From andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu Mon Dec 1 07:05:39 1997 From: andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu (Andy Dustman) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:05:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Lance Cottrell wrote: > The risks of allowing pasted From: lines far outweigh the benefits. Pasting > of From lines makes remailer operators much more vulnerable to charges of > fostering forgery rather than simple anonymity. > > Spam baiting is another obvious risk. Forged postings with deplorable > content will bring down retribution on the forgery victim. Forged From > lines can also be used to subscribe victims to thousands of mailing lists. > > The uses of this "feature" can be duplicated with other mechanisms such as > nym-servers, which provide persistent unique From lines without the > possibility of forgery of arbitrary addresses. Users desiring greater > security can simply point the reply capability of the nym server at the > nearest /dev/null. I've said all of this before myself, and still people want it. So there will be two safeguards which should prevent the aforementioned problems: 1) The From: address on USENET posts will be mangled a la mail2news_nospam to prevent spam baiting. Most of the posts I see with pasted From: lines (from replay, in alt.privacy.anon-server) use a fake address and aren't trying to impersonate anyone. 2) Whenever a From: line is pasted, a disclaimer will be inserted at the top of the body, stating that the original sender has set the From: line, and that the identification cannot be verified. The fact that it is up at the top of the body should mean people should actually see it before reacting. 3) As someone else has suggested, it does indeed insert a Sender: header with the remailer's address. Two basic points also about "forgeries". First, you can forge headers pretty easily without any programs other than telnet. Second, if this actually does become misused frequently, all I need to do is delete one character from one file (a # in headers.del) and it will be disabled. I consider this an experimental feature, and if it doesn't work out, I'll just turn it back off. Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design For a great anti-spam procmail recipe, send me mail with subject "spam". Append "+spamsucks" to my username to ensure delivery. KeyID=0xC72F3F1D Encryption is too important to leave to the government. -- Bruce Schneier http://www.athens.net/~dustman mailto:andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu <}+++< From nimark at mailexcite.com Mon Dec 1 08:28:42 1997 From: nimark at mailexcite.com (nimark at mailexcite.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:28:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: how's it going? Message-ID: <2.0.32.19328261102482318.006216328@mailexcite.com> Would you be interested in... <*> Sending out a FREE Bulk Email Advertisement for your business or web page to over 250,000 PEOPLE PER DAY? <*> Receiving 35,000,000 Email Addresses which can be used in your Bulk Emailings, FREE of charge? You may shudder at the thought of Bulk Email.. but the simple truth is.. BULK EMAIL WORKS! If Bulk Email didn't work, THEN YOU WOULDN'T BE READING THIS! YOUR COMPETITION is sending out Bulk Email Advertisements to over 50,000,000 People on the Internet! Why aren't YOU? THOUSANDS of companies are sending out Bulk Email to dramatically increase their profits and so should you! Even Fortune 500 companies send out Bulk Email to MILLIONS of people! With Bulk Email, you are reaching up to 250,000 people per day for FREE! Your business will DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE! To Learn how YOU can send out Bulk Email to over 50,000,000 People on the Internet for FREE, visit our web site at: http://204.50.168.161 To be removed from our Mailing List, send an email to: newport at lostvegas.com with the word "REMOVE" in the subject line. From shamrock at cypherpunks.to Mon Dec 1 00:00:30 1997 From: shamrock at cypherpunks.to (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:00:30 +0800 Subject: Nuclear Physics Study Group In-Reply-To: <8f07ca0537b17a179e2c7c496793b5f2@anon.efga.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Anonymous wrote: > Lucky Green : > > > On a completely unrelated note, is there some interest in starting up a > > "Cypherpunks Nuclear Physics Study Group"? I recently finished reading > > "The Curve of Binding Energy". Fascinating book. > > Is this really unrelated or does it represent growing ambition > by the cypherpunks shooting club ? Will you be asking for anonymous > donations of SNM ? Anonymous donations of fissionable materials are of course welcome. [Subject to applicable laws, etc]. As to the Cypherpunks Shooting Club, one member was recently on an airborne survey mission to identify a suitable testing area for some model rockets. The kind of model rockets that can reach orbit. [Half scale. Team includes some people from JPL...] > I could be interested, but not in the manner of the above 2 sentences. I am simply interested in the theoretical aspects of this field. -- Lucky Green PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" From anon at anon.efga.org Mon Dec 1 00:08:26 1997 From: anon at anon.efga.org (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:08:26 +0800 Subject: PGP / Outlook Express Plugin Problem Message-ID: <710eabcd66f483175a2ce24987449a11@anon.efga.org> Rip van Seaberg writes: > Anyone care to speculate irresponsibly about what PGP is up to, what > with dropping the 2.6 command line in favor of a handful of plugins? > Did they get paid to integrate PGP support in Eudora and Communicator > and make integration unavailable to competing tools? Are they hoping to > sell piles of US$12k+ SDKs? Is there any other plausible reason they > would want to break every tool and script that shells to PGP? Since the introduction of PGP in 1991 there have been changes in the way people use computers. Instead of typing clumsy command lines like "pgp -s -a -e -t -f" to perform operations, computer users today use a "mouse", a small device about the size of a pack of cards which is connected to the computer by a long "tail" (hence the name). By moving the mouse they are able to move an indicator on the screen called a "cursor". They point the cursor at "icons", small pictures which represent the operations they want to perform. Clicking buttons on the mouse allows them to manipulate data in a much more intuitive way. Old command line programs were accessible only to a small fraction of potential computer users. The new mouse based graphical computers open the world of computing to a much wider base of users. PGP plugins allows mail to be encrypted or decrypted with a single click of a mouse button. This is a far cry from the clumsy command lines of the past. Tune in next week to find out how your trusty floppy disks may soon be replaced by Compact Disk Read Only Memory devices. From gbroiles at netbox.com Mon Dec 1 00:10:40 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:10:40 +0800 Subject: Kashpureff stuff online Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971201000503.0069ca58@pop.sirius.com> CBC has put together a short (7 mins or so) news piece on the Kashpureff/Alternic situation - it's available via RealVideo (which seems to run reasonably over my 28.8 modem at home) at . They've also made an image of his US arrest warrant and the criminal complaint filed in the US district court (ED NY, 97-1343M) available at . -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com From tm at dev.null Mon Dec 1 02:17:45 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 18:17:45 +0800 Subject: If it saves the life of one non-Iraqian child... Message-ID: <34828BE2.5432@dev.null> Ya gotta love that Saddam, eh? Allowing the press to do a photoshoot of all those children who don't seem to be the child everyone is desparately trying to save by taking away our basic human rights and freedoms... I loved watching the western newswoman on TV yesterday, trying to explain to the local citizens how the US embargo that was resulting in the deaths of their children was all Saddam's fault. (Although I must have missed the part where she explained Saddam's authority to set US foreign policy.) I think we should immediately drop-ship a few thousand baby T-shirts to Iraq that have "I am not _the_ child!" stenciled on them, so that Americans watching at home don't mistake the starving Iraqian children for the one that we are saving by allowing our government to monitor and oppress us. Next time you pay your taxes, try to remember that you are just following orders...Saddam is evil...those are not _the_ child...you are only doing what is required by law...Saddam is responsible...you are just obeying the law...you are just following orders...you don't put them in the ovens, you just pay for the ovens...you don't turn on the gas, you just pay for the gas...you are just following orders... TruthMonger From tm at dev.null Mon Dec 1 02:57:12 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 18:57:12 +0800 Subject: [RePol] NEWBIE QUESTION In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.16.19971129101259.2feff5ce@global.california.com> Message-ID: <34828F6F.35F3@dev.null> jari.aalto at poboxes.com wrote: > Sat 97-11-29 Denizen list.repol > | Since anon.penet.fi is dead, who is left that > | does approx. the same thing, > | > | 1) allowing non-encrypted email out > | 2) requiring encrypted only > | 3) allowing it either way. > Would someone shed a light, > tell me about the backgrounds of Denizen and his motives? > > I'd like to help people, but only the honest ones. Jari, You should also make certain that you only help honest people who will not become dishonest in the future. My suggestion. File all questions away for a period of forty years, and then, if the person asking the question has proved honest for that period of time, send them the answer. No need to thank me...I'm always willing to help. TruthMonger From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Dec 1 05:49:48 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 21:49:48 +0800 Subject: If you fought to defend your country... In-Reply-To: <199712010717.BAA00499@smoke.suba.com> Message-ID: "snow" writes: > > Vulis said: > > Only 2 inches are required to reach the prostate. Anything over that > > is just windows dressing. > > Sounds like the voice of experience to me. That's right - I habitually fuck Chris Lewis in the ass with a dildo. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Dec 1 05:58:25 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 21:58:25 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971201001413.03a6d40c@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: "Robert A. Costner" writes: > It seems to me that the purpose of a remailer is to strip the headers, > including the FROM header, not to put in fake headers. Until someone can > explain it to me, I'd consider the idea of adding a FROM header to > anonymous mail to be asinine. > > Best I can tell, the only reasonable good purpose for this is to create a > persistent nym identity without a reply to capability. Well, remailer > software cannot support everything I suppose. (Even if Cracker may > apparently support this) > > I would think the best way to put in a persistent nym capability would be > to database the PGP key id's along with the persistent identity. Then the > remailer could produce lines like > > From: "Monty Cantsin" > > Persistent identities would be created by sending a signed PGP message that > includes both the PGP public key and the persistent identity. Since the > identity server would not database email addresses, only PGP key id's, and > only work for signed messages, there should be no problem with people > worrying about the remailer being compromised. This also keeps someone > from stealing another's reputation capital. Igor's STUMP has a similar feature, although I don't think a lot of posters currently use it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ichudov at Algebra.COM Mon Dec 1 06:22:40 1997 From: ichudov at Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:22:40 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712011411.IAA04116@manifold.algebra.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Robert A. Costner" writes: > > > It seems to me that the purpose of a remailer is to strip the headers, > > including the FROM header, not to put in fake headers. Until someone can > > explain it to me, I'd consider the idea of adding a FROM header to > > anonymous mail to be asinine. > > > > Best I can tell, the only reasonable good purpose for this is to create a > > persistent nym identity without a reply to capability. Well, remailer > > software cannot support everything I suppose. (Even if Cracker may > > apparently support this) > > > > I would think the best way to put in a persistent nym capability would be > > to database the PGP key id's along with the persistent identity. Then the > > remailer could produce lines like > > > > From: "Monty Cantsin" > > > > Persistent identities would be created by sending a signed PGP message that > > includes both the PGP public key and the persistent identity. Since the > > identity server would not database email addresses, only PGP key id's, and > > only work for signed messages, there should be no problem with people > > worrying about the remailer being compromised. This also keeps someone > > from stealing another's reputation capital. > > Igor's STUMP has a similar feature, although I don't think a lot of posters > currently use it. CBI news agency used to do it until it got tired of signing non-ASCII messages. One of the groups that uses STUMP went even farther and decided to allow only PGP signed anonymous messages. I was really surprised when I saw that provision. - Igor. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Dec 1 06:53:41 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:53:41 +0800 Subject: Kashpureff stuff online In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971201000503.0069ca58@pop.sirius.com> Message-ID: <199712011205.MAA00816@server.test.net> Greg Broiles writes: > CBC has put together a short (7 mins or so) news piece on the > Kashpureff/Alternic situation - it's available via RealVideo (which seems > to run reasonably over my 28.8 modem at home) at > . So what did Kashpureff do? Who is Kashpureff? Is he the guy at Alternic who did some advanced DNS hacking to get Internic DNS root to point to him? Or something else? Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 :: Subject: Re: Pasting in From: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sender: Amad3us Robert Costner says: > It seems to me that the purpose of a remailer is to strip the headers, > including the FROM header, not to put in fake headers. Until someone can > explain it to me, I'd consider the idea of adding a FROM header to > anonymous mail to be asinine. The purpose of a remailer is to allow the sender to be anonymous, so it strips real headers to prevent accidents (eg. subject fields organization etc). Then it has to allow you to put headers back in otherwise you can't interoperate with software. Eg pasting in References:, Subject: (I would like to see Cc: and Bcc: being allowed to be pasted in also). I would also like to see From: pasted in. In fact I can see no purpose to restrict what can be pasted in, other than to reduce complaints to the remailer operator possibly. > Best I can tell, the only reasonable good purpose for this is to create a > persistent nym identity without a reply to capability. Well, remailer > software cannot support everything I suppose. (Even if Cracker may > apparently support this) It's easy enough to allow From:. I do it myself sometimes, and notice Nerthus does also, pasting in From fields works at least with Replay as the exit node, but that results in two From fields. My software shows be all headers. I am not sure what other software would do, probably, only display the first From field (the remailers). I would have thought remailers are not actually trying to advertise their From fields. Perhaps allowing bogus From fields, or even putting in remailer at dev.null if there is not a From field would greatly reduce complaints from clueless users. If you want to you can always put in Sender: remailer at anon.efga.org. > I would think the best way to put in a persistent nym capability would be > to database the PGP key id's along with the persistent identity. Then the > remailer could produce lines like > > From: "Monty Cantsin" That'd do. However you'll notice that my address is: Amad3us which means that I would like it to be pasted in as it is replyable (for encrypted mail) even though not being a nymserver account. > Persistent identities would be created by sending a signed PGP message that > includes both the PGP public key and the persistent identity. Since the > identity server would not database email addresses, only PGP key id's, and > only work for signed messages, there should be no problem with people > worrying about the remailer being compromised. This also keeps someone > from stealing another's reputation capital. Not sure that the assurance is this strong. However the feature would be useful. Amad3us -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 6.6.6 iQCVAwUBNIKq4PKMuKFNFivhAQGvpwP9HnkWew9lSzQ5cj70UehLkopbLJr7YFSq S5ZJzPp2KuYqVpjs7Lyagg0WtFyX9UUFFCXuWemhjJNLAmqQP7fkAnxs1Epq4LTj cd+qn3Y58EQlyQAlFwF/l7bUedWVwcxIkVmR5PxkwG3LTMzYHGLSIuhF6gqanSv0 EyjvkXIw/as= =fbA1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Dec 1 07:05:21 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:05:21 +0800 Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199712011450.GAA18600@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord ?"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"cracker"} = " cpunk mix remix pgp hash ksub esub latent cut ek reord post"; $remailer{'redneck'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"bureau42"} = " cpunk mix pgp ksub hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"neva"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub ?"; $remailer{"lcs"} = " mix"; $remailer{"medusa"} = " mix middle" $remailer{"McCain"} = " mix middle"; $remailer{"valdeez"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"arrid"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"hera"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"htuttle"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut post ek"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix reno winsock) (weasel squirrel medusa) (cracker redneck) (nym lcs) (valdeez arrid hera) This remailer list is somewhat phooey. Go check out http://www.publius.net/rlist.html for a good one. Last update: Thu 23 Oct 97 15:48:06 PDT remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- hera goddesshera at juno.com ------------ 5:03:45 99.86% nym config at nym.alias.net +*#**#**### :34 95.82% redneck config at anon.efga.org #*##*+#**** 2:00 95.44% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com +++ ++++++* 19:18 95.27% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de -- ---+--- 2:34:19 95.16% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net *++***+ ++ 11:26 95.11% replay remailer at replay.com **** *** 10:06 94.93% arrid arrid at juno.com ----.------ 8:50:34 94.41% bureau42 remailer at bureau42.ml.org --------- 3:38:29 93.53% cracker remailer at anon.efga.org + +*+*+*+ 16:32 92.80% jam remailer at cypherpunks.ca + +*-++++ 24:14 92.79% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net -..-..---- 9:59:18 92.22% neva remailer at neva.org ------****+ 1:03:02 90.39% valdeez valdeez at juno.com 4:58:22 -36.97% reno middleman at cyberpass.net 1:01:28 -2.65% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From Chelsea's.Bloody.Carcass.Remailer at sasknet.sk.ca Mon Dec 1 07:22:51 1997 From: Chelsea's.Bloody.Carcass.Remailer at sasknet.sk.ca (Chelsea's.Bloody.Carcass.Remailer at sasknet.sk.ca) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:22:51 +0800 Subject: Sharon Tate's Baby Message-ID: <199712011505.JAA03909@harrier.sasknet.sk.ca> "There are no sounds, only numbers. Turning round and round inside my brain. Turning into words which are stolen from the wind, And imprisoned in a digital refrain." "Analog was King when Elvis crooned. Sound had soul and beauty, dissonance and charm. But war has been declared upon the soul (and imperfection), And the Digital Revolution is the newest call to arms. "Digital Revolution" from "The Tables Have Turned (@ 33 rpm)" by Probable Cause, (c) 1987 Countie Mountie Productions From declan at well.com Mon Dec 1 08:08:54 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:08:54 +0800 Subject: Conservative groups call for new Net "code of conduct" Message-ID: I'm sitting in the National Press Club, in front of a dozen television cameras, where a conservative press conference on Kids and the Net is starting. Groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition are complaining that the Internet industry isn't doing enough to label, filter, and rate the Net and is instead looking to "make a few quick bucks." What prompted this event is a two-day summit about to start here in Washington, DC, where high tech firms are joining senior administration officials. The industry's goal: to head off the sequel to the Communications Decency Act. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana), the bill's chief sponsor, is here today. "It has only been the threat of government involvment that has prompted this industry to take any steps at all," he's saying. "There is a dark side to the Internet. That dark side brings unrestrained, unrestricted pornographic material into every home, every library, every school." Now Karen Jo Gounaud is blasting the American Library Association for the unlikely offense of condoning bestiality. "Parents cannot being to handle these problems alone. It's a village problem and it demands a village solution," she says. The solution, these groups say, is to pressure Internet providers to adopt their "Code of Ethical Conduct." It says: "Will adopt terms-of-service policies stating that it reserves the right to take action in good faith to restrict availability of material that it considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Among other things, the code calls for Usenet filtering and "parental controls as the default settings" for minors. In a few hours (in the same room, in fact), civil liberties and journalism groups are going to be arguing against "mandatory voluntary" rating systems and pointing out their flaws. This leaves the White House precisely where it wants to be: squarely in the middle. More on this later. -Declan From mnemonic at well.com Mon Dec 1 08:14:58 1997 From: mnemonic at well.com (Mike Godwin) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:14:58 +0800 Subject: FC: Revolution and the limits of free speech online In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The proper test is not the Yates test, but the test of Brandenburg v. U.S. (1969, I believe), which distinguishes between mere advocacy of violence and "incitement to imminent lawless action" that is "likely to result in such action." Brandenburg is the leading case. Under Brandenburg, Tim May or anyone else could call for violent revolution (or for the commission of other violent acts) and the speech is understood to be protected. Only an incitement to *imminent* (that is, immediate) violent action, where such incitement is likely to cause an unreflective response, is punishable. The facts of Brandenburg concern a speech given at a KKK rally in which the speaker called for a race war and "revengeance" against non-whites. The speech was deemed to be protected by the First Amendment. The decision was authored by Justice Hugo Black. Mike >---- > >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:45:48 -0500 >To: cypherpunks at toad.com >From: Declan McCullagh >Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >So I've been reading "Freedom and the Court" by Henry Abraham, and a >passage in it made me think of Tim May and the cypherpunks list: > > "//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government > of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the > language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of > expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative > proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such > overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized > protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354 > U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for > the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM) > >Some civil liberties lawyers, incidentally, have told me that Internet >messages almost by definition are probably not "direct and imminent >incitement." > >Some excerpts from Yates v. United States: > >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page= >2 >9 > The essential distinction [354 U.S. 298, 325] is that those to whom > the advocacy is addressed must be urged to do something, now or > in the future, rather than merely to believe in something. [...] > > Instances of speech that could be considered to amount to "advocacy > of action" are so few and far between as to be almost completely > overshadowed by the hundreds of instances in the record in which > overthrow, if mentioned at all, occurs in the course of doctrinal > disputation so remote from action as to be almost wholly lacking > in probative value. Vague references to "revolutionary" or > "militant" action of an unspecified character, which are found > in the evidence, might in addition be given too great weight by > the jury in the absence of more precise instructions. > Particularly in light of this record, we must regard the trial > court's charge in this respect as furnishing wholly inadequate > guidance to the jury on this central point in the case. We cannot > allow a conviction to stand on such "an equivocal direction to > the jury on a basic issue." > >-Declan > > >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:25:01 -0500 >To: Declan McCullagh , cypherpunks at toad.com >From: Duncan Frissell >Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >At 12:45 AM 11/28/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>So I've been reading "Freedom and the Court" by Henry Abraham, and a >>passage in it made me think of Tim May and the cypherpunks list: > >There is no crime called "advocating revolution" or even >"revolution." The crime that is being discussed in such cases is >"sedition." > >Any US Attorney will tell you that sedition convictions are hard to >win because of the difficulty proving that the defendant actually >tried to do so in a realistic way. Tough. > >The trial of a group of isolationists during WWII and some white >supremacists a few years ago resulted in acquittals. > >DCF > > > >Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:33:10 -0800 >To: Declan McCullagh , cypherpunks at toad.com >From: Bill Stewart >Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >At 12:45 AM 11/28/1997 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> "//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government >> of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the >> language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of >> expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative >> proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such >> overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized >> protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354 >> U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for >> the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM) >> >>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page >>=2 >Actually, the linewrap munged the "page=298" at the end, leaving a >reference is Reid vs. Covert, another fascinating case, >dealing with the limits on US jurisdiction on citizens outside the 48 states, >in particarticular military jurisdiction and territorial jurisdictions >(including pointers to the cases about confiscation of Mormon Church property >during the Defense Of Marriage\\\\\\\\\\\anti-polygamy legislation.) > >Yates, a case about the legalization of Communism, is at >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page= >2 >98 . >While the primary opinion of the court was as above, the court >unfortunately stopped short of the blazingly absolutist defense of free speech >by Justice Hugo Black (joined by Douglas), in an opinion that partially >concurs and partially dissents, and is therefore only dicta. > "I believe that the First Amendment forbids Congress to punish people > for talking about public affairs, whether or not such discussion > incites to action, legal or illegal." ...... > >It was either this case or cases like it that spurred the >John Birch Society to their calls for impeaching Earl Warren, >even before that pinko compounded his anti-Americanism by >insisting that cops read people their rights and get search warrants. > >As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never >heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government. >He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it >(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed), >and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of >black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself >first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges >or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying. > >Not guilty. > > > Thanks! > Bill > > > >Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:04:58 -0700 >To: Bill Stewart , Declan McCullagh , > cypherpunks at toad.com >From: Tim May >Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? > >At 11:33 PM -0700 11/29/97, Bill Stewart wrote: > >>As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never >>heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government. >>He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it >>(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed), >>and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of >>black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself >>first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges >>or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying. >> >>Not guilty. > >An almost complete summary of my stance. > >But Bill left out the third leg of my tripod, that I expect to wake up some >morning and learn that some major city, perhaps Washington, D.C. has been >nuked or bugged. > >And, as I am fond of saying, I doubt I'll shed any tears. > >(Which got first twisted into "Tim wants to see D.C. nuked) (possibly >true), and then further mutated into "Tim is involved in a conspiracy to >help terrorists destroy major cities" (possibly true)). > >Fortunately for me, none of these legs of the tripod are (yet) illegal, >though I gather from what I saw of several of Hettinga's recent foamings >that he thinks they should be. > >--Tim May > > >The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send >"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo at vorlon.mit.edu. >More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- We shot a law in _Reno_, just to watch it die. Mike Godwin, EFF Staff Counsel, is currently on leave from EFF, participating as a Research Fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center in New York City. He can be contacted at 212-317-6552. