LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:

Just like the legal system, a cryptosystem holds a key to unravel a hidden order/disorder.

If you can't read between the lines Sunder, it reads: *The Constitution is a false key*

Clue: it's off topic. Sigh, another Perrygram I've had to send... -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------

Jim Choate wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Sunder wrote:

...

Clue: it's off topic. Sigh, another Perrygram I've had to send...

No it isn't. One of the topics of this list is civil liberties.

Show me where it says that in the list charter. http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/cypherpunks/mailing_list/ Sure says nothing about civil liberties. Hell, I'll save your lazy ass the trouble: ( *** emphasis mine): <SNIP> About cypherpunks The cypherpunks list is not designed for beginners, although they are welcome. If you are totally new to crypto, please get and read the crypto FAQ referenced below. This document is a good introduction, although not short. Crypto is a subtle field and a good understanding will not come without some study. Please, as a courtesy to all, do some reading to make sure that your question is not already frequently asked. There are other forums to use on the subject of cryptography. The Usenet group sci.crypt deals with technical cryptography; cypherpunks deals with technical details but slants the discussion toward their social implications. The Usenet group talk.politics.crypto, as is says, is for political theorizing, and cypherpunks gets its share of that, **** but cypherpunks is all pro-crypto ****; the debates on this list are about how to best get crypto out there. The Usenet group alt.security.pgp is a pgp-specific group, and questions about pgp as such are likely better asked there than here. Ditto for alt.security.ripem. <SNIP> Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. <SNIP> Again, this isn't lawyerpunks. -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------

"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." Mr. Choate, where does it say you have the right to private communications? It doesn't. Compare: "Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator. Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the home. None may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it. The privacy of citizens and of their correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is protected by law." [1] "Again, this isn't lawyerpunks." - Sunder. Questions of constitutional interpretations are central to constitutional privacy analysis, which was what I was trying to get at, albeit unsuccessfully. The question Mr. May posed was more interesting, and of direct relevance. -Aimee "It does no good to debate with Choate, however." - Tim May [1] UGA School of Law SIBLEY LECTURE 1989 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/speeches/scalia.html

Jim Choate wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Sunder wrote:

...

Show me where it says that in the list charter.

http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/cypherpunks/mailing_list/

Sure says nothing about civil liberties.

Not related to THIS CDR. THAT list died a horrible and lingering death.

Oh, but it is. Those were the original papers, the original Cypherpunk Constitution if you will, (even if you won't) that started this mailing list. The demise of the toad.com address was not the end of the cypherpunks list. It was the reason to build a distributed list. That there are many server nodes in the "mailing list" does not change it's reason for existance, nor it's fouding beliefs. Recall that what had happened was that a hard censorship system was set up where Sandy Sandford (if memory does not fail), served as a filter between an uncensored list and a censored list. This was done because of a certain pest named Vulis, who much like you was spamming the list with his noise. The fatal pill was simply a message that Sandy could not forward to either list as it would have jeopardized his job. At that point, Sandy had to step down as he could not complete his role as filter. Around that time Tim, also had left the @toad.com list in disgust. Several others wisely decided to go off and build a distributed node system so as to prevent attacks against the list by El Federale and his cousins, and to get around the censorship. Others may chirp in here and add their comments as they remember. However the goals and topics of these lists did not change.

Who gives a fuck what's written at that site.

I do. As I'm sure others who have complained about your posts and are filtering you do.

When Igor and I set this list up when the old list was announced dead we decided we'd do what we wanted and not what 'they' wanted. We also wanted a way so that no other list operator ever had to worry about what one or more (or n-1 for that matter) other list operators THOUGHT the right way to run the list was.

That's right. The whole point of this was to prevent the list from being fascistly controlled at the mailer end.

As a result we leave it up to individual operators to decide what goes into and out of their node, but they may not filter traffic they relay from other nodes in any way. It's worked pretty damn well I'd say.

That's right it has, and that's not the issue.

I don't believe in the concept of 'control', I see it as an extension of ego and self-absorption. As a result I don't filter the SSZ node ever for anything, not my job.

