question. If someone's familiar with an argument to the contrary, please tell me about it.) Both the Constitution and the Internet are difficult to modify quickly; we probably have anonymity (like it or not) for at least a few more years. (I'm not trying to imply that US law is the only law, or that the rest of the world doesn't existy. But I don't know poo about the right to anonymity in other nations; and to a certain extent anonymity anywhere on the Internet is the same as anonymity everywhere on the Internet. Are other readers aware of other jurisdictions where anonymous speech is considered a right?) ---- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)netbox.com http://www.io.com/~gbroiles

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >>At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >>> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position >>> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, >>> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. >> >>If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes >>of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty. >> >>It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, >>Iran, or China. >> >>It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, >>but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people >>in the street. > >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. "Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for. I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity. And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 4

Andrew "skippy" Mathis converts to Judaism - Film at 11
by shlomo＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I circumcized Andrew "Skippy" Mathis <qut(a)netcom.com> with my own hand, as the Right Reverend Colin James III pronounced the blessings. Igor Chudov, our understudy, sucked out the blood. Amen.

2 1

CONF/ORG: EXTRO-3 date
by Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are trying to plan the time for the EXTRO-3 - the Third in the infinite series of Extropian conferences. The tentative dates for EXTRO-3 are now weekends of August 2-3 and August 9-10 of 1997, with a backup plan of July 26-27 weekend. We would like to select the date so that it would not interfere with other conferences, and be convenient for everybody. If you know of any other events of extropian/transhumanist/libertarian/ life-extension/cypherpunk interest planned for one of those weekends, or if you would like to attend and have have personal preferences for one of these days, please send me _private_ mail at sasha1(a)netcom.com (You can find general info on Extropianism at http://www.primenet.com/~maxmore/extropy.htm ) On behalf of the of Extropian Action Team, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Chislenko <sasha1(a)netcom.com> www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html Firefly Network, Inc.: <alexc(a)firefly.net> www.ffly.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

How to break Netscape's server key encryption - Followup
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There has been a successful hostile attack on a Netscape server key using the code I posted yesterday. I was contacted earlier today by someone who told me he had in the past obtained Netscape server keys and PGP private keys from Windows NT machines running Microsofts insecure FTP server which allows access to the entire drive (he found some of the PGP keys using archie searches - ouch!). He lives somewhere with nasty anti-hacking laws and definitely doesn't want his identity known, but after some pleading said I could reveal the following: - He used the cracklib dictionary to get the password - The password was found "very quickly" - The password was a female name - He deleted the server key after he'd found the password - He did it merely out of idle curiosity and has no intention of misusing the information. - He definitely doesn't want to be contacted Peter.

1 0

FLA_wed
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-26-96. NYP: "Potential Flaw In Cash Card Security Seen. Counterfeiting a Risk, Say Bellcore Scientists." Markoff. A potential security flaw has been discovered that might make it possible to counterfeit many types of the electronic-cash "smart cards" that are now widely used in Europe and are being tested in this country, reports a paper set to be released today. The Bellcore researchers said that a smart card's security could be breached by forcing the microchip in the card to make a calculation error, whether through sophisticated means like bombarding the card with radiation or perhaps cruder methods like placing it in a microwave oven. A mathematical formula they derived could use this error to extrapolate the secret data that authenticates the card when it is used. ----- http://jya.com/flawed.txt (6 kb) FLA_wed

1 0

FW: Internet Scam TRUE?
by brianh＠u041.oh.vp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This lexis-nexus is running around again, is this a true statement? Or another hoax going around? I had not seen any comments on this list yet. The person who forward this to me had not provided where this originated from. Thank You b > > > > > > Subject: FW: Internet Scam > > > Date: Thursday, September 26, 1996 > > > > > > FYI > > > > > > More on the Lexis-Nexis connection: > > > > > > Subj: Internet Scam > > > > > > Many of you have probably received a message lately regarding a > > > company called Lexis which is distributing names, social security > > > numbers, etc. to people over the internet for illegal use (i.e. to obtain > > > credit in > > > your name). The message advises you to call a number, give your name and > > > social > > > security number, and they will take you off the list. > > > > > > DON'T DO THIS!! > > > > > > The scam is to have you call and give the info to them. The social > > > security office is advised of this and is investigating the company.

1 0