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Off-Topic.Header.Remailer at sasknet.sk.ca Mon Dec 1 08:20:50 1997 From: Off-Topic.Header.Remailer at sasknet.sk.ca (Off-Topic.Header.Remailer at sasknet.sk.ca) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:20:50 +0800 Subject: None Message-ID: <199712011606.KAA09944@harrier.sasknet.sk.ca> Anon-To: From vin at shore.net Mon Dec 1 08:28:02 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:28:02 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971130213445.006ad57c@popd.netcruiser> Message-ID: G'day Jonathan, Could you please identify this "bank card company" by name, card, nation, etc. ? Without some explicit cite of a commercial entity -- or a reference to some "strip-'em-naked-with-electrons" Police R&D group like the guys at Rome AFB -- this report sounds like another of those ID-Implant fantasies circulated by the guys who are bolting steel plate to their screen doors and programming their backyard AA to auto-target (a) Black Helicopters (b) which are on low-level rapid approach (c) full Oriental, Arab, and Hispanic troopers (c) wearing Blue Helmets. Got a single verifiable fact you could share? Or, with further checking, could you confirm that is this just another spicy rumor crafted to keep the boyos in the hills rubbing garlic into their hollow-points with proper militia enthusiasm? (Not that I don't enjoy a good tale to wake up sleepy Computer Science undergrads, mind you...) Up the Revolution, _Vin >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >I just heard that a bank card company has just released a program for using >photos of the iris in people's eyes as a biometric ID to replace people's >PIN codes for ATM / credit cards. What I found really interesting is how >they plan to implement it. As people use the ATM, they are photographed. >(Every ATM has a security camera.) Over time, as people use the ATM, the >security camera images are composited to produce a high-quality image of >their irises, which is coded and placed in their account information. Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> -- From frissell at panix.com Mon Dec 1 08:34:24 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:34:24 +0800 Subject: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES In-Reply-To: <199711132216.QAA07981@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971201112809.036f79cc@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES decision is up (or part of it anyway): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/962412p.html This is the conclusion which cuts off at that last comma. U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES Certainly, such a conclusion would be reasonable based upon this promotional description coupled with the singular character of Hit Man, which is so narrowly focused in its subject matter and presenta- tion as to be effectively targeted exclusively to criminals. In other words, despite the fact that Paladin may technically offer the book for sale to all comers, we are satisfied that a jury could, based upon Hit Man's seemingly exclusive purpose to assist murderers in the com- mission of murder, reasonably conclude that Paladin essentially dis- tributed Hit Man only to murderers and would-be murderers -- that its conduct was not, at least in law, different from that of a publisher (or anyone else) who delivered Hit Man to a specific person or group of persons whom the publisher knew to be interested in murder. And even Paladin effectively concedes that it could be liable were such a finding permissibly made. Paladin's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment at 33 n.24. A conclusion that Paladin directed Hit Man to a discrete group rather than to the public at large would be supported, even if not established, by the evidence that Hit Man is not generally available or sold to the public from the bookshelves of local bookstores, but, rather, is obtainable as a practical matter only by catalogue. Paladin Press is a mail order company, and for the most part does not sell books through retail outlets. In order to procure a copy of Hit Man, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNILllIVO4r4sgSPhAQGqWgP/b+lKC8zDwbhH+33KXZHW4URHajEXqqQK 93gBt0PM7syY9ywTFQ25FKT8+Wak/1zihvx6ymYwNBfH2e9AKROIJ8piJ01s+RFy Cpu0r8FxET7NSHqaKDVyWGtSEqkZjpHfJL7c+aDBAM4bclCE+6VTt/gWWcZoCGJA nwT+pHL+Go4= =3Ch8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at REPLAY.COM Mon Dec 1 08:39:20 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:39:20 +0800 Subject: Freemen and Serfs Message-ID: <199712011615.RAA06313@basement.replay.com> Tim May writes: > Nope. I haven't claimed anything about an elite group trading amongst > themselves. > > Rather, those who use the technology will make more money, and save more of > it, and will then be able to hire out those who failed to, and to buy stuff > made by them. How, exactly? We're not talking about computers as "the technology". We mean anonymous remailers, digital cash, Chaumian credentials, steganography, and other cypherpunk technologies. Who is using these technologies to make more money today? Almost no one. The reason is that the market is far too small. You can't put together a business plan and attract the investment needed if there are only a few hundred cypherpunks as customers. > We've been seeing this for a long time. Not a new concept. For example, > those of us who used our skills and investment inclinations to make a lot > of money are not condemned to "trading only with ourselves." We routinely > trade with others. Totally different. The point is not to trade, it is to do so anonymously and confidentially. You yourself are always whining about how you can't buy and sell your stocks privately, all your financial status being known to the state. Cypherpunk technologies are useless unless all parties to a transaction are using them. If even one party is subject to government or criminal surveillance then other participants will be forced to report the transaction as well. The only hope for these technologies is to spread the base of people using them. It doesn't do any good to use anonymous ecash if no one will accept it for payment. You can't make a living as a nym until there are enough people using these technologies that a business can succeed via anonymous contracting. It all depends on getting a critical mass of users. From tcmay at got.net Mon Dec 1 09:45:38 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 01:45:38 +0800 Subject: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES In-Reply-To: <199711132216.QAA07981@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: At 9:28 AM -0700 12/1/97, Duncan Frissell wrote: >The RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES decision is up (or part of it anyway): > >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/962412p.html >Certainly, such a conclusion would be reasonable based upon this promotional >description coupled with the singular character of Hit Man, which is so >narrowly focused in its subject matter and presenta- tion as to be >effectively targeted exclusively to criminals. In other words, despite the >fact that Paladin may technically offer the book for sale to all comers, we >are satisfied that a jury could, based upon Hit Man's seemingly exclusive >purpose to assist murderers in the com- mission of murder, reasonably >conclude that Paladin essentially dis- tributed Hit Man only to murderers and >would-be murderers -- that its conduct was not, at least in law, different >from that of a publisher (or anyone else) who delivered Hit Man to a specific >person or group of persons whom the publisher knew to be interested in >murder. Perhaps this is the case. So? The publishers of the Hemlock Society books on suicide are obviously targetting their books to would-be suicides. So? The publishers of books about marijuana cultivation are obvious targetting their books to would-be marijuan cultivators. So? The list is long of books and pamphlets which are targetted almost solely to would-be perpetrators of activities deemed illegal. Beer production (violates various laws in most states), smuggling, perhaps even crypto (soon). The judges here in this case have no understanding of why the First Amendment was clear about "Congress shall make no law..." Imagine that the Founders had inserted language along the lines of "...unless the books and speech may be used to assist in the commission of crimes or may be harmful to children and other incapables." That would have ended the publishing of a vast number of books. I realize that the case here is not about prior restraint, but about civil damages. But, as I have pointed out here recently, even civil damages cases rest on "matters of law." Alice cannot sue Bob for damages done to her by, for example, Bob's opening of a rival store in her small town...even if it "forced" her into bankruptcy. Why? Becuase on a matter of law, Bob was committing no crime. (I'm not a lawyer, and some of you are. I'm just pointing this out to some list members who may have fallen for the popular misconception that "anyone can sue." Indeed, anyone may file a lawsuit. This doesn't mean it'll ever reach trial. Naturally, I support "loser pays" rules to cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits.) >A conclusion that Paladin directed Hit Man to a discrete group rather than to >the public at large would be supported, even if not established, by the >evidence that Hit Man is not generally available or sold to the public from >the bookshelves of local bookstores, but, rather, is obtainable as a >practical matter only by catalogue. Paladin Press is a mail order company, >and for the most part does not sell books through retail outlets. In order to >procure a copy of Hit Man, Utter bullshit. A store in Santa Cruz which caters to the piercing and fetish crowd, "Annubis Warpus," had a whole series of Paladin Press books. I recall seeing "Hit Man," a fairly thin paperback (as most Paladin and Delta Press books are). As to why Barnes and Noble and Borders and Crown Books don't carry these books. Think: political correctness. And I've seen many, many Paladin books for sale at gun shows. I've even bought some. (Always better to pay with cash than to mail-order these books, as I expect someday the lists of purchasers of some of these books will be turned over to the Thought Police.) Blaming Paladin because some wimp-simp book buyer for Barnes and Noble said "ick!" when she saw the Paladin catalog is absurd. These judges need to be taught a lesson in what a free press is all about. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From whgiii at invweb.net Mon Dec 1 10:00:09 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:00:09 +0800 Subject: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971201112809.036f79cc@panix.com> Message-ID: <199712011749.MAA27922@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.2.32.19971201112809.036f79cc at panix.com>, on 12/01/97 at 11:28 AM, Duncan Frissell said: >A conclusion that Paladin directed Hit Man to a discrete group rather >than to the public at large would be supported, even if not established, >by the evidence that Hit Man is not generally available or sold to the >public from the bookshelves of local bookstores, but, rather, is >obtainable as a practical matter only by catalogue. Paladin Press is a >mail order company, and for the most part does not sell books through >retail outlets. In order to procure a copy of Hit Man, The logic in this conclusion is all wrong. The reason Hit Man, and other such "undrground" text, are not available on the local book stores is because the major publishing houses will not print them! Paladin Press is a mail order company because major retailers will not shelf the books that they print. I can hardly see Paladin turning down a 100,000 copy order from Barns & Nobel or Books-A-Million or any of the other major chains. I am quite sure that if one looks at the records of Paladin one will see that they sold their books to whomever wished to purchase them (after all thet is the business they are in). I can see it now the 1st Amendment only applies if you can sell a million copies of your words. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIL4a49Co1n+aLhhAQLEVwP+OTtNmi/A1Y//YxYLwjyGmD1QWqjmPB5U 5JRhD/kwxSvdSctmunDVta/jWNsdBpEubavex67zQ75/XEq99SJvp2BBBjN7H9bJ aEhmTcYN8jqodSzXeLmeNGBlyKVsA/vdMybPa+6Q2KkMWWMY0Y9pgWX8kk1K1sfF wjtywX/G04I= =uGPm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Mon Dec 1 10:07:05 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com (owner-cypherpunks at toad.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:07:05 +0800 Subject: Another Anti-Privacy Bigot Heard From (was: The Guilmette/Burnore deba In-Reply-To: <65sbi0$enj$1@owl.slip.net> Message-ID: <2964c77a90e63d9384fa24a50eb9c955@anonymous.poster> Joe "We are Borg" Foster wrote: > > That was an impressive tantrum that you and Belinda just staged. I > > suppose you thought it would distract attention from the fact that > > you still refuse to reveal what your motive was for harassing Jeff > > Burchell this summer in a failed attempt to get him to turn over the > > logs containing the names and e-mail addresses of everyone who > > either sent or received an anonymous message through his remailer. > > Et tu, dumbass? Have you forgotten the existence of the "old" Deja News > database? That won't work for two reasons: First, Gary is now "cloaking" his posts with an "X-No-Archive" header to keep them from being archived by neutral parties such as DejaNews. In addition, if you do a search on his name as author in the old database, you get a bunch of matches that say "article not available", indicating that he's requested that such articles be removed from the archives. Second, how does one search for something that was never posted? The only thing I see in the Deja News archives is Jeff Burchell's explanation of Burnore's $cientology-esque attack on his remailer: -> Subject: Re: DataBasix vs. the Remailers -- Gary Burnore's -> Dirty Tricks Exposed (was: Jeff's Side of the Story.) -> From: toxic at hotwired.com (Jeff Burchell) -> Date: 1997/07/02 -> Message-ID: <5pc9mb$omg$1 at re.hotwired.com> -> -> [...] -> -> : > Mr. Burnore requested a copy of my (non-existant) logs. -> : > I told him to get me something in writing, signed by his lawyer that -> : > stipulated that the logs were confidential, and not to be revealed to -> : > anyone outside of the lawyer's office. -> : -> : He requested the logs of the messages of *EVERYONE* using Huge -> : Cajones? What was his rationale for such a fishing expedition? -> : (Cases like this are a good reason for remailers to NOT keep logs.) -> -> I have no idea of his rationale. And I don't know of any remailer -> operator who keeps logs that would identify a user. I had my machine -> configured to log in a fairly standard way, but I used a different -> sendmail configuration for the remailer, that had all logging (except -> for certain error conditions) turned off. -> -> Part of me thinks he wanted the logs so he could tell if I was going -> to be able to identify him when he started his attacks. Thus far, that's the best explanation I've seen for Gary Burnore's threats and harassment. > > If posts from "anon assholes" really offend your sensitive feelings, > > then you might want to stay away from most of the NGs where you've > > been posting your blather. SUGGESTION: stick with "safe" groups > > like comp.org.cauce where anonymous posts are banned and content is > > censo^h^h^h^h^hmoderated to ensure an appropriate level of political > > correctness. > > Posts from assholes definitely offend me, whether they're anon or not! True, but the chance that somone might be offensive is not sufficient reason to censor it. (If that were true, Usenet references to Whitewater might be declared "pornographic" by the Clinton administration.) Gary Burnore keeps whining about posts from "ANON assholes" not just "assholes" in general. That definitely reveals something about him. If he were to gripe about posts from "black assholes", one might (rightly) conclude that he was a racist. If he were flaming posts from "gay assholes", you'd probably figure that he was a homophobe, right? The fact that he doesn't flame the CONTENT but some characteristic about the author marks him as a bigot. > Well, if you really think about it, just about any news post might be > "anonymous". After all, how do you know that whoever typed all this is > really named "Joe Foster"? You don't! Remember "Mahmud al-Hijazi"? You've got a point there. I don't place much faith in what I see in the From: line, even if it appears to be a valid e-mail address. From sm at dev.null Mon Dec 1 10:29:20 1997 From: sm at dev.null (Spam Man) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:29:20 +0800 Subject: Spammernomicon Message-ID: <3482FD71.3557@dev.null> Selected passages from Spam-Bot: A Technical Manual for Independent Spammers. It is my opinion that the professional spammer fills a need in society and is, at times, the only alternative for "personal" anonymity. Moreover, if my advice and the proven methods in this book are followed, certainly no one will ever discover your identity. Almost every man harbors a fantasy of living the life of Dimitri Vulis or some other fictional hero who spams for fun and profit. They dream of living by their knee-jerk reflexes, of doing whatever is necessary without regard to moral or legal restrictions. But few have the courage or knowledge to make that dream a reality. You might be like my friends -- interested but unsure, standing on the sidelines afraid to play the game because you don't know the rules. [But] within the pages of this book you will learn one of the most successful methods of remailer operation used by an independent spam-bot operator. You will follow the procedures of a man who works alone, without backing of organized crime or on a personal vendetta. Step by step you will be taken from research to equipment selection to job preparation to successful job completion. You will learn where to find employment, how much to charge, and what you can, and cannot, do with the money you earn. But deny your urge to skip about, looking for the "good" parts. Start where any amateur who is serious about turning professional will start -- at the beginning. [And when] [y]ou've read all the suggested material, you [will have] honed your mind, body and reflexes into a precision piece of spamming machinery. You [will have] assembled the necessary tools and learned to use them efficiently. Your knowledge of dealing spam [will have] increased to the point where you have a choice of methods. [After you spammed your first victim,] you felt absolutely nothing. And you are shocked by the nothingness. You had expected this moment to be a spectacular point in your life. You had wondered if you would feel compassion for the victim, immediate guilt, or even experience direct intervention by the hand of God. But you weren't even feeling sickened by the sight of the victim�s pathetic reply. After you have arrived home the events that took place take on a dreamlike quality. You don't dwell on them. You don't worry. You don't have nightmares. You don't fear ghosts. When thoughts of the hit go through your mind, it's almost as though you are recalling some show you saw on television. [E]verything seems to have changed. The people around you have suddenly become so aggravatingly ordinary. You start to view them as an irritating herd of pathetic sheep, doing as they are told, doing what is expected, following someone, anyone, blindly. You can't believe how dumb your friends have become, and your respect diminishes for people you once held in awe. You too have become different. You recognize that you made some mistakes, but you know what they were, and they will never plague you again. Next time (and you know there will be a next time), there will be no hesitation, no fear. Your experience in facing anti-spammers head-on has taught you about life. You have the power and ability to stand alone. You no longer need a reason to spam. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Dec 1 10:34:20 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:34:20 +0800 Subject: Stanford student "blacklisted" from jobs because of his Internet writings Message-ID: Here's a good argument for anonymity: New York Observer: November 24, 1997 Salomon Brothers Tattler Gets Famous on the Web by Tinker Spitz Tim Shields, a student at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, spent the summer working as an investment banking summer associate for Salomon Brothers. He didn't like it much. When he got back to Stanford, he wrote two articles about his experiences and published them in The Reporter, a business school publication. No harm done, right? Wrong. Now, through the magic of the Internet, all of Wall Street is aware of Mr. Shields' complaints. Overworked bankers, chained to their desks, often turn to their computers for entertainment to break up the tedium of creating shareholder profiles and whatever other dreary analyses their clients might demand of them. Lately, Mr. Shields' bitter article, making the rounds by e-mail, has been that entertainment. Mr. Shields was merciless in his depiction of Salomon Brothers and the people he encountered from other business schools. Here is a line that nicely sums up his impression of his summer: "The 38 members of my Investment Banking Summer Associate class represented a wide range of personality types, from the merely obnoxious to the moderately narcissistic to the overwhelmingly repugnant." He also makes Salomon Brothers chief executive Deryck Maughan look like either a hypocrite or a fool. In a meeting on Aug. 18 with the investment banking unit, Mr. Shields reports, Mr. Maughan said, "We have absolutely no reason to believe that we are a buyout target, nor that we will be in the near future." Only weeks later, Salomon Brothers was acquired by the Travelers Group Inc. Mr. Shields also remarked on the general climate at Salomon: He writes that a managing director at the firm told him, "Salomon Brothers is just not a culture where anyone says 'please' or 'thank you' or 'good job.'" And, according to the much e-mailed articles, one Salomon vice president told Mr. Shields, "You don't want this job. You really don't want this job. You get sucked in by the money and then find yourself trapped and miserable like I am. Don't be me." Salomon Brothers had no comment on the matter. The writer was at his most cutting in his assessment of his fellow summer associates, classifying them by school. Those from University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School were, in Mr. Shields' estimation, "boorish and dull, and interacting with them was like being locked in a room with a Bloomberg machine, except that the Bloomberg screen has two dimensions." Mr. Shields writes that he amused himself by needling the Columbia Business School students with his own feeling of Stanford superiority: "If I was in a truly nasty mood, I would follow up with a discussion hypothesizing on the quality-of-life differences between Palo Alto and Harlem. As you might guess, I wasn't too popular among the Columbia crowd." His take on those from Northwestern University's J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management? "Not the sharpest Ginsu knives in the set, they were as out of place on Wall Street as you might expect from people who'd spent the prior year intensely debating the merits of Dave Thomas appearing in person in the Wendy's commercials." About those from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, Mr. Shields writes, "I think I found Waldo. Every stereotype you ever heard about M.I.T. is true. These guys were such incredible weenies, brilliantly managing to combine both the brainpower and social grace of an HP 19B-II." And the Harvard Business School types? "Floating through the summer like Cinderella at the ball, they expected you to accept their jargon-laced drivel with the same attitude that Moses and his stone tablets received on Sinai." Mr. Shields' articles first drew the attention of Wall Street when they appeared in the on-line version of The Reporter. Someone an incensed first-year Salomon Brothers associate, according to a source downloaded them and attached the following message: "A Stanford student who did not receive an offer from Salomon Brothers was bold enough to put his name in print with these two articles. Maybe he doesn't want a job at all ..." Then the associate started e-mailing like crazy, sending the piece to job recruiters, among others, the source said. Mr. Shields' fame on the Web could not have come at a worse time. Now in the middle of on-campus job interviews, trying to parlay his $80,000 M.B.A. degree into a full-time job, Mr. Shields' only hope is that someone who may well have attended one of the schools he slagged is willing to hire a guy who went gleefully public with a nasty description of life with a previous employer. According to a friend of Mr. Shields, the e-mail has indeed come up in his first four interviews. "They seemed as though they were giving him a chance to explain himself," said the friend, "but when I talked to him, he hadn't heard yet whether he had gotten a call back which would be the ultimate test of whether they were willing to overlook it." Stanford is most certainly not standing behind its student. "That was a real silly thing for him to do, and not in any way appropriate," said George Parker, director of Stanford's M.B.A. program. "It's just arrogant." Other business students are aghast. "No one could believe that he would write this and not realize what the ramifications or consequences might be," said one. Mr. Shields would not comment for this article. People who know him said he's a nice guy despite his sharp edges. One friend, Giles Kavanagh, a Web site producer in New York, described Mr. Shields as "very ambitious" and "extraordinarily hard-working," adding, "He disguises his ambition." The son of a New York City police detective, Mr. Shields, now in his mid-20's, attended Regis High School (a Jesuit school on the Upper West Side) and received his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Before going for his M.B.A. at Stanford in 1996, he spent three years in the financial division at J.P. Morgan & Company. "He's always had an interest in making money," Mr. Kavanagh said. But that may be more difficult now, since the e-mail has apparently fallen into the hands of recruiters. One anonymous friend said that, while Mr. Shields has decided that "investment banking wasn't really for him ... he still didn't mean to get himself blacklisted across Wall Street." The friend added that Mr. Shields is trying to get a job in either private client services, a field related to investment banking, or consulting. Given his bitterness, his ambition, his ability to turn a phrase, his lack of respect for authority and his willingness to squawk about people he has met, perhaps Mr. Shields should consider a career in the glorious field of journalism. ============================================================================= --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From nobody at REPLAY.COM Mon Dec 1 10:35:08 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:35:08 +0800 Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? Message-ID: <199712011825.TAA22548@basement.replay.com> Tim May writes: > At 11:33 PM -0700 11/29/97, Bill Stewart wrote: > > >As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never > >heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government. > >He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it > >(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed), > >and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of > >black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself > >first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges > >or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying. > > > >Not guilty. > > An almost complete summary of my stance. > > But Bill left out the third leg of my tripod, that I expect to wake up some > morning and learn that some major city, perhaps Washington, D.C. has been > nuked or bugged. You've both forgotton the fourth leg of the tripod, the one where Tim May calls for the governor of Florida to be shot (along with other officials). Governor Chiles' capital crime? He refused to allow California wine to be sold in Florida. On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote: > Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against the > Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other traitors. Everyone likes to overlook this, pretending that May didn't mean it. Well, he never withdrew it, did he? He never apologized for it. He's on the record as explicitly calling for the murder of high officials. And of course May further revealed his true colors with this horror, from the same message: > Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right thing. > Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that. May's apologists have tried to pretend that he didn't say this, that he said that he was beginning to understand McVeigh, or something. That's not what he says here. He says he is becoming convinced that McVeigh did the right thing in murdering all those people. He callously compares the shattered bodies of the children and other innocent victims to broken eggshells. Monty Cantsin has provided us a moving description of the painful deaths of the children in Waco. Will dying of asphyxiation under pressure too great even to draw a breath be any easier? Again, you will search the archives in vain to find any apology for this, any withdrawal. May hides behind the words of others, as he does above, hoping that their softened interpretations will make people forget the plain facts about what he wrote. If Tim May does not agree with the quotes above, let him say so now. From honig at otc.net Mon Dec 1 11:15:05 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:15:05 +0800 Subject: At night, the ice weasels come... In-Reply-To: <34803754.42E5@dev.null> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971201094034.007f2620@206.40.207.40> At 11:24 PM 11/29/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >What will Cottrell do if someone uses his anonymizer(R)[TM] to connect to >someone's web server many times in a row, requesting the same pages, and >the admins of said server whine about "denial of service" attacks? > Is there any legal precident for charging someone with a crime related to DoS? With a crime related to HTTP-exploitation DoS? ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From tcmay at got.net Mon Dec 1 11:23:47 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:23:47 +0800 Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? In-Reply-To: <199712011825.TAA22548@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: At 11:25 AM -0700 12/1/97, Anonymous wrote: >You've both forgotton the fourth leg of the tripod, the one where Tim May >calls for the governor of Florida to be shot (along with other officials). >Governor Chiles' capital crime? He refused to allow California wine to >be sold in Florida. On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote: > >> Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against the >> Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other traitors. > >Everyone likes to overlook this, pretending that May didn't mean it. Well, >he never withdrew it, did he? He never apologized for it. He's on the >record as explicitly calling for the murder of high officials. Withdraw it? Apologize for it? I am free to call for the execution of anyone I damned well wish. OJ, McVeigh, the English nanny, Lawton Chiles, and so on. The First Amendment doesn't contain exceptions for such things. Sen. Jesse Helms was not prosecuted, nor even sanctioned by the Senate, for saying that if President Clinton ever visits Georgia he'd better be wearing a bulletproof vest. Face it, Anonymous, free speech means just that. Short of directly threatening the President or his family, or issuing direct (credible, proximate) threats to judges and perhaps some others, we as Americans are free to call for OJ to be taken out and have his throat cut, figuratively speaking, to call for trials for various criminals (including political criminals), and to speculate as we wish about whether the OKC bombing was a good thing or not. Get used to it, Anonymous, as it's the law. (More wimp simp jabbering elided....) >Again, you will search the archives in vain to find any apology for this, >any withdrawal. May hides behind the words of others, as he does above, >hoping that their softened interpretations will make people forget the >plain facts about what he wrote. > >If Tim May does not agree with the quotes above, let him say so now. Maybe I don't "withdraw" comments or "apologize" for them because I don't do either. Ever think of that, Anonymous halfwit? (Anonymity has certain aspects, good and bad. I notice, though, that an inordinate number of my critics are using "Anonymous." Probably just one frustrated do-gooder who can't stand the tenor of the list, but chooses to remain anonymous out of simpering fear.) I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Get used to it. Or leave, even better. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From pooh at efga.org Mon Dec 1 11:24:22 1997 From: pooh at efga.org (Robert A. Costner) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:24:22 +0800 Subject: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971201112809.036f79cc@panix.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201141528.037e8988@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> At 11:38 AM 12/1/97 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote: >The reason Hit Man, and other such "undrground" text, are not available on >the local book stores is because the major publishing houses will not >print them! Paladin Press is a mail order company because major retailers >will not shelf the books that they print. I can hardly see Paladin turning >down a 100,000 copy order from Barns & Nobel or Books-A-Million or any of >the other major chains. I am quite sure that if one looks at the records >of Paladin one will see that they sold their books to whomever wished to >purchase them (after all thet is the business they are in). Barnes and Noble does in fact sell "Hit Man" for $10, the apparent list price. While a non stocked item, it can be special ordered and the delivery time is claimed to be four to six weeks (I've found that in practice about one week is usually required on special orders.) Ingram Books (wholesale) does not seem to carry Hit Man, but Amazon.com has it in stock for $8, delivery in two to four days. -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh at efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key From vin at shore.net Mon Dec 1 11:39:15 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:39:15 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs Message-ID: My apologies to Jonathan, the boyos in the Hills, and those watching for the Choppers. I wrote: |> Could you please identify this "bank card company" by name, card, nation, |>etc. ? The vendor, Sensar, Inc. is planning to unveil the system at the Banking Administration Institute's conference in New Orleans the day after tomorrow. The company's version of the product and its expected use is a little less conspiratorial than Jonathan's post to C'punks -- but it more than suffices to force me to eat crow for my scepticism and unwarranted sarcasm. >> IrisIdent is a biometric identification system that uses the unique >> patterns of the human iris to verify an individual's identity. Using a >> standard video camera, the system takes a picture of an individual's iris >> and compares it with a previously stored iris image. The result is a >>rapid >> validation of the individual's identity. With an empirically determined >> crossover error rate of less than 1 error in 131,578 transactions, iris >> identification is more reliable and less intrusive than fingerprinting or >> retinal scanning. Its security cannot be bypassed or compromised. >> Pilot systems are available on a limited basis, with full production >> scheduled for later in 1997. In addition, Sensar is planning to launch >> follow-on applications for a wide range of financial applications, >>such as >> new account openings, bank wire transfers and government services. >> Smart Camera is a future offering from Sensar. It will combine the same >> technology with a stand-alone (non-PC-based) camera to verify >> customer identification at point-of-sale locations, business >>workstations, >> and home computers. |> Without some explicit cite of a commercial entity -- or a reference to some |>"strip-'em-naked-with-electrons" Police R&D group like the guys at Rome AFB -- this |>report sounds like another of those ID-Implant fantasies circulated by the guys who |>are bolting steel plate to their screen doors and programming their backyard AA to |>auto-target (a) Black Helicopters (b) which are on low-level rapid approach (c) full |>Oriental, Arab, and Hispanic troopers (c) wearing Blue Helmets. The CNN news report (only a little less worrisome than Jonathan's post) is at: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9711/30/eyeball.id.ap/index.html |> Or, with further checking, could you confirm that is this just another spicy |> rumor crafted to keep the boyos in the hills rubbing garlic into their hollow-points |> with proper militia enthusiasm? (Not that I don't enjoy a good tale to wake up |> sleepy Computer Science undergrads, mind you...) |> Up the Revolution, |> _Vin Jonathan Wienke warned us all: >I just heard that a bank card company has just released a program for using >photos of the iris in people's eyes as a biometric ID to replace people's >PIN codes for ATM / credit cards. What I found really interesting is how >they plan to implement it. As people use the ATM, they are photographed. >(Every ATM has a security camera.) Over time, as people use the ATM, the >security camera images are composited to produce a high-quality image of >their irises, which is coded and placed in their account information. Once >this is accomplished, when a card is inserted into the ATM and the security >camera gets an iris image that matches the account sufficiently closely, >the user can conduct transactions without entering the PIN code. People >affected by this will merely receive a letter that under certain >circumstances, entering the PIN is no longer necessary, but this is not a >security problem. > >This scenario may not be a security problem, but it certainly poses a >privacy problem. Given the frequency that the average Joe Sixpack uses the >ATM, it is only a matter of time before the government mandates a >nationwide eyeprint ID database to catch ATM and credit card theives, money >launderers, tax cheats, and other undesirables. Perhaps the eyeprint could >even replace or supplement the SSN as the unique taxpayer ID key for tax >and other purposes. Of course, given the fact that ATMs have had cameras >from the start, this theoretical eyeprint database could already be under >construction. How's that for paranoia? >:-( > >Of course, there are a few ways to beat this, such as mirror sunglasses, >(which would only be useful while alternative credentials to eyeprint ID >are still available) and contact lenses, (which would have to be carefully >oriented so that the same side of the lens was always up, or the fact that >you are wearing contacts and are therefore a Suspicious Person� would >become obvious to the system) and of course intraocular implants of various >types. Of course if the implant's power-on LED gives your eyes a constant >Satanic red glow, you may be flagged as a Suspicious Person� anyway. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 > Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> -- From ppomes at Qualcomm.com Mon Dec 1 12:07:43 1997 From: ppomes at Qualcomm.com (Paul Pomes) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 04:07:43 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2367.881005036@zelkova.qualcomm.com> At 10:50 EST on Monday, December 1, 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: |G'day Jonathan, | | Could you please identify this "bank card company" by name, card, |nation, etc. ? You *could* read the newspaper... /pbp ==== Body Parts May Become a Way To Identify ATM Customers By GORDON FAIRCLOUGH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Thomas J. Drury walks up to the automated-teller machine in his suburban office and swipes his bank card. Instead of punching in a secret code, however, he stares straight ahead. The machine verifies his identity by looking at his eyes. If Mr. Drury, chief executive officer of Sensar Corp., and his colleagues have their way, this eye-scanning technology will become standard equipment on ATMs around the world. It is being tested by NCR Corp. and Citicorp, among others. [...] From ichudov at www.video-collage.com Mon Dec 1 13:25:10 1997 From: ichudov at www.video-collage.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 05:25:10 +0800 Subject: More Government Sanctioned Theft In-Reply-To: <65k64e$coq@snews3.zippo.com> Message-ID: [This message has also been posted.] In ok.general, Jerry Morgan wrote: * easttom at redriverok.com (Chuck Easttom) wrote: * > 2. What the hell legit reason is there for a man to be driving around with * >132 K in a truck?? * > * * The simple possession of any amount of money is not subject to "police * approval", unless of course we are living in a police state. * * As I understand the "story" the police stopped the guy, searched the * car, found the money, seized it and then let the guy go without * charging him with anything. A nice cool 132K profit for a few minutes * work, just like an armed robbery. It would appear that this "cops and * robbers scenario" has the cops playing both roles.S ... ... ... * tactics will have 132K for new police equipment. Too bad they won't * use it to buy copies of the U.S. Constitution for their officers to * read, but after all they wouldn't want them getting any *wrong ideas* That would be a "hate crime". According to a message in the cypherpunks mailing list (which I unfortunately deleted, with references to more details on some websites), there was a conference on "hate crimes" recently. There, they discussed "profiles" and signs of "hate crimes", and among signs there were discussions of the constitution and founding fathers. If someone has any more information on that, please let us know. -- - Igor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} From shamrock at cypherpunks.to Mon Dec 1 13:27:20 1997 From: shamrock at cypherpunks.to (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 05:27:20 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: > G'day Jonathan, > > Could you please identify this "bank card company" by name, card, > nation, etc. ? > > Without some explicit cite of a commercial entity -- or a reference > to some "strip-'em-naked-with-electrons" Police R&D group like the guys at > Rome AFB -- this report sounds like another of those ID-Implant fantasies > circulated by the guys who are bolting steel plate to their screen doors > and programming their backyard AA to auto-target (a) Black Helicopters (b) > which are on low-level rapid approach (c) full Oriental, Arab, and Hispanic > troopers (c) wearing Blue Helmets. "There are, however, two companies working on devices that examine the human iris, the most notably being IrisScan who owns the patent. The technique's major advantage over retina scans is that it does not require the user to focus on a target, because the iris pattern is on the eye's surface. In fact, the video image of an eye can be taken from several up to 3 feet away, and the user does not have to interact actively with the device. Sensar, a company that has licensed the iris scanning technology from IriScan hopes to position its IrisIdent product into ATMs in the coming years." http://www.ctst.com/ff_industry.html I suggest you contact the manufacturer for more information. -- Lucky Green PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" From declan at well.com Mon Dec 1 13:52:12 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 05:52:12 +0800 Subject: Solveig Singleton on "Brave New Partners in Net censorship" Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 16:26:03 -0500 From: Solveig Singleton To: declan at well.com Op-ed: Brave New Partners In Internet Censorship by Solveig Singleton (solveig at cato.org) Solveig Singleton is the director of information studies at the Cato Institute. A few short months ago, the Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment protects the Internet just as it protects booksellers, newspapers and books when it found the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional. That critical ruling signaled censorious governments in countries like Argentina, China, Germany and Zambia that the United States would not provide a precedent for blocking undesirable Internet content. Yet now the computer industry flirts with technologies of "self-censorship" at a December Internet summit under the guiding hand of the Clinton administration. The summit, called Focus on Children, poses subtle new dangers to free speech on the Internet. The First Amendment keeps the government out of the business of controlling media content. Private citizens are free to follow their consciences in choosing their own reading material and guiding their children to seek out or avoid certain information. There's no First Amendment objection when a newspaper editor refuses to print an article or when parents take books away from their children, or use a "censorware" program like SurfWatch in their own homes. The private sector is allowed to edit, to exclude and to silence speech). The public sector is not. But the summit's organizers call for "partnership" between industry and government in keeping "inappropriate" material from children. President Clinton is expected to attend. The summit emerged from a July meeting of President Clinton, Vice President Gore and some of the groups involved in the lawsuit against the Communications Decency Act. As it blurs the line between public and private, the Focus on Children summit becomes government action disguised as parental action. Filtering software like SurfWatch and the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) -- a computer language standard that allows labels to be attached to Internet content -- are fine as long as they stay in the private sector, driven by customer demand and free choice. There's no need for a summit to make that happen. With nothing better to do, politicians and sensationalists are likely to use the occasion to shine a media spotlight on the dangers of the Internet. Government pressure will make it all the more likely that the computer industry will be unable to resist calls for mandatory PICS or universal filters built into the fabric of the Internet itself. Disturbingly, the summit's program suggests that free speech rights do not necessarily rank high in the sponsors' priorities. Its sponsors include, for example, the conservative group Enough is Enough; the summit's Web site links to their pro-CDA arguments but not to anti-CDA sites. While some opponents of the CDA are involved, defenders of free speech such as the American Civil Liberties Union are conspicuously absent. Documents promoting the summit describe the CDA as "well intentioned" and note that "supporters and opponents of the CDA agree that children should not have access to inappropriate material on the Internet or in any other medium. The real question is, how best to do it." The right question is whether government has any proper place at the table discussing any of these issues -- and especially in determining what is "inappropriate." The answer is a resounding no. Furthermore, government involvement is not necessary. The vendors of filtering programs have reason enough to ensure that parents are aware of their products. Government involvement promotes political, centralized solutions to what should be private problems. The V-chip is a prime example. Before lawmakers chose to mandate V-chips, entrepreneurs and private groups competed to help parents monitor their children's viewing habits, offering dozens of different blocking technologies as well as ratings and reviews of programs from diverse perspectives. Now the monopoly V-chip threatens to shoulder those offerings out of the picture. Freedom of speech on the Internet offers hope to millions of people around the world who live under political regimes that stifle their access to information. But the Internet's freedom depends on its technology. Politicians should be ashamed to set a precedent in this country by pressuring the industry to engineer this freedom out. We do not need a V-chip for the Internet any more than we need a rating system for libraries or bookstores. ### Solveig Singleton (202) 789-5274 (202) 842-3490 (fax) Director of Information Studies Cato Institute 1000 Mass. Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 From pooh at efga.org Mon Dec 1 14:28:57 1997 From: pooh at efga.org (Robert A. Costner) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 06:28:57 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201170711.03a67820@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> At 11:37 AM 12/1/97 -0800, Paul Pomes wrote: >Thomas J. Drury walks up to the automated-teller machine in his suburban >office and swipes his bank card. Instead of punching in a secret code, >however, he stares straight ahead. The machine verifies his identity by >looking at his eyes. > >If Mr. Drury, chief executive officer of Sensar Corp., and his colleagues >have their way, this eye-scanning technology will become standard equipment >on ATMs around the world. It is being tested by NCR Corp. and Citicorp, >among others. As wonderful as eye scanning technology may sound, it promises to offer very weak identification and only be reliable in the short run. This is based on the premise that a reproduction of an eye will work as well. Just as a reproduction of a driver's license seems to work for check forgery. PINs offer security based on the fact that they are a secret. Not a shared secret. For comparison, take a look at the authentication procedure of the SSA and Wells Fargo bank. Over the internet, both want Social Security Number Date of Birth Mother's Maiden Name Imagine a bank machine requesting the same info as the only prerequisite for dispensing cash! This info might have been a method of secure authentication about the time I was born, but today, such info is almost common knowledge. This no longer is a secret, too many people have the info. Widespread use of eye scanners will provide the same results. As databases are built, and sold, the raw info becomes available and automated tellers become excellent targets for fake authentications. If you get it wrong, you just walk away. Eye scans may help aid authentication, but they should not take the place of PINs. -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh at efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key From vin at shore.net Mon Dec 1 14:47:28 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 06:47:28 +0800 Subject: PGP Inc Sold for $35M - News Flash Message-ID: "PGP acquired by merged security software firm. "Pretty Good Privacy, an encryption company foundered by crypto pioneer Phil Zimmermann, has been acquired by Network Associates, the result of the merger of McAfee Associates and Network General, which closed today. "Network Associates will pay $35 million in cash for PGP. " -- No confirmation or further information available on the PGP, McAfee, or Network General web pages. _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> -- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 1 14:50:05 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 06:50:05 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <199712011450.PAA27128@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201125046.006d2f34@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 03:50 PM 12/01/1997 +0100, Amad3us wrote: >Then it has to allow you to put headers back in otherwise you can't >interoperate with software. Eg pasting in References:, Subject: Pasting those in isn't controversial, and is generally supported; you could be using Subject: pasting today with most remailers, using the ## syntax. >(I would like to see Cc: and Bcc: being allowed to be pasted in also). At minimum, addresses in Cc: and Bcc: need to be checked against blocking lists, and it's probably worth checking the number of names in the list against some threshold - especialy Bcc:s, which tend to be popularly used by spamware. >I would also like to see From: pasted in. In fact I can see no >purpose to restrict what can be pasted in, other than to reduce >complaints to the remailer operator possibly. Too easy to be abused by forgers, as are Reply-To: and Sender:. >My software shows be all headers. I am not sure what other software >would do, probably, only display the first From field (the remailers). MSMail and other closed systems are generally quite arrogant about only showing you the mail headers they "know" you want to see, and discarding the rest, whether that's what you want or not. Lots of mail clients only show you one From:, either discarding others or making them available in a "Show all headers" mode. >However you'll notice that my address is: > Amad3us >which means that I would like it to be pasted in as it is replyable >(for encrypted mail) even though not being a nymserver account. Which is a bit annoying, by the way, for cypherpunks who don't want to read your mail :-) On the other hand, alt.anonymous.messages is a fine place for people to send replies, and you can do things like alt.anonymous.messages at mail2news.some-relay-server.com At one time, there was a message-pool service on the extropia remailer which forwarded anything retrieved to all its subscribers; if the list is small it's not much protection, but it's one way to obscure mail sent to middleman remailers. There are other remailer-like systems that provide mailboxes for anonymous retrieval; I think Jenaer does something like that. And then of course there are hotmail and juno :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 1 14:53:34 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 06:53:34 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201120355.006d2f34@popd.ix.netcom.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Lance Cottrell wrote: >> [Spam baiting, forged mailing list subscriptions] These are easy enough; the address-munging gets rid of these and also things like forgings to alt.test and other bots, though eventually the spammers may catch on to "User Foo com" etc. The hard problem is >> Forged postings with deplorable content will bring down retribution >> on the forgery victim. I shut down my remailer a few years ago because of this one; the forger posted hate mail to the gay newsgroups with the victim's name at the bottom (didn't even use From: pasting, just message body.) Supporting From: pasting just encourages this. It's possible to cancel the one forged usenet message, but that didn't stop the flames many people emailed to her, and fewer systems are accepting cancels these days, especially when forged by remailers... Besides Usenet, other popular tactics for retribution are sending death threats to politicians, sending child pornography to mailing lists, forging messages _from_ politicians, etc. Disclaimer/warning headers help, but can't stop it all. At 10:07 AM 12/01/1997 -0500, Andy Dustman wrote: >Two basic points also about "forgeries". First, you can forge headers >pretty easily without any programs other than telnet. Second, if this This was before Gary Burnore's attacks on the remailer networks, but it's also an obvious tactic for either flamers or Feds to use for getting remailers shut down. If somebody forges a Usenet posting with telnet, it's not _your_ problem (usually). If they use your remailer, it is your problem. And if they get remailers closed down a lot, it's all of our problems. >2) Whenever a From: line is pasted, a disclaimer will be inserted at the >top of the body, stating that the original sender has set the From: line, >and that the identification cannot be verified. The fact that it is up at >the top of the body should mean people should actually see it before >reacting. It's worth also repeating it at the bottom. Putting it in the headers is invisible with most newsreaders, though. By the way, one technical risk with From:-pasting is that you need to parse or substitute special characters including parens and anglebrackets. Otherwise it's easy for people to paste in syntactically incorrect headers, which really annoy some gateways and mail clients - nested parens are a particular problem. Basically, I think you're getting yourself in for excitement and adventure and really wild stuff by supporting this :-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBNIMYKvthU5e7emAFAQFg6wH9HhJ2RJA0SVBAGZ7hu4mo/dtc6PzPB5+g NP2utlAEDSbuTrchPKVw4SkZOdkRWlXLD3nmCsdOScIjuZOQtY8nKw== =vqyf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 1 15:02:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:02:07 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <35071a4de8a2c6f6cf77914c7747760d@anonymous.poster> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201123444.006d2f34@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 12:14 AM 12/01/1997 -0500, Robert A. Costner wrote: >Best I can tell, the only reasonable good purpose for this is to create a >persistent nym identity without a reply to capability. Actually, setting the reply to point to your nymserver address is the one legitimate use I can see for it, though that capability probably should be provided by the nymserver. The reason for chaining through remailers is to gain anonymity. >I would think the best way to put in a persistent nym capability would be >to database the PGP key id's along with the persistent identity. But you don't need a special anonymity server to do that; a keyserver plus either a personna certificate or some archiving mechanism is enough. The certificate shows that you're the first+only person at that certificate issuer to use the name you've chosen; the archive shows that the first poster using the name used PGP Key . I have a PGP key I use for signing pseudonyms which performs the personna certificate function - I'll verify uniqueness of keys that I've signed. > This also keeps someone from stealing another's reputation capital. The PGP signature key is enough to do that, and without the digital signature there's no way to prevent forgery. (I've got mixed feelings about whether to sign a key for a name who has a known history without having the key attached. I've signed Black Unicorn's, but the other nyms I've signed have been for users who announced their key along with their initial use of the nym.) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From vin at shore.net Mon Dec 1 15:15:46 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:15:46 +0800 Subject: PGP Inc Sold for $35M - News Flash Message-ID: Network Associates Acquires Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) 04:46 p.m Dec 01, 1997 Eastern Standard Time SANTA CLARA, Calif., Dec. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA, commencing Dec. 2), formerly McAfee Associates (Nasdaq: MCAF), announced today that it has a signed a definitive agreement to acquire privately-held Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP). The PGP acquisition extends Network Associates' network security and management software products with the leading applied cryptographic security solutions for protecting corporate assets and enabling secure electronic communication. According to an Ernst and Young study, top threats to network security include virus attack, sabotage from inside the firewall and sabotage from outside the firewall. The combination of PGP and Network Associates unites leaders in addressing these corporate security threats. Network Associates' McAfee anti-virus security software is used by over 25 million users and more than 80% of the Fortune 500. With more than four million users in 50 countries, PGP is the worldwide de facto standard for Internet email and file encryption. "The synergy across our product lines is phenomenal," said Bill Larson, chairman and CEO of Network Associates. "We will now be able to provide an integrated software solution for securing both corporate networks and enterprise data." "There is a pressing need for comprehensive, integrated security solutions," said Phil Dunkelberger, general manager of Network Associates' Total Network Security Division, (formerly president and CEO of PGP.) "The combination of resources and talent of the respective companies will provide customers with a premier enterprise-scale security solution." Network Associates leads the way in providing large corporate customers with integrated network security and management suites. Network Associates' Total Virus Defense Suite incorporates client, server and gateway protection against computer viruses, and is a leading offering in its class. The PGP encryption and management products, including the PGP Business Security Suite, will be the cornerstone for a complementary suite offered by Network Associates called the Total Network Security Suite. By combining Network Associates' intrusion and virus detection products with Business Security Suite's desktop encryption software, and key server and policy management tools, the Total Network Security Suite will address, in a single solution, the needs of network administrators and corporate security officers. PGP has long been a pioneer in the security industry, contributing significantly to many of the principles that have driven the industry. Network Associates will continue to support the guiding principles that have made PGP a successful technology. These principles include a commitment to strong encryption and open standards. Network Associates will build on the progress made with the Internet Engineering Task Force, including RFC2015 and the Open PGP working group, to develop standards for security designed to unify industry practice. The acquisition, which is expected to close on or about December 15, 1997, is subject to PGP stockholder approval and other customary closing conditions. Members of PGP's board of directors and management, and certain other major PGP stockholders have agreed separately with Network Associates to vote their PGP shares in favor of the acquisition. The aggregate consideration payable in the acquisition is approximately $36 million (payable at closing in cash and the assumption of certain liabilities) and warrants to acquire a specified number of shares of Network Associates common stock. The acquisition will be accounted for under the purchase method of accounting. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principle, Network Associates expects to incur a significant charge to earnings for the Dec. 31, 1997 quarter related to the purchase of in-process research and development. With headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., Network Associates, Inc., formerly McAfee Associates, is a leading supplier of enterprise network security and management solutions. Network Associates' product offering includes four individual software suites, Total Virus Defense, Total Network Security, Total Network Visibility and Total ServiceDesk, which can be centrally managed from within the Network Associates' NetTools unified management environment. For more information, Network Associates can be reached at 408-988-3832 or on the Web at http://www.networkassociates.com. This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Because such statements apply to future events, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially, including without limitation, integration risks related to the proposed transaction and the risk that the proposed transaction will not be consummated. Important factors which could cause actual results to differ materially are described in Network Associates' reports on Form 10-K and 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. SOURCE Network Associates, Inc. Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> -- From nobody at REPLAY.COM Mon Dec 1 15:17:27 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:17:27 +0800 Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? Message-ID: <199712012255.XAA26038@basement.replay.com> There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially among members whose positions are otherwise indefensible. It's surprising in a way because this fallacy is more common among statists. There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be illegal. We see this all the time. People think of the government as their way of expressing moral values. Drugs are wrong, so they must be made illegal. Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it also must be illegal. We have countless bad laws based on this false premise. On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, it must be moral. Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, hateful, immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was legal, because of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Their critic must be opposed to free speech if he objects to their words. Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game. It leads to the false reasoning of the statists. We must remember that there is a clear distinction between morality and legality. We all agree with freedom of speech. People should be able to say whatever they like without fear of legal consequences. Cypherpunk technologies can play a major part in assuring this freedom. But this does not mean that all speech is equally valid. If someone calls for murder and they are attacked for it, it does no good for them to hide behind the First Amendment. Their words are wrong - they will have harmful consequences if followed. They cheapen life, and work against the goals we share of a future based on cooperation rather than cooercion. Cypherpunks are intelligent enough not to be fooled by this attempt to use the principle of free speech to justify calls for violence and murder. It's no wonder, really, that people like May and Vulis attempt to confuse the issue by pretending that their critics are opposed to freedom of speech. They know that if they are judged by their own words, their character is revealed for all to see. Any smokescreen is welcome if it helps conceal their vicious, hateful nature. From pooh at efga.org Mon Dec 1 15:52:57 1997 From: pooh at efga.org (Robert A. Costner) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:52:57 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971201001413.03a6d40c@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201182334.03900444@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> At 12:34 PM 12/1/97 -0800, stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: >But you don't need a special anonymity server to do that; >a keyserver plus either a personna certificate or some archiving mechanism is enough. >The certificate shows that you're the first+only person at that >certificate issuer to use the name you've chosen; the archive >shows that the first poster using the name used PGP Key . >I have a PGP key I use for signing pseudonyms which performs >the personna certificate function - I'll verify uniqueness >of keys that I've signed. I was thinking of remailers sending out anon messages with a distinct from line that has zero connection (in the nym database) to any email address. Is this possible? To establish a nym only through one way communication? -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh at efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key From schear at lvdi.net Mon Dec 1 16:05:10 1997 From: schear at lvdi.net (Steve Schear) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:05:10 +0800 Subject: Death Penalty Expanded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >On a completely unrelated note, is there some interest in starting up a >"Cypherpunks Nuclear Physics Study Group"? I recently finished reading >"The Curve of Binding Energy". Fascinating book. Yes, but how about expanding the focus generally to WOMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)? --Steve From gbroiles at netbox.com Mon Dec 1 16:46:49 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:46:49 +0800 Subject: Panel names released for Bernstein hrg on 12/8 Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971201163747.03d5b7a0@208.139.48.24> I just spoke with someone in the clerk's office at the Ninth Circuit - the composition of the panel of judges for next Monday's hearing in the Bernstein case has been released. The judges are Bright, Fletcher, and (Thomas) Nelson. I haven't been able to find information about Judge Bright, but found pages of (meager) ratings/discussion about Fletcher and Nelson at: and I think that Judge Bright may be Myron H. Bright, a senior justice on the 8th Circuit, who sometimes sits on 9th circuit cases by designation. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com From xxxxxx at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 1 16:47:04 1997 From: xxxxxx at ix.netcom.com (steve) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:47:04 +0800 Subject: PGP bought by McAfee Message-ID: <348356EF.21C4@ix.netcom.com> >"Network Associates, Inc. >(Nasdaq: NETA, commencing Dec. 2), formerly McAfee Associates >(Nasdaq: MCAF), announced today that it has a signed a definitive >agreement to acquire privately-held Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP)." Varous Questions, comments rants, etc.: Does anyone know how this will affect PGP's: security, commitment to no-GAK, Founder (P. Zimmerman), the continuation of the PGP product line? I heard that McAfee's PCCrypto product will still be sold by NETA as a retail product, (are they considering incorperating the 2 together and just using PGP's team for R&D?) steve -- A picture tells a thousand words. Stego From kent at songbird.com Mon Dec 1 16:56:52 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:56:52 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs In-Reply-To: <2367.881005036@zelkova.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: <19971201164447.17774@songbird.com> On Mon, Dec 01, 1997 at 05:07:11PM -0500, Robert A. Costner wrote: [...] > > As wonderful as eye scanning technology may sound, it promises to offer > very weak identification and only be reliable in the short run. This is > based on the premise that a reproduction of an eye will work as well. Just > as a reproduction of a driver's license seems to work for check forgery. > > PINs offer security based on the fact that they are a secret. Not a shared > secret. For comparison, take a look at the authentication procedure of the > SSA and Wells Fargo bank. Over the internet, both want > > Social Security Number > Date of Birth > Mother's Maiden Name > > Imagine a bank machine requesting the same info as the only prerequisite > for dispensing cash! This info might have been a method of secure > authentication about the time I was born, but today, such info is almost > common knowledge. This no longer is a secret, too many people have the > info. Widespread use of eye scanners will provide the same results. As > databases are built, and sold, the raw info becomes available and automated > tellers become excellent targets for fake authentications. If you get it > wrong, you just walk away. > > Eye scans may help aid authentication, but they should not take the place > of PINs. >From "Government Computer News", 1997-11-24 Optical character recognition converts an image into usable text. But what if the character you want to recognize is a human being? Try Visionics Corp's FaceIt PC 3.0, which works with a digital video camera to secure a desktop computer against intruders. The GCN Lab staff members were skeptical at first. After all, OCR and voice recognition are still not mature technologies, and face recognition applications are greener still. FaceIt surprised us -- pleasantly. [description of test environment, and test] The software can be set to require a smile or blink from any person attempting access...[I suppose you could stick out your tongue...] ...During testing, the software never misidentified anyone, nor was it fooled if a user wore or removed glasses. Visionics claims that changes in facial hair will not cause misidentification, but we didn't test that claim. http://www.FaceIt.com -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Mon Dec 1 17:25:28 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:25:28 +0800 Subject: PGP Inc Sold for $35M - News Flash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: > > > "PGP acquired by merged security software firm. > > "Pretty Good Privacy, an encryption company foundered by crypto pioneer > Phil Zimmermann, has been acquired by Network Associates, the result of the > merger of McAfee Associates and Network General, which closed today. > > "Network Associates will pay $35 million in cash for PGP. " Not good news. As I remember McAfee was one of the "Key Recovery Aliance Partners". "Everyoner has their price." - Guy Grand alan at ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Dec 1 17:25:50 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:25:50 +0800 Subject: Digital Signatures In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712020101.BAA01602@server.test.net> Anonymous writes: > > You also need to be able to compute SHA1 hashes. I've been using > > something called "sha1file" which, I believe, originated at Adam > > Back's web site. > > That program has a bug. The routine SHA1_update in the file sha1.c > is missing a line: > > while ( ctx->mlen == 64 ) > { > convert_to_bigendian( (word32*)ctx->M, 64 ); > SHA1_transform( ctx ); > use = min( 64, data_len ); > memcpy( ctx->M, data, use ); > ctx->mlen = use; > data_len -= use; > *** data += use; *** MISSING *** > } > > Correcting this will make your hashes be correct. The version on my web pages for the last couple of versions has this bug fixed. http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/eternity/sha1.tgz Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 --- begin forwarded text MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:45:58 -0500 Reply-To: Digital Signature discussion Sender: Digital Signature discussion From: Ben Wright Subject: California Comments: To: digsig-post To: DIGSIG at VM.TEMPLE.EDU The California Secretary of State has published the final draft of his digital signature regulations at . The final draft contemplates both dual-key signatures and signature dynamics like PenOp. --Ben Wright From 20145708 at juno.com Tue Dec 2 10:13:27 1997 From: 20145708 at juno.com (20145708 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:13:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: ===BULK E.MAIL 27 MILLION HOMES=== Message-ID: <(2cust86.max8.tampa.fl.ms.uu.net[154.15.136.45])withSMPTid RAA15607> JUST RELEASED... 27,000,000 Email Addresses! Plus 12 Bonuses... Including FREE bulk e.mail software. These addresses are less than 21 days old. EARN INSANE PROFITS WITH THE RIGHT FORMULA If you have a product, service, or message that you would like to get out to Thousands, Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of people, you have several options.Traditional methods include print advertising, direct mail, radio, and television advertising. They are all effective, but they all have two catches: They're EXPENSIVE and TIME CONSUMING. Not only that, you only get ONE SHOT at making your message heard, by the right people. The INTERNET, the "Global Communications Frontier" has changed this dramatically, including making countless individuals wealthy. "Electronic Marketing," as it's commonly referred to, has effectively leveled the playing fields of all types businesses. AmeriNet has been in the online marketing business for over 5 years. We can help make your goals come true. We have helped many individuals succeed in marketing their product effectively. It's very simple to do. In fact soon you will have the problem of what to do with all the cash you will make from sending out bulk email. Here is just one of many true success stories we have seen... We did a mailing of 1 1/2 million emails for one of our customers. He was selling a home workers manual for $29.95. His results are very typical and scary. He took in over 700 orders! 700 x $29.95 = $20,000. This gentleman was so amazed, that after being skeptical, it had really happened to him, he made it, he found a niche. That niche was email! He went on to buy our full list and will be set for life in less than six months time. All this from selling a simple manual via e.mail. That was just one of the many success stories we hear everyday. It may all sound to good to be true. Well, we can tell you this. It really does work. Why else are so many individuals doing it? They are not just wasting their time. They are all making mega bucks. Don't even hesitate on this one or you will miss out on the most effective way to market anywhere..PERIOD! HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE AND WHAT WE CAN DO FOR YOU Here is what you get when you order today! >> 27 Million Email Addresses... 1 per line in simple text format on a CD. Multiple files of 250,000 or greater (no codes needed to open files). You will receive email addresses of the following domains... AOL, PRODIGY, COMPUSERVE, DELPHI, GENIE, JUNO, PIPELINE, INTERAMP, MSN, MCI, and 5 MILLION OTHER MIXED EMAIL ADDRESSES (.com, .net). All names listed above are seperated in files by domain name for your convenience. PLUS THESE BONUS SPECIALS... >> 2 Free Bulk Email Programs...Pegasus and Eudora. You will be able to load our names into these 2 Distribution List Software's (which will create Distribution Lists Saving you hours of work) for immediate, around the clock launching! You can whip out as many distribution lists as you like, and depending on the speed of your modem and the length of your message, you will be able to send out around 10,000 to 30,000 messages per hour for free. >>"Stealth Mass Mailer" Bulk Email Demo. This is the most popular bulk emailer in the world. You can test drive it for free. This product sends over 250,000 per hour. >> Super Note Pad... This software will help manage your large text files for you. >> Winzip Self Extractor... This program will be needed when de-compressing a compressed file. It will come in handy when dealing with files of zip format. >> Over 5,000 Places To Advertise For Free! >> "Profits 2500 Series"... 7 manuals that will teach you how to market on the internet and what offers work and which ones to stay clear of. Also we will show you where to find web designers for free and much, much more. YOU GET EVERYTHING FOR ONLY $199.00 >>>SPECIAL BONUS... If you order within 48 hours you can deduct $50.00 from the listed price. Limited time only! We have previously sold the seven manuals alone for over $400. Now you can have the complete package for the low price of only $149.00 Don't even hesitate on this one.. Reserve yours today! All lists are completely free of any Duplicates. We also on a continual basis, add New Names and Remove Undeliverables and Remove Requests. The result is the Cleanest Email Addresses Available Anywhere to use over and over again, for a FRACTION of the cost that other companies charge. Typical rates for acquiring email lists are from 1 cent to as high as 3 cents per email address - that's "INFORMATION HIGHWAY" ROBBERY!. How do I protect my e.mail address? 1st of all, send your e.mail with the Stealth Mass Mailer. This program will protect your email address while sending your e.mail at speeds of up to 250,000 messages per hour (28.8 connection). 2nd, collect your inquiries and remove requests via AutoResponders . Using AutoResponders, you don't even have to read the flames. Just move them to your remove list and forget about them! Start earning mega money and get started now! If you have ANY further questions please feel free to contact us anytime at: amerinet at prodigy.com and please type "QUESTIONS" in the subject line. To order our email package, simply print out the EZ Order form below and fax or call us anytime. We accept Visa ,Mastercard,American Express, Personal Check or Money Order. ---------------------------------------- EZ Order Form Please fax your order form to: 561-833-3968 Or call our 24 Hour Order Line at: 1-330-438-0229 (orders only) We will deduct an additional $5.00 for all phone and faxed orders. _____Yes! I would like to order your 27,000,000 email addresses Plus all the bonuses for only $199.00 _____I am ordering within 48 Hours! Please deduct $50.00 from the price making the total only $149.00 *Please select one of the following for shipping. ____I would like to receive my package OVERNIGHT. I'm including $12 for shipping. ____I would like to receive my package PROIRITY delivery. I'm including $4 for shipping. ____Please add $10.00 for all orders from outside the U.S. DATE_____________________________________________________ NAME____________________________________________________ ADDRESS_________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP__________________________________________ PHONE NUMBER_________________________________________ EMAIL ADDRESS__________________________________________ TYPE OF CREDIT CARD: ______VISA _____MASTERCARD____AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CARD# __________________________________________ EXPIRATION DATE________________________________________ NAME ON CARD__________________________________________ AMOUNT $___________________ SIGNATURE:x________________________ DATE:x__________________ ---------------------------------------------------- Best of Luck!! We apologize if this e.mail was sent to you in error. To be permanently removed from all mailing lists simply send any e.mail to: remove at bulkcenter.com Thank You! From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 1 18:15:24 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:15:24 +0800 Subject: McAfee buys PGP Inc. Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201175356.006d6dd8@popd.ix.netcom.com> http://www.pgp.com/newsroom/prel47.cgi Network Associates (formerly known as McAfee) is buying PGP Inc. Network Associates Acquires Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) Network Associates Extends Enterprise Offerings with Leading Security Software SANTA CLARA, Calif., Dec. 1, 1997 Network Associates, Inc. Nasdaq: NETA, commencing Dec. 2), formerly McAfee Associates (Nasdaq: MCAF) announced today that it has a signed a definitive agreement to acquire privately-held Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP). The PGP acquisition extends Network Associates' network security and management software products with the leading applied cryptographic security solutions for protecting corporate assets and enabling secure electronic communication. From ngpsstoi at pacific.net.sg Mon Dec 1 18:31:13 1997 From: ngpsstoi at pacific.net.sg (Ng Pheng Siong) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:31:13 +0800 Subject: Kashpureff stuff online In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971201000503.0069ca58@pop.sirius.com> Message-ID: <199712020217.KAA16801@pop2.pacific.net.sg> > So what did Kashpureff do? Who is Kashpureff? Is he the guy at > Alternic who did some advanced DNS hacking to get Internic DNS root to > point to him? Or something else? Yup, that's him. IIRC, he exploited Bind's failure to check input in certain cases: He set his DNS server to be the delegating authority for .com, say; then sent a recursive query to his victim's DNS server to get the victim to query _his_ server; his server mixed the bogus info into its response to the query, thus poisoning the victim's DNS. Cypherpunks write code. Crackerpunks read code. Ng Pheng Siong From whgiii at invweb.net Mon Dec 1 19:48:21 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:48:21 +0800 Subject: PGP bought by McAfee In-Reply-To: <348356EF.21C4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199712020326.WAA32704@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <348356EF.21C4 at ix.netcom.com>, on 12/01/97 at 07:31 PM, steve said: >>"Network Associates, Inc. >>(Nasdaq: NETA, commencing Dec. 2), formerly McAfee Associates >>(Nasdaq: MCAF), announced today that it has a signed a definitive >>agreement to acquire privately-held Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP)." >Varous Questions, comments rants, etc.: >Does anyone know how this will affect PGP's: >security, commitment to no-GAK, Founder (P. Zimmerman), the continuation >of the PGP product line? >I heard that McAfee's PCCrypto product will still be sold by NETA as a >retail product, (are they considering >incorperating the 2 together and just using PGP's team for R&D?) >steve It does bring up quite a few questions. Things like source code releases, commitiment to OpenPGP, Freeware for non comercial use. Should make for an intresting OpenPGP BOF in DC next week. :) "May you live in intresting times" -- Chinese curse/blessing - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIN/uo9Co1n+aLhhAQIxiwP6AmYLn/k7wuK3yvHbVI6Vnpw0dEiApmQ+ QkZBNm6FflxZgfpWTss5FQWgb9hPO770cn4esr1ZIpTPzD4Lv32b1QkBjP5UWnJc s/i3rP9ueUQv/AmC9ErEHEUgZoWKlJ/mwSszzWf1UDSHoWqU6WlhHk74FtBrjDoQ n46FGvLWzvQ= =5KlR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From declan at well.com Mon Dec 1 19:52:22 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:52:22 +0800 Subject: "Berman expressed frustration with the ACLU's criticisms" Message-ID: [More examples of the split within the "cyber-rights" community. --Declan] ===================== Chicago Tribue, November 30, 1997 HEADLINE: MANY VIEWS COULD SNARL 3-DAY WEB CONFERENCE; HOW TO SHIELD CHILDREN THE BIGGEST ISSUE BYLINE: By Frank James and Shirley Brice, Washington Bureau. DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: [...] One of the conference's main themes will be educating parents about how filtering software can help them "keep their children out of the red-light district," Berman said. The emphasis on the use of filtering software and expected talk about Internet ratings systems has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to dub the event the "censorware summit." The ACLU, which played a major role in opposing the decency act, doesn't oppose filtering software in principle, but it asserts that parents who buy it should be able to learn exactly what sites the software blocks and what criteria were used in deciding to block those sites. [...] Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the ACLU, fears that eventually there would be "one or two centralized ratings systems that will reflect particular moral values and have the effect of limiting the breadth and variety of speech on the Internet." "The way these rating systems are going to work," he said "is that parties other than (consumers) are going to decide whether to employ the ratings systems. Sites that are rated unfavorably are going to be blocked out, rendered invisible to the average user." Berman expressed frustration with the ACLU's criticisms. "The court said there were less restrictive ways than government censorship, and they pointed at these filtering tools. It was endorsed by the Supreme Court 9-0. If you take those tools away, what do parents do?" The conference's organizers, Berman said, also want to let parents know about the efforts of companies with major Internet presences to make the Web more family-friendly. [...] From phelix at vallnet.com Mon Dec 1 19:54:19 1997 From: phelix at vallnet.com (phelix at vallnet.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:54:19 +0800 Subject: PGP bought by McAfee In-Reply-To: <348356EF.21C4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <348482a8.17218254@128.2.84.191> On 1 Dec 1997 21:30:35 -0600, steve wrote: > >>"Network Associates, Inc. >>(Nasdaq: NETA, commencing Dec. 2), formerly McAfee Associates >>(Nasdaq: MCAF), announced today that it has a signed a definitive >>agreement to acquire privately-held Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP)." > >Varous Questions, comments rants, etc.: > >Does anyone know how this will affect PGP's: >security, commitment to no-GAK, Founder (P. Zimmerman), the continuation >of the PGP product line? > >I heard that McAfee's PCCrypto product will still be sold by NETA as a >retail product, (are they considering >incorperating the 2 together and just using PGP's team for R&D?) > >steve Even more basic questions: Will NETA release source code? Will they continue to develop freeware versions of PGP? What conections does NETA have to S/MIME? What happens to licensing of things like PGPsdk and the freeware versions of PGP? Will PGP be seen as a "dead-end" product by potential new users. What will happen to Open-PGP email encryption standard? This is not good. -- Phelix From jf_avon at citenet.net Mon Dec 1 19:58:04 1997 From: jf_avon at citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:58:04 +0800 Subject: Fwd: Japs and the UN Message-ID: <199712020348.WAA29747@cti06.citenet.net> ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== >Return-Path: >Received: from falcon.adelaide.on.net by cti02.citenet.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA11267; Sun, 30 Nov 97 17:19:02 EST >Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 08:45:53 +1030 >Resent-From: Sporting.Shooters.Association at adelaide.on.net >Resent-Message-Id: <9711302219.AA11267 at cti02.citenet.net> >Received: from default (ppp253.adelaide.on.net.au) > by adelaide.on.net (PMDF V5.1-10 #25974) > with SMTP id <01IQNJH3VW8Q00CE9B at adelaide.on.net> > (original mail from ssa at adelaide.on.net) for jf_avon at citenet.net; Mon, > 1 Dec 1997 08:46:02 +0930 >Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 08:45:53 +1030 >From: ALERT >Subject: Japs and the UN >To: ssaa-alerts at adelaide.on.net >Resent-Reply-To: Sporting.Shooters.Association at adelaide.on.net >Reply-To: Sporting.Shooters.Association at adelaide.on.net >Message-Id: <3481E599.D57 at adelaide.on.net> >Organization: Sporting Shooters Association of Australia >Mime-Version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Comments: Sporting Shooters Association ALERTS mailing list >X-UIDL: 6ab40261c41b93db3a6bd1fed4a9e264 > "Japan paid salaries to officials on loan to U.N." .c Kyodo News Service TOKYO, Nov. 30 (Kyodo) - The Japanese government has paid salaries to its officials on loan to the United Nations for the past 27 years in violation of the U.N. Charter, a national daily reported Sunday. Officials from Japanese ministries and agencies on loan to the world body receive salaries from the U.N. as well as salaries from the Japanese government, the Mainichi Shimbun said in a report from Geneva. The government has paid billions of yen for more than 1,000 officials from Japan's ministries and agencies after a law, stipulating government officials dispatched to international institutions be paid 70 to 100% of the salaries paid in Japan, took effect in 1971, the Mainichi said. The U.N. Charter and U.N. staff regulations ban receiving payment from any government to maintain its independence. An official at the National Personnel Authority was quoted as saying half the Japanese officials on U.N. assignments are paid 100 % of their home salary amount. Tsukasa Kawada, director of the Foreign Ministry's U.N. Administration Division, was quoted as telling the Mainichi the payments are aimed at guaranteeing the status of officials on loan by continuing their pension and insurance fees' benefit and are not rewards for their duties in the U.N. AP-NY-11-29-97 2338EST ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants physicists and engineers, LabView programing. PGP encryption keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C From ravage at ssz.com Mon Dec 1 20:08:24 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:08:24 +0800 Subject: PGP bought by McAfee (fwd) Message-ID: <199712020406.WAA08495@einstein.ssz.com> [Identities removed to protect the innocent] Forwarded message: > >Does anyone know how this will affect PGP's: > >security, commitment to no-GAK, Founder (P. Zimmerman), the continuation > >of the PGP product line? > > > >I heard that McAfee's PCCrypto product will still be sold by NETA as a > >retail product, (are they considering > >incorperating the 2 together and just using PGP's team for R&D?) > > > Even more basic questions: Will NETA release source code? Will they > continue to develop freeware versions of PGP? What conections does NETA > have to S/MIME? What happens to licensing of things like PGPsdk and the > freeware versions of PGP? Will PGP be seen as a "dead-end" product by > potential new users. What will happen to Open-PGP email encryption > standard? > > This is not good. What's the matter? Finding a free market economy monopolize right in front of your eyes just a tad uncomfortable? Cyber-anarchy in action... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage at ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| From whgiii at invweb.net Mon Dec 1 20:14:38 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:14:38 +0800 Subject: PGP Inc Sold for $35M - News Flash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712020407.XAA00317@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 12/01/97 at 06:13 PM, Alan said: >On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: >> >> >> "PGP acquired by merged security software firm. >> >> "Pretty Good Privacy, an encryption company foundered by crypto pioneer >> Phil Zimmermann, has been acquired by Network Associates, the result of the >> merger of McAfee Associates and Network General, which closed today. >> >> "Network Associates will pay $35 million in cash for PGP. " >Not good news. As I remember McAfee was one of the "Key Recovery Aliance >Partners". They sure are. :( This does not look good at all. :((( http://www.kra.org/roster.html Key Recovery Alliance Members * = Charter Members America Online, Inc. Apple Computer, Inc. * American Express Corp. Atalla * Baltimore Technologies Boeing Candle Corporation CertCo Certicom Compaq Computer Corp. Cryptomathic CygnaCom Sulutions, Inc. Cylink Corp. DASCOM, Inc. Data Securities International, Inc. Digital Equipment Corporation * Digital Secured Networks Technology, Inc. Digital Signature Trust Company Entrust Technologies First Data Corp. Fort Knox Escrow Services, Inc. Frontier Technologies Corp. Fujitsu, Ltd. GemPlus Gradient Technologies, Inc. Groupe Bull * Hewlett-Packard * Hitachi IBM * ICL IRE Intel Corporation McAfee Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan Mitsubishi Electric America Motorola Mykotronx Mytec Technologies, Inc. nCipher Corp. NCC Escrow NCR Corporation * NEC Network Systems Group of Storage Tek Novell, Inc. Open Horizon, Inc. Portland Software PSA Price Waterhouse Racal Data Group Rainbow Technologies RedCreek Communications RPK RSA * SafeNet Trusted Services, Corp. Secure Computing Corporation Siemens AG Silicon Graphics, Inc. SourceFile Spyrus Sterling Commerce Sun Microsystems * Tandem Technical Communications Corp. The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Toshiba Trusted Information Systems, Inc. * Unisys UPS * Utimaco Mergent VPNet Technologies - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIOJJo9Co1n+aLhhAQJlJAP9FL+MvHla+Xpa4ZPKFNcLT0IUp8QYs/QR UG912fUE3vn3KhOAE6Vv3wDfafREKWlzbFwCz3WbnKEv09G9vCAJ+YiXo2QWs3sQ W6WD6ucf0+I1DFtoPJ9jLqWecKw//XMeLbdnNvH9Fxp4eR0zEzz57LNzTzJBqfID /tuRl/GbQhw= =w6jw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vin at shore.net Mon Dec 1 20:33:06 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:33:06 +0800 Subject: PGP Inc Sold for $35M - News Flash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WSJ Article, by Lisa Bransten (WSJ Interactive Edition) "McAfee Announces Name Change, Acquisition of Pretty Good Privacy" McAfee Associates Inc., a Santa Clara, Calif., maker of network-security software, said Monday that it agreed to acquire Pretty Good Privacy Inc., a privately held maker of encryption software, in a deal valued at $36 million. Separately, McAfee completed its acquisition of Network General and said it was officially changing its name to Network Associates Inc. [snip...] One investment banker estimated PGP's revenue at almost $8 million this year and at as much as $18 million next year. [Network Associates Chairman and CE0 Bill] Larson said Network Associates made an all-cash offer for PGP because of the low price of shares of McAfee (now Network Associates). Mr. Larson called the acquisition "a reflection of how significant an opportunity we see in the security market." Mr. Larson called PGP a "neophyte" but also "a strategic player" in security software, adding that Network Associates "will be a player in this market." [snip...] PGP, based in San Mateo, Calif., was once a leading contender for an initial public offering but ran into troubles in the middle of the year as sales stagnated and a planned acquisition of software company Zoomit Corp. fell apart. Zoomit makes software that allows for easy communication across different networks. PGP founder and chief technologist Philip Zimmermann has developed something of a cult following among software programmers and cyber-rights activists since the early 1990s, when he started giving away his Pretty Good Privacy program, which allows computer users to encrypt electronic messages sent over the Internet. Mr. Zimmermann distributed the software for free in order to get it into the most users' hands amid growing concerns that governments would try to limit the use of encryption technology, fearful that such technology would stymie law-enforcement agencies' efforts. Appetite for the software proved large and millions of copies of the software were downloaded by users around the world. Mr. Zimmermann's case became a cause celebre among activists when the Justice Department opened an investigation of him for allowing the software to be distributed internationally. Although the government allows the use of such encryption technologies in the U.S., it doesn't allow the export of strong-encryption software except in special circumstances. In 1996, the government dropped its investigation of Mr. Zimmermann, and in March of that year he and several partners incorporated PGP to sell commercial versions of the software to large corporations interested in security. Mr. Zimmermann will stay with the company as a Network Associates Fellow. [snip...] "We get a great group of leading cryptographers," [Larsen] said. "There are very few of these people in the world, and PGP has always been a magnet for [them.]" PGP, which has about 50 employees, has fought to have its encryption software adopted as a standard, but software giants Microsoft Corp. and Netscape Communications Corp. have both licensed the encryption software of PGP rival RSA Data Security Inc., which was itself purchased last year by Security Dynamics Technologies Inc. Before Monday's announcement, several observers had said that PGP and McAfee would be a logical combination because companies are looking for software that can address more than one of their security and networking needs. Also, PGP's encryption technology and large installed user base could bolster McAfee's recent entry into that field, they said. PGP has "good brand recognition and good technology, but no marketing muscle," said one industry watcher. "If PGP's encryption standard is going to compete, they need a distribution partner like McAfee behind them." Shares of Network Associates will begin trading under the new Nasdaq symbol NETA on Tuesday. /end - WSJ Interactive, Bransten text/ Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 -- <@><@> -- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Dec 1 20:33:07 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:33:07 +0800 Subject: Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, & Writing Code... Message-ID: <199712020440.WAA08621@einstein.ssz.com> Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen source of crypto tools. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage at ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| From tcmay at got.net Mon Dec 1 21:02:35 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:02:35 +0800 Subject: More Government Sanctioned Theft In-Reply-To: <65k64e$coq@snews3.zippo.com> Message-ID: At 2:16 PM -0700 12/1/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >[This message has also been posted.] >In ok.general, Jerry Morgan wrote: >* easttom at redriverok.com (Chuck Easttom) wrote: >* > 2. What the hell legit reason is there for a man to be driving >around with >* >132 K in a truck?? >* > >* >* The simple possession of any amount of money is not subject to "police >* approval", unless of course we are living in a police state. >* >* As I understand the "story" the police stopped the guy, searched the >* car, found the money, seized it and then let the guy go without >* charging him with anything. A nice cool 132K profit for a few minutes >* work, just like an armed robbery. It would appear that this "cops and >* robbers scenario" has the cops playing both roles.S This is becoming all too common (cf. online reports, and some good t.v. investigative shows which detailed how this shakedown operation works in many states). As to the question above, "2. What the hell legit reason is there for a man to be driving around with * >132 K in a truck??," this shows the dire state we are in today. After all, what the hell business is it of government/police to tell a person what they may do with their money? If I want to push my money around in a wheel barrow, it may be stupid, but if cops seize it then they are just thieves, plain and simple. (Arguments that the money "must have" been stolen, or to be used for an illegal transaction, or whatever, are meaningless. Unless the money can be shown to be stolen, or unless the person being stopped is actually shown to be in an illegal transaction (not that I support such laws, mind you), the cops can do nothing.) However, cash is on the way toward being outlawed. De facto, if not de jure. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at REPLAY.COM Mon Dec 1 21:02:43 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:02:43 +0800 Subject: Kashpureff stuff online Message-ID: <199712020446.FAA11464@basement.replay.com> Anyone know of any low S/N lists out there for "Crackerpunks"?? > > > So what did Kashpureff do? Who is Kashpureff? Is he the guy at > > Alternic who did some advanced DNS hacking to get Internic DNS root to > > point to him? Or something else? > > Yup, that's him. > > IIRC, he exploited Bind's failure to check input in certain cases: > He set his DNS server to be the delegating authority for .com, > say; then sent a recursive query to his victim's DNS server to get > the victim to query _his_ server; his server mixed the bogus info > into its response to the query, thus poisoning the victim's DNS. > > Cypherpunks write code. > Crackerpunks read code. > > > > > Ng Pheng Siong > > From JonWienk at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 1 21:15:13 1997 From: JonWienk at ix.netcom.com (Jonathan Wienke) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:15:13 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971201204450.006c596c@popd.netcruiser> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:03 PM 12/1/97 -0800, stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: >Besides Usenet, other popular tactics for retribution are >sending death threats to politicians, sending child pornography >to mailing lists, forging messages _from_ politicians, etc. >Disclaimer/warning headers help, but can't stop it all. > >At 10:07 AM 12/01/1997 -0500, Andy Dustman wrote: >>Two basic points also about "forgeries". First, you can forge headers >>pretty easily without any programs other than telnet. Second, if this > >This was before Gary Burnore's attacks on the remailer networks, >but it's also an obvious tactic for either flamers or Feds to use >for getting remailers shut down. If somebody forges a Usenet posting >with telnet, it's not _your_ problem (usually). If they use your remailer, >it is your problem. And if they get remailers closed down a lot, >it's all of our problems. > >>2) Whenever a From: line is pasted, a disclaimer will be inserted at the >>top of the body, stating that the original sender has set the From: line, >>and that the identification cannot be verified. The fact that it is up at >>the top of the body should mean people should actually see it before >>reacting. > >It's worth also repeating it at the bottom. Putting it in the headers >is invisible with most newsreaders, though. > >By the way, one technical risk with From:-pasting is that you need to >parse or substitute special characters including parens and anglebrackets. >Otherwise it's easy for people to paste in syntactically incorrect headers, >which really annoy some gateways and mail clients - nested parens are >a particular problem. > >Basically, I think you're getting yourself in for excitement >and adventure and really wild stuff by supporting this :-) Sounds like a good reason for remailers to use throwaway email accounts at Juno, MailExcite, Yahoo, etc. as their exit points. Wasn't somebody working on this? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 iQA/AwUBNIOSQcJF0kXqpw3MEQKcHACg+nSiTVlonZCH3hUhRQ2+DXYTtIcAoOTf DVa/LBltFF527mdtcs3adDsR =6WNy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Jonathan Wienke PGP Key Fingerprints: 7484 2FB7 7588 ACD1 3A8F 778A 7407 2928 3312 6597 8258 9A9E D9FA 4878 C245 D245 EAA7 0DCC "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams "Stupidity is the one arena of of human achievement where most people fulfill their potential." -- Jonathan Wienke Never sign a contract that contains the phrase "first-born child." RSA export-o-matic: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 TEST ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From gunther at witcapital.com Mon Dec 1 22:38:49 1997 From: gunther at witcapital.com (gunther at witcapital.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:38:49 +0800 Subject: Public Venture Capital Alert: Sandbox Entertainment available through Wit Capital Message-ID: <199712020622.WAA24917@toad.com> Wit Capital Corporation is pleased to announce that we are able to provide first-come first-serve participation in the following public offering as described below: Issuer: Sandbox Entertainment is a Phoenix-based software development company that uses proprietary technology to provide games and simulations on the World Wide Web. Sandbox's flagship products are CNN/SI's SportSim (sm), an online fantasy sports game, and CNNfn's Final Bell (sm), an online stock market simulation. Security: Series B Convertible Preferred Stock Expected Size of Offering: 654,000 shares Expected Price Range: $6.75 to $8.50 Lead Underwriter: Wit Capital Corporation If you think you may be interested in this Public Offering available through Wit Capital, please visit http://www.witcapital.com/sand1.html or call (888) 4-WIT-CAP. You can view, print or download the Preliminary Prospectus from the New Issues Section of our website. To purchase shares, you must first open an account, which you can do online. Investing in public offerings is speculative, involves a high degree of risk and may not be appropriate for every investor. As with all of your investments with Wit Capital, you must make your own determination of whether an investment in this offering is consistent with your investment objectives and risk tolerance. To learn more about the risks of investing in public offerings please visit the New Issues Section of our website. A REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATING TO THESE SECURITIES HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION BUT HAS NOT YET BECOME EFFECTIVE. THESE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD NOR MAY OFFERS TO BUY BE ACCEPTED PRIOR TO THE TIME THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT BECOMES EFFECTIVE. THIS COMMUNICATION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO SELL OR THE SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY, NOR SHALL THERE BE ANY SALE OF THESE SECURITIES IN ANY JURISDICTION IN WHICH SUCH OFFER, SOLICITATION OR SALE WOULD BE UNLAWFUL PRIOR TO REGISTRATION OR QUALIFICATION UNDER THE SECURITIES LAWS OF SUCH JURISDICTION. NO OFFER TO BUY THE SECURITIES CAN BE ACCEPTED AND NO PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE CAN BE RECEIVED UNTIL THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT BECOMES EFFECTIVE, AND ANY SUCH OFFER MAY BE WITHDRAWN AND REVOKED WITHOUT OBLIGATION OR COMMITMENT OF ANY KIND, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO NOTICE OF ITS ACCEPTANCE GIVEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE. AN INDICATION OF INTEREST IN RESPONSE TO THIS RESPONSE TO THIS ADVERTISEMENT WILL INVOLVE NO OBLIGATION OR COMMITMENT OF ANY KIND. A broker dealer or its agent may only transact business in a state after licensure or satisfying qualification requirements of that state. If you reside in a particular state that Wit Capital is not registered in as a broker dealer or has registered agents in, this message is not directed to you. Wit Capital will not open a brokerage account or sell securities to you until such time registration requirements in your home state are fulfilled. Thank you. Wit Capital Corporation Member NASD/SIPC From 47058560 at compuserve.com Tue Dec 2 15:14:02 1997 From: 47058560 at compuserve.com (47058560 at compuserve.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:14:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Email your AD to 57 MILLION People for ONLY $99 Message-ID: <221531531352.CAA25231@mkkkdtinggs.com> Email your AD to 57 MILLION People for ONLY $99 removal instructions below 57 MILLION EMAILS FOR ONLY $99 INCLUDES STEALTH MAILER That's right, I have 57 Million Fresh email addresses that I will sell for only $99. These are all fresh addresses that include almost every person on the internet today, with no duplications. They are all sorted and ready to be mailed. That is the best deal anywhere today ! Imagine selling a product for only $5 and getting only a 1/10% response. That's $2,850,000 in your pocket !!! Don't believe it? People are making that kind of money right now by doing the same thing, that is why you get so much email from people selling you their product....it works ! I will even tell you how to mail them with easy to follow step-by-step instruction I include with every order. These 57 Million email addresses are yours to keep, so you can use them over and over and they come on 1 CD. I will also include the stealth mailer - this is a full version of the incredibly fast mailing program that hides your email address when you send mail so no one will find out where it came f! rom and you won't lose your dial up account. The stealth mailer is an incredible program and absolutly FREE with your order ! If you are not making at least $50,000 a month, then ORDER NOW. ORDER NOW BY FAX: Simply print out this order form and fax it to us along with your check made payable to: Future WT for only $99. Our Fax # is: 602 348 2955 We will confirm your order by email and then mail your cd out the same day via priority mail. Name:_____________________________ Street Address:______________________________ City:_____________________ State:________________ZipCode:_____________ Phone number:__________________________ Email:_______________________________ You do not need to send the actual check, we will create a draft. Returned checks are subject to $25 NSF Fee. Fax it to 602 348 2955 Or You can mail a check or money order to: FutureWT 15560 N. Frank Lloyd Wright #b-4187 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 If you want to be removed from our mailing list just send a email here 57 million plus mailing program for only $99 From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 00:56:26 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:56:26 +0800 Subject: PGP User's Guide 2.6.2 Message-ID: <199712020837.JAA05430@basement.replay.com> Where can I find a copy? From davidlu at sco.COM Tue Dec 2 01:33:56 1997 From: davidlu at sco.COM (David Lucas) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:33:56 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971130213445.006ad57c@popd.netcruiser> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971202091736.00828100@middx.x.co.uk> At 10:50 01/12/97 -0500, you wrote: >G'day Jonathan, > > Could you please identify this "bank card company" by name, card, >nation, etc. ? In the UK, it was announced that the Nationwide Building Society was implementing such a scheme. Exactly where in the UK this happening, I do not know. From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 03:13:47 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:13:47 +0800 Subject: RSA Message-ID: <199712021055.LAA19014@basement.replay.com> Tim C[retin] May studied yoga back-streching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). (((> /< ( / ((({{{{{:< Tim C[retin] May \ \< From tm at dev.null Tue Dec 2 03:42:34 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:42:34 +0800 Subject: Is Anonymous guilty of immorally advocating morality? In-Reply-To: <199712012255.XAA26038@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: <3483F266.1028@dev.null> Why is it that people on a moral high-horse always seem to think that that those are 'pearls of wisdom' dropping from their horse's hind-end? Anonymous, dripping cum from the edges of a happy mouth, slurred: > There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially among > members whose positions are otherwise indefensible. Sounds like shit-for-brains is about to launch another character assault in the name of truth, righteousness and good dental hygene. > On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, it > must be moral. Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, hateful, > immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was legal, because of > freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Their critic must be opposed > to free speech if he objects to their words. As opposed to your own vicious, hateful, 'moral' rants against vicious, hateful, 'immoral' rants? > Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game. It leads > to the false reasoning of the statists. We must remember that there is > a clear distinction between morality and legality. Are you a kindergarten teacher? Do you have a chart where you are placing different colored stars beside the list members names? > We all agree with freedom of speech. No we don't. Shut the fuck up! > But this does not mean that all speech is equally valid. Did you take a statement that had meaning and edit it to come up with this one? Time flies like an arrow--fruit flies like a banana. OK, _your_ turn again... > Cypherpunks are intelligent enough not to be fooled by this attempt > to use the principle of free speech to justify calls for violence and > murder. CypherPunks are intelligent enough to realize that calls for violence and murder, like the acts themselves, do not need justification. Didn't your parents teach you that the justification for everything is, "Because I said so!"