- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
by Eric_Weaver＠avtc.sel.sony.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 00:16:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Aron Freed <s009amf(a)discover.wright.edu> On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Eric Weaver wrote: > The government should NOT be viewed similarly to an employer in its > relationship with citizens. Employees are free to quit and make their > income some other way. Yeah and since when has this country been so easy to quit and find a new job with the same relative pay???? Do you think it's that easy??? Uh I don't think so.. duh huh... I can't even get a summer job working at a computer store and I'm very computer literate for my age. Did I SAY that it would be easy? But nobody will stop you from quitting a JOB. A government may well try to stop a citizen of its country from leaving. That's my point.

1 0

Re: Labeling Usenet articles.
by Mark Grant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 1 Aug 1994, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > How is crypto involved? You want to have everything arrive at your site > encrypted, and only be able to decrypt the stuff that you are permitted > by the censor to read? Why bother, why not just only send stuff to your site > that the censor permits you to read? If you don't want your entire site censored, but just want particular readers at your site to be censored, then the > sysadmin should just set something up so users are only allowed to read > what the censor has allowed that user to read. I dont' see how crypto > comes into it at all. No, I think he's essentially talking about a 'secure' moderated newsgroup. That is, the moderator(s) would sign each 'authorised' message with a special key, and the newsreader would verify that it was signed by a moderator before allowing you to read it. The current moderation system is supposed to ignore unmoderated articles, but without crypto it's easy to get round. > I think you are going to have a lot of trouble getting any help with this > plan from this list. For one thing, it doesn't seem to require crypto > to implement, and for another, very few people on this list are going to > be interested in developing a censorship system. I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, but it seems to me that I'd rather be able to say to people 'Ok, you want to create your own secure moderated groups safe for kids/fundamentalists/chthulhu-worshippers, or whatever, here's the software to do so' than have them (try to) make it compulsory for everyone, everywhere. I'd suggest using PGP now that it's legal, rather than creating some new system. I've got C-source for Unix that will call PGP to verify signatures, if the original poster wants to hack it into trn or something - the code was written for 2.3a though, so it may need a few changes for 2.6 (or those who aren't worried about legalities can link it with PGP Tools instead). It would, of course, have the side effect of helping to spread PGP further before SKE comes along. Mark

1 0

Re: Labeling Usenet articles.
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> OK, so I want to enable the recieving of articles in conjunction with a > censorship service. I guess the way to do this is a sig. of the article [...] > Lets get the tools of crypto out there in advance. How is crypto involved? You want to have everything arrive at your site encrypted, and only be able to decrypt the stuff that you are permitted by the censor to read? Why bother, why not just only send stuff to your site that the censor permits you to read? If you don't want your entire site censored, but just want particular readers at your site to be censored, then the sysadmin should just set something up so users are only allowed to read what the censor has allowed that user to read. I dont' see how crypto comes into it at all. I think you are going to have a lot of trouble getting any help with this plan from this list. For one thing, it doesn't seem to require crypto to implement, and for another, very few people on this list are going to be interested in developing a censorship system. I don't think anyone thinks you should be disallowed from doing so either, but people put their time and energy into developing software that interests them and excites them, and for most cypherpunks I don't think a censorship system does either.

2 1

Re: Philadelphia Enquirer Story on Clipper
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Gostin: | Damn right you can't, because it starts a rather attrocious slippery | slope. Sure, right now it's phone calls. Next, corner "papers please" | checks. Finally, open random house checks, and thought police. Sorry, but | I didn't elect Orwell to be god, er, president. Of course, I didn't elect | Clinton either... Not that I'm a Clinton fan, but most of his orwellan proposals have been around, simmering, for a while. Both Clipper & Post Office national ID cards first came up under Bush. health ID cards are, of course, Hillary's. The problem is not any one particular idiot in office, but a strong public desire to give up a little freedom for a little security. My response to these concerns to to point out that we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world right now, and more crime & problems than 15 years ago, when we had far, far fewer people in jail. Many, if not most of the people in jail, are there for selling drugs, often as a result of 'zero tolerance for pot.' (Interesting article on this, btw, in the current & upcoming issues of the Atlantic, titled 'Reefer Madness') reforming the laws so that violent criminals go to jail for longer than drug criminals should be pushed constantly. (Talking about *gasp* legalizing or decriminalizing drugs tends to be counter productive except with old style conservatives, far leftists, and libertarians.) Talking about violent v. non-violent crime often has better results in terms of opening peoples eyes. Adam -- Adam Shostack adam(a)bwh.harvard.edu Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small, annoying bloodsucker.

