- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:36:02 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS > > A most distastful example is the complicit silence of gun stores > when the gun grabbers regulate "kitchen table" gun dealers out of > economic existance. Funny, one of my customers is involved in the Texas gun lobby and through him I am aware of literaly hundreds of people who are within a few miles of Austin who have FFL's and have no problem selling weapons off their kitchen table completely legal. Their prices in general are much lower than local stores such as McBrides (the best known in Austin). Jim Choate

1 0

Re: "And who shall guard the guardians?"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:11 PM 8/2/96 -0400, David Lesher wrote: >> The English-Only bill just passed in the House bans the use of >> non-English languages by government officials. Does Tim's sudden >> avoidance of the Latin mean that _he_'s the Fed?? > >What about Navajo? Foreign diplomacy was one of the exceptions. Algol wasn't, since it's designed to describe algorithms to humans, even though it's additionally useful for diplomatic relations with our Mechanical Companions. (Actually, they are allowed to use it for teaching purposes, or if really necessary for National Security, and the Bureau of the Census can use it to help count people.) Section (I), however, is disappointing - means we can't sue them for putting "E Pluribus Unum" on the coinage.... ============================ `(2) OFFICIAL BUSINESS- The term `official business' means governmental actions, documents, or policies which are enforceable with the full weight and authority of the Federal Government, and includes publications, income tax forms, and informational materials, but does not include-- `(A) teaching of languages; `(B) requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; `(C) actions, documents, or policies necessary for-- `(i) national security issues; or `(ii) international relations, trade, or commerce; `(D) actions or documents that protect the public health and safety; `(E) actions or documents that facilitate the activities of the Bureau of the Census in compiling any census of population; `(F) actions, documents, or policies that are not enforceable in the United States; (G) actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants; `(H) actions in which the United States has initiated a civil lawsuit; or `(I) using terms of art or phrases from languages other than English. =================================================== "These aren't the droids you're looking for." # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

2 1

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:50 8/2/96, Paul J. Bell wrote: >i, for one, and perhaps others on the list as well, would be interested in >hearing >what you mean when you say, "At&t, Microsoft, etc) who are ripping people >off on a >daily basis". > >for example, in what way is AT&T ripping people off? and what about >microsoft? Its up to you what you call it, but here is an interesting example: An international phone call costs about 2 cents/min to produce. The average rate paid for by the consumer is 62 cents. That's means the carriers mark up this particular product by an amazing 3000%. Can you name another business that has comparable mark-ups? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