? > It's no wonder, really, that people like May and Vulis attempt to confuse > the issue by pretending that their critics are opposed to freedom of > speech. You seem to have a desperate need to explain to the rest of the list readers exactly what it is they are reading and what it means. You must be a lot of fun to go to a movie with. >They know that if they are judged by their own words, their > character is revealed for all to see. Any smokescreen is welcome if it > helps conceal their vicious, hateful nature. Give it a fucking break... If you are going to piss on someone on this list, please make an effort to do a decent job of it. Lame, smarmy character assassinations such as yours only serve to accentuate your envy of others for their ability to exercise their vicious, hateful nature more potently than yourself. Go give your morality speeches to your kindergarten class while you play with their little bums. TruthMonger From brianbr at together.net Tue Dec 2 05:02:41 1997 From: brianbr at together.net (Brian B. Riley) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:02:41 +0800 Subject: More Government Sanctioned Theft Message-ID: <199712021249.HAA26733@mx02.together.net> On 12/1/97 4:16 PM, Igor Chudov @ home (ichudov at www.video-collage.com) passed this wisdom: >In ok.general, Jerry Morgan wrote: >* easttom at redriverok.com (Chuck Easttom) wrote: >* > 2. What the hell legit reason is there for a man to be driving >* around with 132 K in a truck?? >* >* The simple possession of any amount of money is not subject to "police >* approval", unless of course we are living in a police state. I am not sure, but it seems to me that there is some sort of currency control laws that say that you cannot have 10K or mor ein oyur possession unless you show there is a good reason, like on your way to the bank, being abusiness heading for the bank atthe end of the day etc, and of course banks report deposits of 10K or more. I know of two different people who were not 'in business' who did perfectly legal transactions that left them with 32K and 47K in cash each instead of big checks and who simply deposited it. One recieved a phone call and the other a visit by IRS asking 'what, why, where' etc within two weeks of depositing money. Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" -- Samuel Johnson "With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." -- Ambrose Bierce's commentary on Johnson's definition. From janey at wannaplay.com Tue Dec 2 21:49:24 1997 From: janey at wannaplay.com (janey at wannaplay.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:49:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free Live Sex! Message-ID: <0000000000.AAA000@wannaplay.com> ****************Attention Video Sex Lovers***************** Never Pay for Video Sex ever again. Brand New Totally Free Live Video Sex Website. Come Check out unlimited Live Video sex Channels. http://209.25.83.24/indexc.htm From tm at dev.null Tue Dec 2 06:11:18 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:11:18 +0800 Subject: [Fwd: [cpj:279] Re: PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT][cpj:279] Re: PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT In-Reply-To: <199712012335.IAA18844@success.isid.co.jp> Message-ID: <348412DA.D8D@dev.null> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: unknown sender Subject: no subject Date: no date Size: 380 URL: From tm at dev.null Tue Dec 2 06:14:47 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:14:47 +0800 Subject: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <348410EB.55FB@dev.null> stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP FORGED MESSAGE----- > >On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Lance Cottrell wrote: > >> [Spam baiting, forged mailing list subscriptions] > The hard problem is > >> Forged postings with deplorable content will bring down retribution > >> on the forgery victim. > I shut down my remailer a few years ago because of this one; > the forger posted hate mail to the gay newsgroups with the victim's name > at the bottom (didn't even use From: pasting, just message body.) > Supporting From: pasting just encourages this. So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are trying to offend them? It never fails to amaze me that complainers point out that an 'abusive' letter started out, "I hate niggersfaggotsjewsyou!" and then proceed to list the other fifty 'abusive' things that the writer had to say. Do these people correct the spelling as they are reading the 'abusive' messages? > Besides Usenet, other popular tactics for retribution are > sending death threats to politicians, sending child pornography > to mailing lists, forging messages _from_ politicians, etc. > Disclaimer/warning headers help, but can't stop it all. Laissez-faire... I have never been very enamored of becoming a babysitter to the whole fucking world in the enterprises I enter into. I set up an anonymous remailer system for a mental health group and the first time they claimed that someone was 'abusing' it, I told them, "You're all fucking crazy! What the fuck do you expect? That's why you have the list in the first place." I can't believe the lame fucks who complain about politically incorrect anarchists on the CypherPunks list, or who suggest that list members who may or may not hate niggersfaggotsjewsyou somehow reflect well or badly on the CypherPunk Nation/Flag/Cause. Got a problem with my politics? I wear a grey blazer. You can a different colored blazer, so my posts don't reflect badly on you. Identity/source forgery is not usually a major problem in itself, but becomes one because of the people who buy into the game being played because they can't fuck up their boss without getting fired, so they're waiting for someone to 'give them a reason...' I followed an anti-spam list full of dweebs who had no idea how to tell a good header from a badly forged header, and they would spam god-and-everybody, en mass, like a blind lynch mob. It was hilarious to watch. I can make my own Bill Stewart signature and inundate the InterNet with "I like to kill babies after I molest them (signed) posts." Although it would undoubtedly be a pain in the ass for you, it would also result in the education of a lot of complainers as to the principles of identity and digital signitures, albeit at the expense of your time and resources. I can also do the same with the perceived net identities of other people, including politicians and random strangers. And so can anyone else. So what? It's part of life. We can route around the damage, or we can make it a felony punishible by death, or we can give up our job, family and hobbies in order to spend the rest of our life crusading against the 'wrong' that has been done to us. There seem to be an increasing number of people who are crying out for elephant-gun solutions to fly-swatter problems. During the censorship experiment, my nephew and his friends were reading some of the grand schemes proposed for dealing with the spam/flames/etc on the list. (Everyone must wear an aluminum foil hat and generate hash-cash e-postage to be sent to a Mars base station for conversion to an exchange medium based on their hair color and weight...) He looked at me, mystified, and said, "Don't these guys have keys?" There are always going to be people who read the disclaimers and warnings on anonymously sent email and still harass our good pal, because 'he' sent them a message saying, "I dare you to spam me, asshole!" One of the little known secrets of the universe is that a great many problems can be 'solved' by simply ignoring them, or by using common sense. "Doctor, it hurts when I do _this_." "Don't _do_ that." GrayMonger From froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Dec 2 06:26:23 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:26:23 +0800 Subject: Panel names released for Bernstein hrg on 12/8 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971201163747.03d5b7a0@208.139.48.24> Message-ID: Fletcher and Nelson are two of the smartest, and on the whole more moderate-liberal, judges on the 9th circuit. This is a great panel for Bernstein. On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > > I just spoke with someone in the clerk's office at the Ninth Circuit - the > composition of the panel of judges for next Monday's hearing in the > Bernstein case has been released. The judges are Bright, Fletcher, and > (Thomas) Nelson. I haven't been able to find information about Judge > Bright, but found pages of (meager) ratings/discussion about Fletcher and > Nelson at: > > > and > > > I think that Judge Bright may be Myron H. Bright, a senior justice on the > 8th Circuit, who sometimes sits on 9th circuit cases by designation. > > > -- > Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: > gbroiles at netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. > http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com > A. Michael Froomkin � +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law � U. Miami School of Law � froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 � http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/ Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA � It's almost cool here From pooh at efga.org Tue Dec 2 07:00:59 1997 From: pooh at efga.org (Robert A. Costner) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:00:59 +0800 Subject: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971202094253.037e0654@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> At 07:45 AM 12/2/97 -0600, TruthMonger wrote: > So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their >delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time >and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are >trying to offend them? Well TruthMonger (if that is your real name,) I think you are missing the point. For purposes of the discussion, no one cares about the content of the messages, who or why they are being sent, nor is anyone bothered by anything concerning the message itself. What's being discussed is scarce resources of remailer operators. It's much like spam. It's a very shortsighted view when a user says "why can't you just hit the delete button?" This is an incorrect answer for a user who received one piece of spam, but whose small ISP, being the relay, lost all mail services for two days. Most remailers are operated with donated time and resources. Problems with the remailer, especially artificially generated ones, are just simply not desired. Perhaps it is just me, but if my phone rings because of some message on the Cracker remailer, then I don't care for it happening and I get offended. When last month a prosecutor for the Attorney General's office called me about a packet of material he had received on Cracker, I didn't care for the call. It interrupted a phone call I was having with the communications director of his ex-boss who is now running for Governor. Clearly, it cuts into time I have to do other things. When a police detective calls, not only do I have to explain about remailers and answer his questions, but I have to spend time making him prove he's a policeman before I tell him I can't tell him anything. This can take two or more phone calls and waste even more of my time. So why am I getting these phone calls and email messages? What is needed to make them stop? I don't even run a remailer! -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh at efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key From whgiii at invweb.net Tue Dec 2 07:33:02 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:33:02 +0800 Subject: More Government Sanctioned Theft In-Reply-To: <199712021249.HAA26733@mx02.together.net> Message-ID: <199712021525.KAA06216@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199712021249.HAA26733 at mx02.together.net>, on 12/02/97 at 07:49 AM, "Brian B. Riley" said: >On 12/1/97 4:16 PM, Igor Chudov @ home (ichudov at www.video-collage.com) >passed this wisdom: >>In ok.general, Jerry Morgan wrote: >>* easttom at redriverok.com (Chuck Easttom) wrote: >>* > 2. What the hell legit reason is there for a man to be driving >>* around with 132 K in a truck?? >>* >>* The simple possession of any amount of money is not subject to "police >>* approval", unless of course we are living in a police state. > I am not sure, but it seems to me that there is some sort of currency >control laws that say that you cannot have 10K or mor ein oyur possession > unless you show there is a good reason, like on your way to the bank, >being abusiness heading for the bank atthe end of the day etc, and of >course banks report deposits of 10K or more. I know of two different >people who were not 'in business' who did perfectly legal transactions >that left them with 32K and 47K in cash each instead of big checks and >who simply deposited it. One recieved a phone call and the other a visit >by IRS asking 'what, why, where' etc within two weeks of depositing >money. Well it is none of their dam business how much money I have, what form it takes, or what I choose to do with it. If I want to fill my trunk up with Krugerands and drive cross-country with them why should it be the business of some LEA thug?? Officer: "Why do you have a trunk full of Krugerands??" Citizen: "None of your dam business!!" IRS THUG: "Why do you have a trunk full of Krugerands??" Citizen: "None of your dam business!!" BTW: Does anyone know if the Platinum American Eagle was issued yet? Last I heard it was scheduled for release in October. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIQoR49Co1n+aLhhAQJhPQQAplKmRRUmUk4DxdmrlKQY3IxBZpVNTZJX yooNf6Lh1qQjwW91NExabOMG9kpIDRbWhfs4+LV+dnyXhBl8VWMC0eTPU0ez4egV N6x3NUDIoELL6ZJLlE24kBfQt6b6fTHPuCEgjuvxvLSQkkJ2kR3o2/SshTeQgFQV 7IDXnrdsGg8= =mpXs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rah at shipwright.com Tue Dec 2 08:10:23 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 00:10:23 +0800 Subject: State Department Advisory Committee Meeting Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: aboss at vm.temple.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:19:51 -0500 Reply-To: Digital Signature discussion Sender: Digital Signature discussion From: Amelia Boss Subject: State Department Advisory Committee Meeting To: DIGSIG at VM.TEMPLE.EDU I previously posted an announcement concerning a meeting of the State Department's Advisory Committeee on Private International Law on the digital signatures. There have been two changes. First, the location has changed. It will now be held at the Department of commerce, Conference Room 5855 beginning at 9:30 on Monday, December 15 (until 4:40pm). Second, it will be a *one* day only meeting. If you are planning to attend, please notify Rosie Gonzales at the State Department: (202) 776-8420; fax 202-776-8482; email at pildb at his.com. Or, call Brian Hengesbaugh at the Department of Commerce: 202-482-4620, fax 202-482-4076. In order to register for the meeting, they will need your name and government agency identification (if any), or affiliation and address, as well as phone, fax, and email address if available. Entry to the Commerce Department should be through the main entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues. Hotel Accommodations: There are two hotels that have agreed to offer, on a space-available basis, rooms at the government rate ($108/single; 128/double). However, you must advise the hotel when making arrangements that you are a State Department invitee and that the government rate should be applied. They, in turn, will contact the L/PIL to verify (authenticate?) that you are on the list of attendees, so please make sure that you have followed the procedures in the previous paragraph. The two hotels are the Windham Bristol Hotel at 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (walking distance to State and two blocks from Foggy Bottom metro) [202-955-6400; fax 202-955-5765] and the State Plaza Hotel at 2117 E Street NW (across from the State Department) [phone 202-861-8200; fax 202-659-8601]. Hope to see many of you there. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: From andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu Tue Dec 2 09:04:01 1997 From: andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu (Andy Dustman) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:04:01 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971201125046.006d2f34@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Dec 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: > These are easy enough; the address-munging gets rid of these and > also things like forgings to alt.test and other bots, > though eventually the spammers may catch on to "User Foo com" etc. It's probably too much effort for them to bother with. If you were a spammer, and wanted loads of addresses, how would you get them? Headers are the most address-rich part of the message, so you just get headers from the server. Then you look for addresses with a regex. Looking for mangled addresses means that now you have to have two regexes, which increases your search time for not much benefit. No, the only ones which will bother will be the spiteful ones... > I shut down my remailer a few years ago because of this one; > the forger posted hate mail to the gay newsgroups with the victim's name > at the bottom (didn't even use From: pasting, just message body.) > Supporting From: pasting just encourages this. > > It's possible to cancel the one forged usenet message, > but that didn't stop the flames many people emailed to her, > and fewer systems are accepting cancels these days, > especially when forged by remailers... With the address munging on USENET posts, you have to do a bit of work in order to even find the actual forged address (look at the headers, dig out Author-Address:, unmangle it), and by then you ought to be wondering, Did this person really send this? > By the way, one technical risk with From:-pasting is that you need to > parse or substitute special characters including parens and anglebrackets. > Otherwise it's easy for people to paste in syntactically incorrect headers, > which really annoy some gateways and mail clients - nested parens are > a particular problem. Ah. When munging, I just use: sendmail -bv -- $ADDR and then a bit of sed magic. If anything can parse it correctly, it's sendmail. > >(I would like to see Cc: and Bcc: being allowed to be pasted in also). > At minimum, addresses in Cc: and Bcc: need to be checked against > blocking lists, and it's probably worth checking the number of > names in the list against some threshold - especialy Bcc:s, > which tend to be popularly used by spamware. On cracker, you can paste To:, CC:, and Bcc:. All are checked against the destination block file. At present, if a blocked address is on a list of addresses, the entire list is blocked. Maximum number of recipients is 20, at which point the whole thing is dropped. > >I would also like to see From: pasted in. In fact I can see no > >purpose to restrict what can be pasted in, other than to reduce > >complaints to the remailer operator possibly. > Too easy to be abused by forgers, as are Reply-To: and Sender:. Sender: we don't allow, or X-Sender: or Received: or Comments: authenticated sender is. Reply-To: is allowed, and checked against the destination block list. In practice, this stuff doesn't seem to be a problem. Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design For a great anti-spam procmail recipe, send me mail with subject "spam". Append "+spamsucks" to my username to ensure delivery. KeyID=0xC72F3F1D Encryption is too important to leave to the government. -- Bruce Schneier http://www.athens.net/~dustman mailto:andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu <}+++< From comsec at nym.alias.net Tue Dec 2 09:13:22 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:13:22 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: Message-ID: <19971202170009.20761.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: > >(I would like to see Cc: and Bcc: being allowed to be pasted in also). > > At minimum, addresses in Cc: and Bcc: need to be checked against > blocking lists, and it's probably worth checking the number of > names in the list against some threshold - especialy Bcc:s, > which tend to be popularly used by spamware. As long as blocking requests are authenticated with some sort of "cookie" token scheme, that would be acceptable. That goes for INDIVIDUAL blocking requests. Somewhat more discretion ought to be used for requests to block an entire domain. That should probably only be done upon request from the "postmaster" at that domain, and when an entire domain is blocked, that fact should probably be announced in advance, publicly, in alt.privacy.anon-server to inform users in that domain who might not have been made aware of the action and who might need to recreate 'nym reply blocks, etc., before their incoming mail gets embargoed. For example, if I had a 'nym with a reply block that directed replies to my e-mail account at work (I don't, BTW), and my employer decided that it no longer wanted its employees to be able to receive anonymous e-mail, then it would only be polite for the employer to notify the employees well in advance of that policy change. But in case the employer failed to do so, a public notice should also be made. In fact, I'd say that domain-wide blocking requests should only be accepted from "postmaster" or one of the contact addresses listed with InterNIC for that domain. One large ISP, for example, allowed a user (who was not an employee nor a representative of the ISP) to sign up for the user ID "abuse". > >I would also like to see From: pasted in. In fact I can see no > >purpose to restrict what can be pasted in, other than to reduce > >complaints to the remailer operator possibly. > > Too easy to be abused by forgers, as are Reply-To: and Sender:. I'm not sure what the actual use of a "Sender:" header is, but pasting in a "Reply-To:" header is not technically forgery, since it does not imply where a message came From:. It is only a suggestion where replies should be directed. When the From: and Reply-To: lines both exist, but differ, most software gives the user an option of which address to reply to. Thus, in the final analysis the person replying makes and is responsible for the decision as to where to send his reply. > >My software shows be all headers. I am not sure what other software > >would do, probably, only display the first From field (the remailers). > > > MSMail and other closed systems are generally quite arrogant > about only showing you the mail headers they "know" you want to see, > and discarding the rest, whether that's what you want or not. > Lots of mail clients only show you one From:, either discarding > others or making them available in a "Show all headers" mode. All the more reason to only allow pasting in the replacement mode. > There are other remailer-like systems that provide mailboxes > for anonymous retrieval; I think Jenaer does something like that. > And then of course there are hotmail and juno :-) That doesn't solve the problem of how to post with a NON-replyable pseudonym, though. It has been suggested that the practice of pasting in a From: header should not be allowed because it is subject to abuse and that this can better be accomplished through a 'nym server. But if the person doesn't want e-mail replies, why should a 'nym server be burdened with maintaining a reply mechanism that the 'nym owner doesn't want to use? Even if the reply block is redirected to /dev/null at somedomain.com, handling replies, incoming mail bombs, etc. is unnecessary work. The fact that the remailer net has implemented source-level blocking upon request means it already has more safeguards in place against "forgery" than 90% of the ISPs have. It's quite ironic to see people like Gary Burnore complain that allowing a remailer user to set an arbitrary From: is "abusive" when the ISP he (and you) post from, Netcom, allows that very thing. There are actually two valid reasons I can think of to paste in a From: header: One is to post "from" a pseudonym without having to go through the 'nymserver. For example, to make posts and send correspondence when the 'nym server is down or to be able to post from a non-secure site without having to compromise security by making one's PGP secret keyring accessible at that site. The second reason would be to post using a non-replyable pseudonym. Many newsreaders gather only the headers of Usenet messages and list them by their Subject: and From: lines. Without the ability to set a From: line, one's posts to a thread are indistinguishable from all the other ones from "nobody at replay.com". If I want to call myself "Santa Claus", it's far easier to paste in a "From: Santa Claus " than to go to the trouble of creating a replyable 'nym at a 'nym server just to put something recognizeable in the From: header. The problem with eliminating any feature that gets abused is that it's an open invitation for someone to deliberately abuse it just to get it eliminated. Whenever possible, a solution should be sought which eliminates abuse while still allowing legitimate use. - - -- Finger for PGP public key. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIQzwwbp0h8ZvosNAQFLpgf+LS9VIGvUV3JKRHp+/ZtoRUkhNgH0h2Jg tr/5gazeo+k0EHnaA/jvdnZ2HKSSkKguXaAnzejBnTtfvfQa38GcWBZsve/4fC9e YAv80++wGj/0RhgwNEp8ovm57u5KQmybOqxmfeQ8H/cc8jyfhZEBGb2sxIbqvze5 NvzMGUHpKfUfduxo+kGeoOPOO+CkpM1sd5RmFSPojd6DgG3gNELjLD1jWLpZT7BC YlBOJFh39ibssjQQO1lcLokdgqlDLQZWx1Lar9fyuWHlO5z+2wKkI+MICMkF32YE dd3sPuhZxEGZGHyV+gybqm961G/7VctAXWrKlXuELb1HYUpsSkU+GA== =Q+h9 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~ This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message. It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net. Date: Tue Dec 2 17:00:03 1997 GMT From: comsec at nym.alias.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEUAwUBNIQ+mE5NDhYLYPHNAQHVxQf3Y3DTPTUfLoQ/4qMM4Dxn58WS3zGQQpG3 +R6nVXONkQ5NpkSEdhoJDA8ANU9Xf/Bd0o1WtVhoTzutqULMUQjKKPKUtda/rxHh IkhgeFHuTq8jYfLso0MQkWFDGusd3BKacChKF83Rp0s6lOUZw0gr+ejVQNK6jLR6 PCzu5arH+X5y/4kRL12mLk/q72wW6ghN28b/9ogL+P8dWVfQjpSkJBA77OX4bQqE 2EixaU9xOwUOcBWnvmukXaPZF2PQ99MGOVQ9xZrdP6TSpWcmgbW1gg0xBPn6uCkl VD/TWTnCGMF86n0La85nx8/ypR6GxpyrcSrBpdkUdhgU61xmNXyS =aLBH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu Tue Dec 2 09:27:18 1997 From: andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu (Andy Dustman) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:27:18 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <19971202170009.20761.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: On 2 Dec 1997, Charlie Comsec wrote: > As long as blocking requests are authenticated with some sort of "cookie" > token scheme, that would be acceptable. That goes for INDIVIDUAL blocking > requests. I used to require that people reply to a confirmation message before I would block them, but it was really too much effort. I check the headers, and as long as it looks like the request came from them, I block them and send them a message that they are blocked, so at least if it's a spoofed request, they will know they have been spoofed. > Somewhat more discretion ought to be used for requests to block > an entire domain. That should probably only be done upon request from the > "postmaster" at that domain, and when an entire domain is blocked, I do exactly that, or require a request from the internic-listed contact. > The problem with eliminating any feature that gets abused is that it's an open > invitation for someone to deliberately abuse it just to get it eliminated. > Whenever possible, a solution should be sought which eliminates abuse while still > allowing legitimate use. Agreed, and I think I've worked out a reasonable compromise, because even if you do try to forge somebody, it should scream, "Hey, you should be suspicious about where this really came from." Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design For a great anti-spam procmail recipe, send me mail with subject "spam". Append "+spamsucks" to my username to ensure delivery. KeyID=0xC72F3F1D Encryption is too important to leave to the government. -- Bruce Schneier http://www.athens.net/~dustman mailto:andy at neptune.chem.uga.edu <}+++< From tm at dev.null Tue Dec 2 09:29:40 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:29:40 +0800 Subject: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34844264.4B14@dev.null> Robert A. Costner wrote: > At 07:45 AM 12/2/97 -0600, TruthMonger wrote: > > So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their > >delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time > >and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are > >trying to offend them? > > Well TruthMonger (if that is your real name,) I think you are missing the > point. For purposes of the discussion, no one cares about the content of > the messages, who or why they are being sent, nor is anyone bothered by > anything concerning the message itself. What's being discussed is scarce > resources of remailer operators. I was responding to Bill and Lance's comments in regard to forgery victims being set up as targets of retribution. I think references to "deplorable content" indicate some measure of judgement in regard to defining what is considered 'abuse' of a remailer. However, you are right about the thread basically dealing with the reprecussions to the remailer operators and their resources as an end result of the particular modes of remailer use. At the risk of actually being on-topic in a thread, I should point out that I have always been of the opinion that it is up to the individual remailer operators to judge what level and types of use they are able to provide as a service with their given time and resources. > Most remailers are operated with donated time and resources. Problems with > the remailer, especially artificially generated ones, are just simply not > desired. True, but I doubt that the artificially generated attacks on a remailer are possible to fully deter, no matter what convolutions one puts themselves through in order to stop it. I can post the following to USENET: From: JoeBlow at hotmail.com To: All USENET Groups Subject: Robert A. Costner uses his remailer for hate attacks -----Begin Forwarded Message----- Received: from anon.lcs.mit.edu (anon.