I completely and totally agree with you. Cypherpunks is and should always be free of censorship. It's not about censoring the list automatically at the server level. It's about YOU. Your behavior. It is not censorship I'm asking you to implement. It's >SELF< control. It's your INDIVIDUAL posts that are the issue, their format and content. Sure Jim, you can post anything you like. You CAN post about what the best way to groom your dog would be. You CAN post about your favorite movie, or food, or your views on smoking, drinking alcohol, doing drugs or not, premarital sex, postmarital sex, beastiality, pornography, making bombs - whether chocolate or WWII engima cracking bombes, theoretical physics, theoretical or practical law, rocketry, satelite orbits, cold fusion, scientology, astronomy or astrology. But *ALL* of those topics have been, are and would still be off topic. Unless of course there is some relation to what is on topic. Sure, discuss quantum computers *IF* it has something to do with encryption. Sure, discuss amateur rocketry *IF* it has something to do with encryption or the pursuit of privacy. Again, this is cypherpunks. The topics here are limited to those related to the pursuit of privacy and anonymity through the use of cryptography. If you think you've found flaws in our legal systems, hey, that's wonderful. I commend you for it. Just discuss it on alt.politics. Or start up a mailing list called lawyerpunks and invite all the lawyers in the world to discuss it with you. You're free to do so, and that is not censorship, nor fascist control. You constantly post unrelated items to this list, and to what purpose, I don't know. I suspect that you are well intentioned and well meaning, and you honestly believe that we are interested in your posts. We may well be. But if you and I and others wish to discuss the theory of laws, quantum physics, rocketry, or otherwise, we can all join you on other mailing lists or on usenet groups. Just not here. Unless of course, there is a relation to the pursuit of privacy and anonymity by the use of crypto.

I intend, and make public my intentions, to focus on cryptography, civil liberties, and economics (and related topics). I intend to promote a critical and questioning culture as a consequence.

Money talks, bullshit walks.

So, please talk about privacy and anonymity via crypto here, talk elsewhere about other topics. The other issue people have with you is your spamming of the list with one line url messages. There's nothing to indicate WHY anyone should follow the url, further, a lot of them have nothing to do with crypto, anonymity or privacy. Further, you've got your big gigantic signature at the bottom and this one tiny url. That's really bad netiquette. A lot of us aready read salon, slashdot, the register. So you're not providing anything useful. But, what WOULD be useful is if you wrote say ONE email with all the urls and small one or two paragraph snippets from each story and post them all together. That way, when people read the emails, they get ONE email from you with ONE copy of your gigantic .sig, and if they're like me (i.e. read all those web sites already), we can just delete that one message. Really I do believe that you're trying to be helpful and want to share the interesting news stories you've found. Otherwise the question becomes why else would you post them? So if you are trying to be helpful, why not do it in a way that is helpful rather than in a way that is annoying? Look, if you're being a Vulis/Detweiler, it was easy enough to get rid of them by plonking.

http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr

Hey, look, it's great that you and Igor have created the original CDR's and are running one of them. But that doesn't change what is ON TOPIC from what was set to be ON TOPIC when this list was created. Again, see it's original CHARTER. Even that url you list doesn't specify what is on topic. The original one I've posted does. So again, a reminder: http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/cypherpunks/mailing_list/ Sure says nothing about civil liberties. Hell, I'll save your lazy ass the trouble: ( *** emphasis mine): <SNIP> About cypherpunks The cypherpunks list is not designed for beginners, although they are welcome. If you are totally new to crypto, please get and read the crypto FAQ referenced below. This document is a good introduction, although not short. Crypto is a subtle field and a good understanding will not come without some study. Please, as a courtesy to all, do some reading to make sure that your question is not already frequently asked. There are other forums to use on the subject of cryptography. The Usenet group sci.crypt deals with technical cryptography; cypherpunks deals with technical details but slants the discussion toward their social implications. The Usenet group talk.politics.crypto, as is says, is for political theorizing, and cypherpunks gets its share of that, **** but cypherpunks is all pro-crypto ****; the debates on this list are about how to best get crypto out there. The Usenet group alt.security.pgp is a pgp-specific group, and questions about pgp as such are likely better asked there than here. Ditto for alt.security.ripem. <SNIP> Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. <SNIP> -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------