Re: Hoax: A ban on cryptography?
At 2:37 AM 8/13/96, David Kennedy wrote:
My mailer thinks the e$pam list pulled this from cypherpunks:
And I'll bet you're still looking for "Oceania" in your atlas? This is one of the main reasons I hate it when my articles get "spammed" to other lists, lists where people have no idea of who I am and no idea of my sense of humor. For the clueless, I simply took the "Defense Authorization" bill which had been posted to Cypherpunks by geeman@best.com and replaced a few of the words involving "explosives" with "cryptography." Oh, and I twiddled the number of the bill to include "666." Finally, I even said "This may not be real, but it could be" at the end. Jeesh. The worst part of having my stuff spammed, e-spammed, gurgitated, and regurgitated is that I get letters from people saying "I saw this thing you wrote on the Kangaroo Hopping List. What is "crypto"? Thanks a bunch, dude." Wake up. And for those who forward my stuff, please include appropriate disclaimers to your "spammees" that a) one should read things with an appreciation that a post may be tongue in cheek, b) that back-spamming to another list is not cool, and c) that I don't want to be bothered.
S.1666
Department of Commerce Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Passed by the Senate) <<
And this is bogus, and as far as I can tell not a typo, it's complete hokum.
S.1666 is an obscure bill about courts in Utah.
A search of http://thomas.loc.gov on "encryption" reveals the expected bills, PRO-CODE etc.
A search for the DoC Authorization Act reveals nothing, as far as I can tell this bill has not been drafted let alone passed. I don't know enough about how the DoC is funded to know if they get their own Authorization Act or receive authorizations piecemeal and by the reconciliation.
Again, this is bogus.
!^NavFont02F02350014QGHHG|MG~HG85QG87HI}2126
Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 5:01 PM -0400 8/12/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 2:37 AM 8/13/96, David Kennedy wrote:
My mailer thinks the e$pam list pulled this from cypherpunks: <snip>
Wake up.
And for those who forward my stuff, please include appropriate disclaimers to your "spammees" that a) one should read things with an appreciation that a post may be tongue in cheek, b) that back-spamming to another list is not cool, and c) that I don't want to be bothered.
Yeah. What he said. I hope the cypherpunks list will accept my apologies. There are firm rules about this to e$pam subscribers, and, while I haven't had much occasion to enforce it lately, I might have to, which means kicking the offenders off e$pam. Strike one, Mr. Kennedy. The rule is, if you're on a list with derivative content, particularly one with as large a source-base as e$pam, do NOT reply directly to the source list, in this case cypherpunks. In the case of e$pam, there's a subsidiary discussion list, e$, which was set up for this purpose. Use it. e$ has even gotten to the point where it's generating its own traffic, now, which is nice. To e$pam readers, if you want to talk on cypherpunks, or cyberia, austrianecon, or any or the other 100 or so lists and newsgroups e$pam is filtered from, sign on to the source list itself, read the traffic there for a while, and *then* post something. In other words, become a *member* of the list, and have some manners. Again, I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused to the cypherpunks list. BTW, I thought Tim's hoax was a good one, but, given that it hadn't shown up anywhere else on the net, (and congress isn't in session :-)), it was pretty easy to spot. It *did* give one pause, though. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/
participants (2)
-
Robert Hettinga -
tcmay＠got.net