1 0

Re: Lady Di's medical records
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I understand that in California, shrinks have a duty to protect > records. I expect encryption is spreading. I also expect that many of > them are worried about the trend to force disclosure of patient > records. (Such as with the Tarasoff ruling on patients who make > threats, the various other loopholes for breaking doctor-patient > privilege, the various "discovery" procedures in court cases, and so > on.) I personally know individuals that are avoiding medical care because of concerns about confidentiality. It seems the loopholes are extending. Patient records stay around for years. Who knows what the requirements will be five years from now? It would not surprise me if individuals who have been seeking drug treatment within the last, say, five years would have to be reported to the Klinton Kommunal Kare agency. > (Watch for software key escrow to fold this in: mandated encryption > of records, but American Psychiatric Association and California State > Mental Health Association the designated escrow sites. For example.) To be examined by the above supervisory agency upon "reasonable suspicion", no doubt. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

2 1

Re: Children and the Net
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Am I the only one that's struck by the similarity between the propaganda about the Waco massacre and the propaganda preceding the Persion Gulf massacre? [For those who don't know, a good deal of the stories about Iraqi attrocities were totally manufactured. Read "Second Front" (author last name "Truman", I believe) for an account from a reporter's perspective of how the Pentagon manipluated stories and therefore public opionion] -- L. Todd Masco | Bibliobytes books on computer, on any UNIX host with e-mail cactus(a)bb.com | "Information wants to be free, but authors want to be paid." [Not obviously C'punk related, but it really is: we must understand the propaganda machine that the US government has working for it if we hope to oppose them successfully on crypto issues]

1 0

Re: Children and the Net
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:49 PM 07/31/94 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >I find this trend among cypherpunks, who are SUPPOSED to be defenders >of diversity and freedom, rather odd. I would have expected people to >limit themselves to calmly stating that Mr. Zooks should find another >way to accomplish the goal of raising his children free from >influences he dislikes. Instead they seem to have taken it upon >themselves to decide whether or not his religion or personality >requires realignment, and some have, yes, even gone so far as to >suggest that he doesn't know how to raise his own kids. I think this is almost a first- I *never* agree with Perry. I may have tons of opinions about any number of people fucking up thier kids' lives, but the day I find out that teaching a child a certain way is gonna get me in trouble is the day I move... And I will never have children. >Perry So... anyone up for a hot discussion of RSA? ;) -j -- "Blah Blah Blah" ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel(a)sybase.com>

1 0

Re: Anonymous code name allocated. // penet hack
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:53 PM 08/01/94 -0700, Lyman Hazelton wrote: > No, and I don't either, but now someone else can use those accounts and >LOOK like they are you or me (or anyone else here). Now suppose some >twit decides to use one or more of those accounts to send threatening >messages to the president or some other stupid thing... who are they >going to come after, do you suppose? NOT a nice scenario! Looks like the perfect way to 'prove' the need for stamping out anonymous communications...Run a hack like this, turn it into a huge madia event, realize an innocent was falsely accused becuase of some psycho pervert computer geek, and push through your law. Slicker than Polly Klaas, and almost as good for re- election material (apologies to non-Californians).

1 0

Re: Labeling Usenet articles.
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> No, I think he's essentially talking about a 'secure' moderated newsgroup. > That is, the moderator(s) would sign each 'authorised' message with a > special key, and the newsreader would verify that it was signed by a Ah, now I understand, thanks. Actually, now that I see what you're getting at, this _does_ seem like a good idea. I think moderated newsgroups can be useful in some circumstances (sure, including a fundie newsgroup), and it would be nice to have a cryptographically secure system of doing this, that cant' be easily circumvented like the present one. And I agree that scripts using PGP do seem capable of doing this, rather then writing some new software. This actually is quite a good idea.

4 3

Re: The Terrorists are coming!
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <Pine.3.87.9408012142.A21636-0100000(a)raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> CatAshleigh writes: > > > I don't recall the Jim's article mentioning "muslim" terrorists > > specifically. Or are only "muslims" terrorist in your book? :-) > > The only other people who are called terroist are the IRA, and I don't see > the FBI scrambling to protect Great Britian's consulet in DC when a > car bomb goes off in London Here in the UK we read about lots of terrorist groups, not just the IRA: ETA in Spain, Kurds (blew up someone in London a few months ago), Iranis (killed someone in Paris recently), Chchernians (spelling?? -- assasinated someone in London a couple of months ago), the Mafia, North Koreas (two separate events in the last few years, a hundred or so people killed each time), the Animal Liberation Front (blew up a bomb here in Bristol, injuring a baby), ... there are lots of them. Maybe you should subscribe to a London newspaper. -- Jim Dixon

1 0