3 2

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:13:14 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd) > > > But it is your problem because 'your' side is aging and my generation is just > > now coming into power (ie eligable to run for president and such). With a > > Why am I having these flashbacks to the Clinton Campaign promises of 1992 > about there existing a young man who is a "New Democrat", a white house > that will have the highest-ever level of ethics, etc, etc, etc. My first guess is that you were taking LSD back then but then I wasn't there. The second guess would be because you didn't read very carefuly. I said nothing about highest-ethics or any other such promises of behaviour or action. I think you are reading more into my statement than is there. I simply said that some of my generation plan on using the rules against the establishment. I consider that a subtle but important difference. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Sat Aug 3 00:38:30 1996 > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:06:55 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <ae28119a020210049840(a)[205.199.118.202]> > Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960803010515.1359F-100000(a)larry.infi.net> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > We must always look at the legal definition of words. If I _give_ a > joint, I can be charged with sale of a controlled substance. That no > money changed hands is irrelevant. > Wrong, you can be charged with distribution, not sales. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:03:43 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > Corporations are state-created persons [legal definition of "person", not > colloquial vernacular]. They have some privileges which have surface > resmblence to the rights of natural people. For example, they can "have > standing" in a court to initiate a legal proceeding - in their own name, > not that of an agent or employee or trustee. Exactly, 'surface resemblance'. The Constitution at no point mentions businesses in respect to the rights of the individual which is where all discussions must start from in this government. For example, some folks have claimed that corporations have rights that prevent warantless searches and such. I have to strongly disagree. I see no rational way to extend this to a corporation. If the police must use a warrant to search a business located other than in a persons home or on their property it is because the people who are present on that premisis have rights and those rights would be infringed by such searches. I am not even shure I accept the legal premise of corporations. The amendment say: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: Jim Bell, stay out of Georgia....
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:54 AM 8/2/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >>> JONESBORO, Ga. -- An 18-year-old self-styled anarchist who allegedly >>> distributed a free, homemade pamphlet with anti-government rhetoric >>> has been charged with advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. ..... >Brian -- why do the cops do busts like this where they know they will be >thrown out? 1) Because they can 2) Because they can get away with it 3) Because most of the public approves of this kind of <noun deleted> 4) Because they can put out press releases encouraging 2) and 3) and folks will believe them. 5) Because if the case gets dropped it _might_ make Page 43 of the newspaper and will be covered in a way that makes it clear that they're the good guys. 6) Because the state/city/town will cover their legal costs and penalties if they somehow lose a lawsuit 7) Because the state/city/town _won't_ cover the costs of a real defense of the "self-styled anarchist", who'll have to put up with a lot of crap as well as the 47:59:59 hours they can keep him in jail for no good reason plus any more until he can make bail for the bogusly heavy charges they'll lay on him. 8) Because once you're a "self-styled" anything, you don't get no respect. 9) I've never met any cops who were bullies - have you? 10)It's covered by the Anarchists and Commies Exception to the First Amendment. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This does seem to be real. CNet has a few more details: http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,2031,00.html At 08:28 PM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long >anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of >the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to >their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an >aircraft. > >Transponders will be affixed to all items of luggage and all passengers. If >the system discovers a transponder on the luggage in the cargo hold without >the corresponding transponder on the passenger on board, an alarm will >sound. I am not making this up. > >As many of you know, I have long predicted subcutaneous transponders to >become widely deployed in the near future. First for child identification >and monitoring of criminals, then, as the children grow up, as universal >ID, driver license, proof of eligibility for employment, PIN substitute, >etc. > >Today, we moved a step closer to this future. > >[Note that the transponders will have to be affixed to the passenger. An >example would be a hospital style bracelet that stops working when removed. >Why embedding the transponder in a hand carried item, such as a card, will >not work is left as an exercise to the reader. Even an affixed device does >not provide perfect security. You'd really have to embed the transponder in >the body at an early age to make removal nearly impossible.] > > > >-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. > Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. > Vote Harry Browne for President. > > > >

1 0

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by sparks＠bah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rant> Personally, I enjoy some of the rantings, although I would like a forum for new users to get some help and guidance.. perhaps they can scan my ISP to see if I have accessed some bomb making info ... </rant> >Status: U >Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 13:34:10 GMT >To: Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)cyberpass.net> >Subject: Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish >From: jya(a)pipeline.com (John Young) >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >X-PipeUser: jya >X-PipeHub: pipeline.com >X-PipeGCOS: (John Young) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk > >On Aug 03, 1996 14:38:59, 'Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)cyberpass.net>' wrote: > >>Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many >times. >>Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to >discuss is >>politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the >>cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when >people >>do use it. > > >An exemplary air-clearing for a smoke-filled agenda; and two challenging >questions which may pose a High Noon amongst munitions-slingers. Bravo, >Matts, for cryptic concision. > > > >

1 0

Anonymous Message Broadcast
by Laszlo Vecsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone implemented a simple anonymous chat system (an anonymous irc) using the technique described in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition? I'm speaking of the Anonymous Message Broadcast documented in section 6.3, it begins on page 137. Can the same system be implemented using base256 (unsigned char, 8bit ASCII) instead of the simple on/off binary method that is described in the explanation? How would it differ. Thanks. (define(RSA m e n)(list->string(u(r(s(string->list m))e n))))(define(u a)(if(> a 0)(cons(integer->char(modulo a 256))(u(quotient a 256)))'()))(define(s a)(if (null? a)0(+(char->integer(car a))(* 256(s(cdr a))))))(define(r a x n)(cond((= 0 x)1)((even? x)(modulo(expt(r a(/ x 2)n)2)n))(#t(modulo(* a(r a(1- x)n))n))))

1 0