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.254]) Delivered-To: remailer-operators at anon.lcs.mit.edu Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971202094253.037e0654 at mail.atl.bellsouth.net> X-Sender: rcostner at mail.atl.bellsouth.net Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:42:53 -0500 To: remailer-politics at server1.efga.org From: "Robert A. Costner" Subject: I Hate People Of All Colors, and I Kill Their Children -----End Forwarded Message---- > Perhaps it is just me, but if my phone rings because of some > message on the Cracker remailer, then I don't care for it happening and I > get offended. When last month a prosecutor for the Attorney General's > office called me about a packet of material he had received on Cracker, I > didn't care for the call. It interrupted a phone call I was having with > the communications director of his ex-boss who is now running for Governor. > Clearly, it cuts into time I have to do other things. If you are in a position where it is unwise for you to simply tell certain people, "Learn how to use a Delete key, shit for brains!" then this is obviously a personal cost to you for your connection to the Cracker remailer. Everything you do cuts into the time you have to do other things. Personally, I appreciate the time and resources you provide for supporting remailer services. However, when I email politicos and other public figures I often advise them that they can only fuck so many people for so long before the lynch mob is going to show up on their doorstep and I don't want to hear them whining about their fate in life. I sometimes use a remailer, even when I cc: public mailing lists (thus making the source/identity of the post/poster obvious), just because I find that there are many self-important jerkoffs who love to fuck with people for the smallest of reasons, unless it actually requires them to make a real effort to do so. Feel free to provide my email and/or home address to any legal entity who has a problem with anonymous posts from my shallowly disguised identity, but you might want to warn them that unless their penis is long enough to reach to their own asshole, they are not likely to profit from any suggestion I might make to them. > When a police detective calls, not only do I have to explain about > remailers and answer his questions, but I have to spend time making him > prove he's a policeman before I tell him I can't tell him anything. This > can take two or more phone calls and waste even more of my time. Tell them you'll send them a faq/fax for their edification, and to contact you again only if they are too ignorant to understand the basic concepts. And why do you have to make him prove he's a policeman in order not to tell him anything? When I deal with John Law I tell them that I will be happy to deal with them at my convenience, unless they can provide a reasonable need for expediency. Their alternative is to explain to a judge why they arrested you for considering your own time as valuable as theirs, and giving you cause to refuse to cooperate, in the process. > So why am I getting these phone calls and email messages? What is needed > to make them stop? I don't even run a remailer! You're a public figure. You're getting your fifteen minutes of 'flame'. > -- Robert (Spam Me!) Costner TruthMonger (Or so I would have you believe...) From M4f7mtcED at juno.com Wed Dec 3 01:47:28 1997 From: M4f7mtcED at juno.com (M4f7mtcED at juno.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:47:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Make More Sales! Message-ID: Make More Sales!!! ****************************************************************** Your product, service, information, opportunity can be seen by thousands or even millions in just days! We are experienced commercial emailers who know how important it is to get your message, product, or service out to the masses FAST! We offer fast turn around at a fair price. At S. Direct Marketing we offer: Highly targeted ads: We use the most advanced software available to "extract" or find people that might be interested in your offer by entering "key words" in search engines and browsers. We can target your ad to the following criteria: Hobbies, Special Interests, Bus. Opp., Income Seekers, MLM, and much more. Your cost to extract targeted email addresses is only 1.5 cents per email address, i.e. 10,000 targeted emails would be $150; 20,000 emails for $300. The cost for us to mail all targeted email lists is an additional $50. I extract 50 to 100,000 AOL addresses every day! "No one else can do this by the way". The cost for these general lists are 1 cent for every 10 names.... Just tell us how many you want. I will personally extract all the duplicate names for you. Thus making it a clean list. Yes! We sell our lists! If you need us to generate a lists for you, just call for our rates. We will need an additional 3-5 days to generate a targeted list. A targeted list of 25,000 emails can typically generate as much response as a general list of 1,000,000 emails! Price Rates for General (Non Targeted) Emails 10,000 emails $50 25,000 emails $55 50,000 emails $65 100,000 emails $115 150,000 emails $145 200,000 emails $195 300,000 emails $250 Ordering Instructions: We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, check by fax or you can mail check or money order. Please print this order form and have it ready when you call our office. Our office hours are: 9am to 9pm (PST) 7-days. Call now! 510-653-4709 You will be given directions on where and how to send us your order. 30 From lutz at belenus.iks-jena.de Tue Dec 2 09:52:04 1997 From: lutz at belenus.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:52:04 +0800 Subject: PGP 5.0 ConsensuS?? -- is it usable? In-Reply-To: <199711282127.QAA27009@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: * William H. Geiger III wrote: > at 05:06 PM, lutz at belenus.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) said: >>* Anonymous Remailer wrote: >>>Do you think that it is a good idea to migrate from pgp 2.6.3 to >>>pgp 5.0 now? > >>No. > >Care to justify that? In which way? It's a clear statement. From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Tue Dec 2 10:35:00 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mix) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:35:00 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: Message-ID: <199712021802.KAA08927@sirius.infonex.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert A. Costner wrote: >I was thinking of remailers sending out anon messages with a distinct from >line that has zero connection (in the nym database) to any email address. >Is this possible? To establish a nym only through one way communication? I think so. The key here is to have all the nym's mail sent from the same remailer, pasting in a From: [nym] header. The remailer could verify the message by checking the digital signature on the message before remailing it to it's final recipient/s. When the recipient sees that the Sender: was the nym's usual remailer, he is fairly certain that the message originated from the nymholder, but not as certain as when he verifies the digital signature himself. Also, it would be nice if the nymholder could set the Reply-To: header, thus allowing him to change his inbox "on the fly" (hotmail, a nymserver, alt.anonymous.messages, etcetera). Since anonymous remailing is now considered a free service in the minds of most of its users, charging for it does not make sense. I'd be curious to know how much money has been collected by the ecash-accepting remailer that Ian Goldberg set up a couple months back. [nym] remailer like I mentioned above may become lucrative if it generates enough repeat customers (i.e., persistent nyms). So could charging a fee for each address put in the Bcc: header. Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIQq3Ba1d3zm4nqOEQJPOQCgvHJa9vQEdX4ejxcv14X85S0GlNMAn0Kj EgANE66o/Q0fRBFxIZSVZh9C =+0az -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vin at shore.net Tue Dec 2 11:10:47 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:10:47 +0800 Subject: Big Brother Is Watching ATMs In-Reply-To: <2367.881005036@zelkova.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: Robert A. Costner wrote: >As wonderful as eye scanning technology may sound, it promises to offer >very weak identification and only be reliable in the short run. This is >based on the premise that a reproduction of an eye will work as well. Just >as a reproduction of a driver's license seems to work for check forgery. With respect, I disagree. I think it is quite likely that an iris-scan technology can effectively differentiate between a living eye and a reproduction (or, as one of my many correspondents on this topic suggested, an eye forcibly removed from the socket of a potential fraud victim.) In any case, the issue of false positives/negatives will be settled with evidence. I think the technology will probably be useful, in those terms. My concern is rather with who owns and controls the scan data from an individual's own eye: whoever scans him or her? Scans at a distance? Surreptitiously? Whatever entity claims the right to validate or authenticate the individual's identity, for his or her own good? for the public good? If the value of eye-scanning (or any other type of biometric authentication) is to be short-lived, it will be because the scan-data itself will be poorly held, or transferred insecurely. While it may be difficult or impossible to fake out the camera with a phony eyeball, it will _certainly_ be possible to inject a copy of the proper scan-data somewhere into the linkage between the camera lens and probably remote authentication server which will support it. The inherent weakness of biometric identifiers is that, if (or when) there is a breach in the authentication system (or the access controls or crypto system which secures the database which supports it,) it will be impossible to correct the situation (as we might issue a new ATM card or smartcard, or a new SecurID, or change a user's password.) The real victim of a poorly-designed authentication system which uses biometrics will be the citizen/consumer who trusted his (irreplacable, being often single and unique) biometric scan to an entity which handled it with improper care and precautions. My sarcastic reaction to Jonathan's initial post was in reaction to his report that some commercial banking organization was planning to surreptitiously collect these iris scans and use them to replace user-memorized PINs for validating cash disbursements. (Jon tells me that he originally heard this version on AM radio is San Francisco: the Barbara Simpson show, KSFO 560AM, which he has found an often-reliable source.) I still consider this unlikely -- if for no other reason than the fact that banking regulators (i.e., insurers) would never allow it. There is, of course, a whole set of political and sociological issues which revolve around the rough equivalence of effective biometric system, and the database which will give it value, and the traditionally feared "national ID" paper-document system. Jonathan's initial post validly raised that fear. There is also an important public-policy discussion in the question of whether the commercial value of such a system (and its database) to consumers will again tempt the mass of (US) citizens into voluntarily giving up control over this authentication technology (for easy credit or faster and bigger ATM withdrawals) to business... for the government to later take advantage of as it will, when this aspect of our privacy is just another commodity. [Much of American privacy has already been traded off by our citizens in a similar fashion. Europe, where privacy was redefined when governments extended citizen property rights to include information about that citizen, presents a different model. With some problems, which Libertarians are prone to stress;-) and some valuable protections.] (Did anyone note the European Commission's denunciation of US crypto policy specifically noted that forcing European citizens to include a message-recovery mechanism for government eavesdropping in their legal e-mail or other electronic message systems would probably be a violation of privacy rights commonly held by all citizens of the European Union?) Biometrics (something you are) is one of the three classic mechanisms by which we convince a computer that we are indeed someone whose identity was previously registered with the computer: something one knows (password, PIN,) something one has (token, smartcard, ATM card,) or something one is (the biometric.) Biometric identifiers, because they are static -- and thus, inherently subject to replay attacks from _somewhere_ in their process or procedures -- will likely always require confirmation from other authenticators. Certainly they will require a secondary confirmation before they are used to validate an active transfer of value like an ATM's disbursement of cash. (The lawyers and auditors will demand it.) I actually expect that the current standard for "strong authentication" in business practice -- "two factors;" typically a password and a token/card (often enhanced with a one-time password generator, which provides proof that the token is in the users hand at the moment the authentication code is generated) -- will soon be expanded to three. It is far more likely that auditors in the future will define "strong authentication" systems as requiring (1) a user-memorized PIN, (2) a token, and (3) a biometric, than that they will do away with the requirement for either the PIN or the token. Tokens (by classical definition, personal and mobile, usually pocketable) are becoming personal repositories for encryption and digital signature keys, eventually secure crypto-engines, so these hand-held authenticators will likely become even more valuable. And a PIN or password will, at the very least, still be required to secure the smartcard's internal data so that the crown jewels are not readily available to every pickpocket. The interesting question is what sort of controls will be placed (probably by legislation) on second or third party access or traffic in consumers'/citizens' biometric data. It may be that all parties (citizens, government, business) will have a common interest in holding systems which capture or store these data-files to a very high infosec or crypto standard in order to keep biometric files from falling into the realm of meaningless index data (like Bob's example of the US social security number.) The use of biometrics as an authenticator will have commercial value -- to the citizen/consumer and to commercial entities -- only if the biometric scan-data is handled securely and respectfully. The use of biometrics as an administrative tool is probably inevitable -- something we already see with photographs and fingerprints (which are, of course, also biometrics.) And as machines are better adapted to scan for fingerprints, or faces and irises (remotely, as in an airline terminal, bank lobby, or street corner?) -- and then to search, match, identify and log the presence of these consumers/citizens at this or that place -- our culture will inevitably get more constipated and the freedom of our anonymity will be cramped (albiet, a protected place may be "safer," as some will argue.) Hey, no one said the future was going to be easier to live than the past;-) This record-keeping has been an obsession of modern governments since the French Revolution, and only if we keep explaining and making the impact of the technology a political issue -- as in the way computer-monitoring can cut the cost of a $70,000 typical wiretap to a few dollars, vastly increasing the capability of government to listen to more, quite cheaply -- can citizens grasp what is at stake and strive to defend themselves and the next generation. Random thoughts, shared for comment. Suerte, _Vin "Cryptography is like literacy in the Dark Ages. Infinitely potent, for good and ill... yet basically an intellectual construct, an idea, which by its nature will resist efforts to restrict it to bureaucrats and others who deem only themselves worthy of such Privilege." _ A thinking man's Creed for Crypto/ vbm. * Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + * 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From honig at otc.net Tue Dec 2 11:40:01 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:40:01 +0800 Subject: [RePol] Janet Reno kills babies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971202111153.007cda70@otc.net> > I was responding to Bill and Lance's comments in regard to forgery >victims being set up as targets of retribution. I think references to >"deplorable content" indicate some measure of judgement in regard to >defining what is considered 'abuse' of a remailer. This excerpt made clear for me the distinction: 1. There is a temporary problem with forgery & retribution, but this goes away when the populace gets a clue about authentication. In this case, technology and a little cultural learning solve a social problem. In practice, this cultural awareness could be encouraged by spamming the masses with letters from various interesting forged parties, e.g., irs.gov. Or spoofing a public news streams and messing with the stock market. I wonder if the recent classified government report on infohacking the infrastructure included these pranks? But enough gedankenpranking. Getting a copy of PGP integrated into everyone's grandmother's GUI email clients, so that this is widely used and understood by the masses, is the positive way to do this. 2. There is an everpresent truly social problem with people who want to control the configuration of other people's bits. This problem is solvable by a set of strongly-enforced rules (e.g., "Freedom of speech" -more generally, freedom of information storage and manipulation in any form) which would have priority over the behavior of the mobs (e.g., in the voting booth). In the US we're supposed to have this but there is some question ---perhaps we need to hold lawmakers personally criminally liable when they pass unconstitutional laws--- however the architecture is sound if implemented correctly. So in the future we'll not trust anything without a public key, censors will be laughed at instead of getting congressional time, and anonymity will be commonplace and as understood as digital signatures. I guess this list is pretty much an ill-tempered view of the future.. David Honig honig at alum.mit.edu --------------------------------------------------- If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. -TJ From lharrison at dueprocess.com Tue Dec 2 11:46:55 1997 From: lharrison at dueprocess.com (Lynne L. Harrison) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:46:55 +0800 Subject: PGP User's Guide 2.6.2 In-Reply-To: <199712020837.JAA05430@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971202140449.007e4a20@pop.mhv.net> At 09:37 AM 12/2/97 +0100, Anonymous wrote: > >Where can I find a copy? See Harka's PGPSteps at: http://bureau42.base.org/public/pgpsteps.txt ************************************************************* Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | A Word to the Wise: Poughkeepsie, New York | "When the gods mailto:lharrison at dueprocess.com | wish to punish us, http://www.dueprocess.com | they answer our prayers." ************************************************************* DISCLAIMER: I am not your attorney; you are not my client. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice. From declan at well.com Tue Dec 2 12:08:56 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:08:56 +0800 Subject: USA Today editorial opposing criminal copyright bill Message-ID: An opposing view from Rep. Goodlatte also appears at the URL below. My article on this unprecedented criminal copyright bill is: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1588,00.html -Declan ====== http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/nceditf.htm USA Today Editorial 12/01/97- Updated 11:14 PM ET Law limits use of Net In 1994, Massachusetts Institute of Technology student David LaMacchia invited on-line users to download $1 million worth of copyrighted computer software that he'd put on the Internet. In spite of his antics, charges against LaMacchia were dismissed. Thanks to a legal loophole, hackers who break copyrights just for fun can't be criminally prosecuted. LaMacchia's case is just the most notorious example of how the growth of the Internet has strained the nation's copyright laws. Duplicating materials in cyberspace is as easy as clicking a mouse. The market for pirated goods is as infinite as the World Wide Web. And under copyright laws from the 1800s, infringement occurs only if a person makes money from the illegal act. Determined to deter the hackers, Congress passed a bill last month making it a felony to duplicate copyrighted materials on line, including computer software, recordings, books and articles. But the bill awaiting President Clinton's signature puts more than hackers at risk. It threatens the actions of scientists, academics and Web users, exposing them to criminal penalties of up to six years in jail. Researchers frequently use the Internet to distribute articles that they write but that other publications copyright. And the Internet now plays an important role in peer review. Scientists post their published research on a Web site in hope of encouraging the exchange of scientific information. Until now, copyright infringement wasn't a worry for these folks. Courts recognized the "fair use" of copyrighted works for noncommercial purposes, including teaching, research and criticism. To bar the use of all copyrighted material would be like telling film critics they couldn't quote dialogue in their movie reviews. Yet under its new law, Congress makes it a crime to duplicate copyrighted materials on line but neglects to include specific "fair use" legal protections allowing the duplication of copyrighted materials that doesn't hurt a work's commercial value. Lawmakers argue that protections aren't needed because the bill calls for the prosecution only of those who "willfully" violate copyrights. Their argument overlooks all the people who know they're using copyrighted material but do so without criminal intent: the researchers, students, writers and Web surfers who duplicate copyrighted materials as a way to communicate. Unless a clear exemption is written into law, all risk becoming targets for overly aggressive prosecutors. There are compelling reasons to revise copyright laws for our digital age. But without guaranteeing researchers the same protections on line as they have off, Congress risks limiting the Internet's legitimate uses. ### From declan at well.com Tue Dec 2 12:21:21 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:21:21 +0800 Subject: GLAAD report on filtering software: "Access Denied" Message-ID: ======= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:16:07 -0500 From: Cathy Renna To: "'Declan McCullagh'" Hi Declan-- I am greatly appreciating your comments and articles about the summit (Loren Javier and I are attending right now. Here is our release about the filtering software report. Cathy Renna Washington, DC Media Resource Center Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) (202) 986-1360 fax: (202) 667-0902 renna at glaad.org VISIT THE GLAAD WEB SITE AT http://www.glaad.org! ALERT LINE 1-800-GAY-MEDIA "GLAAD" and "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" are registered trademarks of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Inc. MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Liz Tracey, GLAAD (212) 807-1700 pgr. (800) 946-4646 pin# 1423527 e-mail: tracey at glaad.org GLAAD RELEASES GROUNDBREAKING INTERNET FILTERING SOFTWARE REPORT NATION'S ONLY LESBIAN & GAY MEDIA ADVOCACY GROUP EXAMINES COMPLEX ISSUES IN "ACCESS DENIED" NEW YORK, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1997-The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today announced from the historic Internet Summit the release of their comprehensive and groundbreaking report on Internet Filtering Software and ratings systems, "Access Denied: The Impact of Internet Filtering Software on the Lesbian and Gay Community." In the wake of the Communications Decency Act decision, Reno v. ACLU, and with the Internet Summit: Focus on Children being held through tomorrow in the nation's capital, GLAAD has completed an exhaustive survey of how Internet filtering software, and future proposed ratings systems affect the lesbian and gay community. The findings mark the first time a lesbian and gay media advocacy organization has produced research and analysis of such depth on the issue of Internet access. "The majority of software currently on the market, as well as new products in development, place informational Web sites serving the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in the same categories as sexually explicit sites," the executive summary reports. "The software developers are either unable or unwilling to consider that information about sexual orientation and identity (e.g., a gay square dancing site) has nothing to do with sexual behavior, and everything to do with culture and identity." "Access Denied" contains sections analyzing the legal, political and social implications of enforced invisibility on the Web. It also includes overviews written by members of groups such as Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International (GLPCI) and Peacefire (an entirely youth-run cyberliberties group), as well as testimonials from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth, who, as seen in the report, are those most directly affected by the lack of access to important information via the Web or Internet newsgroups. "I urge everyone who uses the Interent to read this report, and learn the troubling implications of the widespread use of filtering software," states Joan M. Garry, GLAAD Executive Director. "As a mother, I can assure you that while GLAAD has examined the disturbing aspects of filtering, we never lost sight of the youngest users of the Internet-our children. Whether it is through the testimonials of lesbian and gay youth, or an essay written by a gay father, the voices in this report must be heard now-perhaps soon, they will be much harder to find." The report also includes a thorough review of the currently available software, ratings systems and search engines, recommendations for industry leaders on how to make the Internet both friendly and fair, as well as a proposal for a future ratings system, FAIRsite, which would measure the accessibility and accuracy of various ratings systems and software. GLAAD is a national organization that promotes fair, accurate and inclusive representation of individuals and events in the media as a means of combating homophobia and all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. -30- From comsec at nym.alias.net Tue Dec 2 12:28:38 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:28:38 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: Message-ID: <19971202202007.11359.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Robert A. Costner" wrote: > >But you don't need a special anonymity server to do that; > >a keyserver plus either a personna certificate or some archiving mechanism is enough. > >The certificate shows that you're the first+only person at that > >certificate issuer to use the name you've chosen; the archive > >shows that the first poster using the name used PGP Key . > >I have a PGP key I use for signing pseudonyms which performs > >the personna certificate function - I'll verify uniqueness > >of keys that I've signed. > > I was thinking of remailers sending out anon messages with a distinct from > line that has zero connection (in the nym database) to any email address. > Is this possible? To establish a nym only through one way communication? I can think of a couple of ways this could be implemented. You could either allow the user to select an e-mail address to use, then do an nslookup to verify that the domain does not exist, or else choose a domain that's actually nothing but a bit bucket. The cleanest implementation might be to create a "bitbucket.efga.org", alias all incoming mail (except for perhaps "postmaster") to /dev/null, then assign non-replyable 'nyms off of that. That would eliminate the need for managing reply blocks and confirmation cookies. This is much more preferable to these people you see who post with a From: address of "nobody at nowhere.com", probably not realizing that nowhere.com is actually a real domain. But implementing such a server is still a lot more work than simply allowing From: headers to be pasted and allowing source blocking for anyone who is worried about being the victim of abuse of such a scheme. - --- Finger for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIRgZwbp0h8ZvosNAQGC7gf+PRUB+6Zuxns3E+BWZoM3kkzn4MD9vcip 1MvQRFRvTTdvGM4vFySYcZByv7SQJdIiVZItyzMe4qMz+Ft/xpbWUYmz3mOpws9H RW3sbsFywNzp4pCxolKhMJ8QTQI/tHb3CHT6thHkbgjpzr4bJlL6trLKn+btY2d/ MdNq61oPCTq4YYdj9kC8WebngjfJZOvcvQhX1OLtUaagrpL8DiGxivGSz/Rdl6ZC Yr8m8m0V/l6WA4HG3ZKTDoBz6OBxI7VROZRZdJkCRHKgScQP9/4+UYnSbew1rAhE apoUG3Ds7kiIUoZ9gLz01sYvRRaWelIjIZLp+RfnMPvtwXexP2uA8Q== =+uAL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From honig at otc.net Tue Dec 2 12:32:26 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:32:26 +0800 Subject: anon remailer Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971202122124.007a4b60@otc.net> This guy has the IQ of a turnip... relevant to anon remailers & society thread... Tuesday December 2 12:07 PM EST Hate e-mail case to be retried SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance, federal prosecutors will retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to Asian students at UC Irvine. Prosecutors announced their decision while opposing a bail request for Richard Machado of Los Angeles, the first person in the United States to be tried on charges of committing a hate crime over the Internet. His first trial on those charges ended with a deadlocked jury in November. Jurors voted 9 to 3 to acquit the former UC Irvine student. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Genaco told Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler that it is important that the case be resolved because other similar cases are certain to occur. Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was first charged. Machado's retrial is scheduled to begin Jan. 27. _- David Honig honig at alum.mit.edu --------------------------------------------------- If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. -TJ From declan at well.com Tue Dec 2 12:35:22 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:35:22 +0800 Subject: A Netly Thanksgiving (guess I should have posted this earlier) Message-ID: =========== http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1602,00.html The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/) November 28, 1997 A Netly News Thanksgiving by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) Here at the Netly News, we have a feast of things for which we're thankful during this holiday season: Ricochet radio modems. MacOS 8. A Supreme Court that supports free speech online. DVD. Cable companies offering 400 Kbit/sec Net-connections. But we're also grateful to the personalities who made this year an unforgettable one: Heaven's Gate: A special Netly thanks to these suicide cultists for providing us with seemingly unlimited article fodder. From the blinking red alert headline of their celestial home page to the computer-generated painting of a resident of the kingdom of heaven, their web site was a treasure trove for journalists. Buried in the invisible space at the bottom of the home page were hundreds of hidden words: UFO, space alien, extraterrestrial, misinformation, second coming, end times, alien abductions, Yoda, Yoga. Wonderful stuff. Louis Freeh: The butt of a thousand jokes on the Net ("Freedom isn't Freeh"), the FBI director emerged this year as the arch-enemy of strong encryption. We had worried that Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's departure might mean fewer good stories from the Justice Department. But Freeh came to the rescue, saying publicly that Americans should not be allowed to buy encryption products without a backdoor for law enforcement. [...] From nobody at bureau42.ml.org Tue Dec 2 12:41:17 1997 From: nobody at bureau42.ml.org (bureau42 Anonymous Remailer) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:41:17 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: Timmy C[...] May is a slant-eyed, rice-gibbling jap in a redneck disguise. ---._.--- / | \ / * \ ( @@ ) / _/-||-\_ \ / '/ || \` \ / / () \ \ / /| |\ \ / / | | \ \ / / / o o \ \ \ / / ( ) \ \ <_ ' `--`___'`___'--' ` _> / '~~--- / = \ ---~~` \ ,,,/ / ( v ) \ \,,, \ / / @|-' '-|@ \ \ / \__/ ////// \__/ Dave Smith bends over for Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the rest of the Databasix gang. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From declan at well.com Tue Dec 2 12:41:42 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:41:42 +0800 Subject: Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News Message-ID: [For details on some of the proposals presented, read the full article. --Declan] ============ http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1608,00.html The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/) December 2, 1997 Censorware Summit 2.0 by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) If there's one political controversy that promises never to die, it's sex and the Net. There seems to be something about the combination of children and cyberporn that makes otherwise levelheaded adults more than a little worried -- and even a little irrational. Enter the politicans, always happy to pacify parents with soothing rhetoric. Vice President Al Gore is scheduled to speak this morning at a two-day summit dedicated to protecting kids online. Of course, the Communications Decency Act's backers had claimed that that particularly nasty law (which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional) did just that. They were joined by the White House, which two years ago said "the President firmly supports the Communications Decency Act" to "regulate the exposure of children to computer pornography." This time, however, the White House would like to avoid the same embarrassing mistakes -- and, perhaps more importantly, would like to avoid pissing off high tech firms that could be hefty campaign contributors to Al Gore 2000. Instead of endorsing new federal legislation, the Clinton administration says it'll oppose it as long as industry regulates itself. And, of course, if firms play ball, their CEOs get to share the limelight with the veep [...] From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 12:55:49 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:55:49 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712022035.VAA25203@basement.replay.com> gburnore+NOspam at netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) > :If Gary Burnore is so concerned about "forgery", maybe he ought to > :start using that PGP key he keeps advertising in his .sig to > :actually sign his posts. Unless he does, he's still vulnerable to > :forgery from his fellow Netcom users who are still allowed to insert > :arbitrary From: lines in their Usenet posts. Actually, forging a > :post with Gary Burnore's name and address in the From: line can be > :much more convincingly (no disclaimers) done from a throwaway > :Netcruiser account, and with less effort than learning the proper > :protocol to do it through a remailer. > > > Please specify how PGP signing the inside of a post will stop UCE-Baiting. PGP signing a post is a lot like the new anti-counterfeiting measures in US currency, only a lot more effective. But if some bozo decides to start printing up three dollar bills with a portrait of Mickey Mouse, and others are foolish enough to accept them, what are you going to do? It's hard to protect people from their own stupidity. I'd contend that a $3 bill isn't even a counterfeit or forgery, since there is not genuine equivalent which it seeks to fraudulently duplicate. Maybe it's time that the brain-dead software that mindlessly harvests e-mail addresses from the net was shut down. That sounds like the real problem. > :Munging of addresses is better left to the discretion of the poster. > :Let those who perceive a need for this "capability" use it. At > :least one of the mail2news gateways implements that as an option for > :those desiring it. I'm in favor of leaving that choice with the > :poster. > > Please specify how PGP signing the inside of a post will stop UCE-Baiting. I'm not sure what comment you intended to make about that paragraph, since it appears that you inadvertantly pasted in your comment from the last paragraph again. The text you're supposedly commenting on nowhere mentions PGP. > :Mr. Burnore made a similar "forgery" complaint here several months > :ago and was advised to PGP sign his posts and request source-level > :blocking if he perceived forgery to be a problem. He has evidently > :not taken the trouble to implement the first suggestion and, > :assuming he took the second suggestion, he's posted no evidence to > :suggest that it's not been effective. > > The second has been effective. I've not denied that. Since you've already found a solution to the problem that works, there seems to be no need to do anything more drastic to solve it. > I can see however, that > allowing anon posts with someone elses' address in the from line is a great > tool for UCE-Baiting. I fail to see any other reason for it in an anonymous > post. What other reason would there be for putting a REAL email address in > the from line of an ANONYMOUS post? For one thing, to identify posts as originating from one's pseudonym, which *MIGHT* be a "real" e-mail address. Most times I've seen it used, though, it has been used to place identifying information in the From: field which many newsreaders use to identify posts so that they are recognizeable by the reader. > Again, it's nothing to do with the CONTENT. It has more to do with the ability > to post to an mlm group with someone elses' email address. Oh, and btw, if a > NETCOM customer is caught doing this, his/her account is terminated. The key word there is "caught", and then you'd have to convince Netcom to actually do something about it. It is my understanding that spammers routinely utilize Netcom's OPEN SMTP SERVERS to send out their spam, using whatever From: field they wish, and Netcom doesn't seem to care. Anyone using those same servers to send mail to a mail2news gateway could forge someone's name and e-mail address to a Usenet post, couldn't they? Also, even if a complaint to Netcom got an individual account shut down, that wouldn't stop some other Netcom user from doing the same thing, nor would it stop the first Netcom user from opening another account under a phony name and repeating the process, or even doing it from a non-Netcom account. So if my e-mail address were being forged via Netcom, would they be able to source-block it as the remailers currently can do? If not, doesn't your own ISP have a bigger abuse potential than the remailer net? > AGAIN IT'S NOT FORGERY THAT'S A PROBLEM. IT'S UCE BAITING. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's no need to shout. Perhaps you've forgotten two earlier posts you made to this NG in the past couple of weeks in which you said: -> Subject: Re: Controlling the From: line in PIdaho -> -> Hopefully replay has corrected this as others have suggested so that the above -> CAN'T be done. It's a simple way to forge someone else's name. Early last ^^^^^ -> year comes to mind. -> -> [...] -> -> Posting anonymously is a valid thing to do, posting with someone else's name -> in the From line is simply forgery. Try sending your message from a hotmail ^^^^^^^ -> address or other site where you can just make up a name if you want this sort -> of thing. And in another post: -> Subject: Re: 'from' other than anonymous -> -> [...] -> -> Again, a forged from line (Forged as in someone's _REAL_ email address shows ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ -> up) is a BAD THING. You claimed to be concerned about FORGERY back then, now you're saying "IT'S NOT FORGERY THAT'S A PROBLEM". Which is the case? > AGAIN. Please specify how PGP signing a post will stop UCE Baiting based soley > on the from line. But you were given two solutions, so if one of them works, then you don't need the other one. -- From vznuri at netcom.com Tue Dec 2 14:13:29 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:13:29 +0800 Subject: Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712022156.NAA24800@netcom13.netcom.com> there's a simple solution to anyone who doesn't like the so-called "mandatory voluntary" rating systems. START YOUR OWN!! anyone is free to create software that filters whatever sites they deem appropriate, to use whatever algorithms they think are legitimate. for example, the the GLAAD agency might come out with a list of sites they think are appropriate for children to view that are excluded by other rating systems. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the rating companies agree to integrate such a list into their software and give the end user the choice of whether to turn it on. what? it takes a lot of time to rate sites? you don't want to do it? yet you want to complain about someone else who has taken the time to do this for customers who have chosen to pay for it? there is a legitimate market for filtering software, and it is growing. who is to say what software can be run on someone else's computer? who is to tell parents they shouldn't use a filtering package for their own children? filtering software can be as simple or complex as we wish. ultimately end users are voting with their money. the froth over the rating systems seems to me mostly overblown. I do agree however that they should not be made mandatory based on the law. the free market is solving the problem. we have ratings agencies and people (such as GLAAD) who rate the rating agencies. I don't see anything worth hyperventilating about. From rubin at eecs.umich.edu Tue Dec 2 14:22:20 1997 From: rubin at eecs.umich.edu (Aviel Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:22:20 +0800 Subject: Announcing availability of Crowds 1.1.1 for Win95, WinNT, Unix Message-ID: <199712022158.QAA07335@quip.eecs.umich.edu> Crowds: A system for anonymous web transactions Top 10 reasons why you might be interested in Crowds 10. The price - crowds is free 9. Easy to install - download the code, untar, and run. Then, simply point your browser proxy settings to it and you can browse anonymously 8. Public service - by running the crowds code, you provide others with anonymity, even if you don't use it all the time. 7. Big brother is on the net - this helps you hide 6. It's nobody's business what you are browsing 5. For this to work, there needs to be a large user community 4. Portable - now works on Windows95, WindowsNT, and all versions of Unix we tried 3. Win Crowds T-shirts and coffee mugs - details to come 2. Take a stand for privacy 1. Don't be the last person on the Internet to obtain privacy More information, including full source code is avilable at http://www.research.att.com/projects/crowds. - Mike Reiter - Avi Rubin ********************************************************************* Aviel D. Rubin rubin at research.att.com Secure Systems Research Dept. Adjunct Professor at NYU AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue http://www.research.att.com/~rubin/ Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Voice: +1 973 360-8356 USA FAX: +1 973 360-8809 --> Check out http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr/websec/ for a new book on web security (The Web Security Sourcebook). ********************************************************************* From tm at dev.null Tue Dec 2 14:58:32 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:58:32 +0800 Subject: 'Off' the parking pigs! In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971202122124.007a4b60@otc.net> Message-ID: <34848C59.5E07@dev.null> David Honig wrote: > relevant to anon remailers & society thread... > SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance, > federal prosecutors will > retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to > Asian students at UC Irvine. > Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was > first charged. Are we supposed to feel 'safer' in public, knowing that we may be surrounded by people to whom it may be worthwhile to kill a few cops and innocent bystanders in order to avoid punishment for sending nasty email, or having an unpaid parking ticket? When standing near someone who begins to jaywalk, should we hit the deck, in case this is their third offense and will kill to avoid life in prison? If the guy in the next parking spot doesn't plug the meter, are we in danger of taking a stray bullet from a Swat team? Perhaps I am being a bit facetious, or perhaps I am a prophet, able to see six months into the future... God help you if your 'crime' will provide some self-important member of the legal system with national press. Double-'God help you', if you win your case. TruthMonger "Advocating the death penalty for syntax errors, since 1984." From jim.burnes at ssds.com Tue Dec 2 15:17:14 1997 From: jim.burnes at ssds.com (Jim Burnes) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:17:14 +0800 Subject: Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News In-Reply-To: <199712022156.NAA24800@netcom13.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > there's a simple solution to anyone who doesn't > like the so-called "mandatory voluntary" rating systems. > > START YOUR OWN!! I've mentioned this half in jest before, but why don't all the moralistic fanatics petition their church to come up with filtering software. That way you could be sure what kind of stuff your church were filtering out. In doing so you would be providing a powerful check on the values of your religious institution. Since hard-core profit motives would be eliminated you could check if your church actively filters specific sites. This is something the net-nanny software doesn't allow you to do because their filter lists are proprietary. I know the RC church has plenty of additional clergy to devote to such a noble task ;-) The types of filtered information are up to your church: Anyone care to submit major censoring categories for each church? ;-) Maybe the best way for cypherpunks to attack this is to come up with free generic filtering software that any well recognized group can develop filtering lists for. Wait -- a name is coming to me -- GNUSitter? Please append your filtering categories here: Roman Catholic: Jewish: Lutheran: Pentacostal: Baptist: Southern Baptist: Scientologist: Davidian: Statist: Morman: Subgenius: All hail Eris! jim From comsec at nym.alias.net Tue Dec 2 15:21:23 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:21:23 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: Message-ID: <19971202230005.20270.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) wrote: > At 12:14 AM 12/01/1997 -0500, Robert A. Costner wrote: > >Best I can tell, the only reasonable good purpose for this is to create a > >persistent nym identity without a reply to capability. > > Actually, setting the reply to point to your nymserver address > is the one legitimate use I can see for it, though that > capability probably should be provided by the nymserver. > The reason for chaining through remailers is to gain anonymity. I can think of a couple of scenarios in which pasting in a From: header pointing to a 'nym might be advantageous: 1.) Posts when the nymserver is down, or; 2.) Posts from an insecure location where installation of one's secret keyring is not desirable. (The "newnym" servers require that send requests be PGP-signed with the nym's secret key.) - --- Finger for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIRnYwbp0h8ZvosNAQE6Xwf/SJQbKnIhFSP2nXd7dBQauf5ygoIrGqOt 6vFW644xxELC37iwW5tWI7Cr0N1Ipk9Py1UDzHSNYEeUGqUxgWGQ8BZhoNRg9i2t pqTr/YIRTjVxPETidpnKhyUgL6lz3bESpdiQLAKm1VwdWV3OhtNTlzL/Wu1hO33W +IxisotkksQ+OsCrfdkBRu6FarS90LGWa7Zqo3xNHZs599P/tVMrc2BYq7znXcZX gG4YwUhL2qWZJDhiWpTVWb/OH0Cq1UCnc/7AgMBjbQFt0ZCHghJXxc4DfmUG9L6J MHmpv82j7th8roMjM3FRGUzaqJxVBSoBKZPyBuRaLMgiaaupWku5EQ== =ZqJJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Tue Dec 2 15:36:22 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:36:22 +0800 Subject: Transforming Defense Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971202231442.006cf65c@pop.pipeline.com> The National Defense Panel presented yesterday to the Secretary of Defense its 95-page report on the future of US defense: "Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century." It's available in PDF format at: http://www.dtic.mil/ndp/FullDoc.pdf (386K) The report proposes an impressive 30-year overhaul for the military, with a recommendation that the two-major-wars strategy be replaced with that of preparing for one major war and a host of more limited defenses overseas and at home to combat enemies who will not challenge superior conventional armaments but will utilize "asymmetrical" NBC weapons, terrorism, information warfare. We've converted the Executive Summary to HTML: http://jya.com/ndp-pr.htm And a section on "Homeland Defense" which proposes a role for military forces to "protect against all enemies foreign and domestic" by providing intelligence, training, equipment and other aid to justice and law enforcement. http://jya.com/home-def.htm As noted in the NYT today, the report asks for a shakeup in intelligence, with renewed emphasis on training human spies to compensate for what technology cannot do. Along that line, the NYT also reports today on a huge Libyan deeply-buried pipeline system under construction which is suspected of being a distribution system for troops and equipment as well as CB weapons, placed underground to escape satellite spies. The report is based on descriptions of engineers and corporations working on the project. One feature of the NDP report, as well as other closed defense panel meetings, is the need for weapons to attack underground structures -- like those vast catcombs in Lybia and North Korea, and the US for that matter -- Cheyenne Mountain is still being re-hardened regularly, and its electronics re-Tempested, not that the local skinheads will not find a way to hack the bunker as trusted EEs and sys admins. From dformosa at st.nepean.uws.edu.au Tue Dec 2 15:59:41 1997 From: dformosa at st.nepean.uws.edu.au (? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:59:41 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <19971202202007.11359.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 2 Dec 1997, Charlie Comsec wrote: [...] > I can think of a couple of ways this could be implemented. You could either > allow the user to select an e-mail address to use, then do an nslookup to > verify that the domain does not exist, I would suggested useing "example.com" as such an address. This address is garoned to never be resolvable. - -- Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves? --Terry Pratchett. I do not reply to munged addresses. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNISLKqQK0ynCmdStAQGtFgP+I2up+A8PTl/a6mdCiXI7IUszGHqqjlO7 ExtLfl2hvbLbuWDrQVUZGk2Qwsc9xSj0NeFXlANROrZTcWQf6vVCMM6JVwW82qgE nnTtWpbtKqlhnvKkn4BKSnJd1UDsPribd/IsAGa5lGuzw7Yd4tMYDjkVg5FUdPgV +mdoZ3ATDd8= =uQTo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From 93704355 at 08177.com Wed Dec 3 08:02:31 1997 From: 93704355 at 08177.com (93704355 at 08177.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:02:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Delete if you do NOT have or plan to have a webpage. Message-ID: <> Online Sales & Marketing (OSM) would like your assistance With an Internet marketing survey. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please go to: http://www.osmweb.net/survey2.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We believe in free speech and responsible online Mass marketing. To be removed from all future mailings correctly, please send remove request to: remove at tmi-osm.net From 93704355 at 08177.com Wed Dec 3 08:02:31 1997 From: 93704355 at 08177.com (93704355 at 08177.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:02:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Delete if you do NOT have or plan to have a webpage. Message-ID: <> Online Sales & Marketing (OSM) would like your assistance With an Internet marketing survey. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please go to: http://www.osmweb.net/survey2.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We believe in free speech and responsible online Mass marketing. To be removed from all future mailings correctly, please send remove request to: remove at tmi-osm.net From 03129704com2 at tmi-osm.net Wed Dec 3 08:15:32 1997 From: 03129704com2 at tmi-osm.net (03129704com2 at tmi-osm.net) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:15:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Delete if you do NOT have or plan to have a webpage. Message-ID: <> Online Sales & Marketing (OSM) would like your assistance With an Internet marketing survey. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please go to: http://www.osmweb.net/survey2.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We believe in free speech and responsible online Mass marketing. To be removed from all future mailings correctly, please send remove request to: remove at tmi-osm.net From 03129704com2 at tmi-osm.net Wed Dec 3 08:15:32 1997 From: 03129704com2 at tmi-osm.net (03129704com2 at tmi-osm.net) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:15:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Delete if you do NOT have or plan to have a webpage. Message-ID: <> Online Sales & Marketing (OSM) would like your assistance With an Internet marketing survey. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please go to: http://www.osmweb.net/survey2.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We believe in free speech and responsible online Mass marketing. To be removed from all future mailings correctly, please send remove request to: remove at tmi-osm.net From neta at dev.null Tue Dec 2 16:35:14 1997 From: neta at dev.null (Network Associates, Inc.) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:35:14 +0800 Subject: Network Associates Announcement!!! Message-ID: <3484A4BC.1054@dev.null> ~ NETWORK ASSOCIATES ANNOUNCEMENT ------------------------------- Network Associates, Inc., is proud to announce that we have named TruthMonger our Chief Director of Security, adding his (or her) immense reputation capital to our already respected corporate image. No communications purporting to be from Network Associates, Inc., should be considered valid unless signed by the key provided below. TruthMonger is also authorized to accept payment, in cash only, of any money due to Network Associates, Inc., and all of our subsiduaries, at the following address: NETA c/o TruthMonger Box 281, Bienfait, Saskatchewan CANADA S0C 0M0 Network Associates, Inc., plans to use TruthMonger's extensive key-forging experience to help make digital signatures basically meaningless, in order to help lessen the potential legal and/or criminal repercussions of any future Key Escrow legislation. -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 Comment: "I Broke PGP!" mQGiBDSEmSYRBADgXaNjJkY7NmVjhXJGg0+8Sua4oYJ+tkG959T1lYFsCLVity0V fRH6ygoHaRe/YiXxqQnbXyt3Fo6oF8MdXDWLMTkpR1NZn5kIcUnDrGv6G3Y+bW8j fHy79JjX17OPPJS5FLIaATubngiRNJMwpn34cQIM812iDgUfrdxiFUQSwQCg/6ju lTyy+oFaxBTTUsBlYbkhDpUD/2PxF1JN53oHiCZb62PXoVE/QfN7i+ABpR0PW5jC TiaQwh7jEbVctYnzhSPjccUJSQ+XEwTbjrCS4xYftoIlkRsVSzbFcRIbelDP7kQw GM2UExhsHVNhpsq+benT7LfcFnACYYu6GjMIY+v3CfJYidJ94DN3E5D60Q+UEz/M sTEUBAC8h94Xk1l8IsItOPNbj8k0o7yfll8cqKHbe1CpSUBS6nZ0kwBq5WONkptx O4zBOsxlf/WnVo6C5ojgB2TeFWZoXj98X7S4QaVvHM3YFJuIHLw8gcS3HHahLphh bKGlffWF3FfQCJr2Rd6fk2SeZp2TZoCqLKt8UMwxbGjQa39dD7QvTmV0d29yayBB c3NvY2lhdGVzLCBJbmMuIDx0b3RvQHNrLnN5bXBhdGljby5jYT6JAGMEEBECACMF AjSEmSYXCgARh4SIT1mMRHX7HCWvKiZqcerSJDgECwMBAgAKCRA314vi4fVSmhyZ AJ9M8SPYgr4apBO0PAJwjg2bQDcvrACdF2vW+SsVL4r3EMP2vlHfZ0fSinKJAKAE EAEBAAoFAjSEmqUDBQF4AAoJEJ8TeU28wEKx7rED/2dajEBpvE/KtSUW9CbSPKyr 3rzULey4iBHOcrPqSgD7z6iXAs16O6sBWclrr30IJ/IdJ5kaTsNXjcmny2GpMUSq 1jbf3quenBIN6zkZLx08ZRPyHjdlmS7/PSOkvI7gKe3NLRjJ9QImytY1uLoAIHjO iFXLyTq2kGW/fMK85g4QuQQNBDSEmSsQEAD5GKB+WgZhekOQldwFbIeG7GHszUUf Dtjgo3nGydx6C6zkP+NGlLYwSlPXfAIWSIC1FeUpmamfB3TT/+OhxZYgTphluNgN 7hBdq7YXHFHYUMoiV0MpvpXoVis4eFwL2/hMTdXjqkbM+84X6CqdFGHjhKlP0YOE qHm274+nQ0YIxswdd1ckOErixPDojhNnl06SE2H22+slDhf99pj3yHx5sHIdOHX7 9sFzxIMRJitDYMPj6NYK/aEoJguuqa6zZQ+iAFMBoHzWq6MSHvoPKs4fdIRPyvMX 86RA6dfSd7ZCLQI2wSbLaF6dfJgJCo1+Le3kXXn11JJPmxiO/CqnS3wy9kJXtwh/ CBdyorrWqULzBej5UxE5T7bxbrlLOCDaAadWoxTpj0BV89AHxstDqZSt90xkhkn4 DIO9ZekX1KHTUPj1WV/cdlJPPT2N286Z4VeSWc39uK50T8X8dryDxUcwYc58yWb/ Ffm7/ZFexwGq01uejaClcjrUGvC/RgBYK+X0iP1YTknbzSC0neSRBzZrM2w4DUUd D3yIsxx8Wy2O9vPJI8BD8KVbGI2Ou1WMuF040zT9fBdXQ6MdGGzeMyEstSr/POGx KUAYEY18hKcKctaGxAMZyAcpesqVDNmWn6vQClCbAkbTCD1mpF1Bn5x8vYlLIhkm uquiXsNV6z3WFwACAg/+McnUlkw0KkNcBxN0w/mvo7/2QcEWXyfXiqpIcGj/DytA l0nh77hd+RPPqqXQHgkp56hPpp7nK8gAZnkxJcycOYMbPIgKvAGi9gQO7bd2oth7 TWUlfimTIYPrscLJNn/HQ5nA8mU28Ajq/Zlq/0XhpsQiRH5Ygr2IW1tldrrgiOho pYHsdPOkxZaPIHFKIqt6l/GtBnPA6+KYul53pfBt4DTPSk02RYsD9u/pqoJ/oEYW BrO/FzsKXzpIJxWCNvVm8GlakEw2isZ9zT4H5KRqhRLc9+SyeupF5ztosZKNs0dn nGaWVrCjx28G86xVnONi6fntGzL57Pb5JRvyrAbFDEXfL9rUrgLFx78LY4fSavP8 caB3IkQomuXZezQGusy4LMhna0ZYNioHyFzZU2DYU0EcuG8qrz+sKEIaYIpCiBPq IohclEgsA9ygaPjefiTpCEb07gGGD0rh6aRYpaQGCd8sSWIqm8IWql+ePkqwVWR8 WHyZWH6STvUQsZCE1GhJQqyai4i6KnVNrYzYF2UinP7d5AYUsaRGypdHsFDx9Yhg YC5OFsR0BXnz9bm3tn3SSoVDp7b9Xo9V3FpiQ+9ZgjXD2eEbWumv/upoVu2ekbiK CM4Dt3OoBPQBpkFan5FqCSY7255yCPU9YzQ7mmEpFWvfbSNR/Cls+ZT2GR7T1nOJ AEYEGBECAAYFAjSEmSsACgkQN9eL4uH1UpoCiACgnAXXUm5yyak30HJL1FeYdh0B xekAnA/VnnGkzVY1kQRQNpWQXdHdpL5F =3BX/ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 16:35:16 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:35:16 +0800 Subject: Minsky skeptical of privacy Message-ID: <199712030029.BAA27972@basement.replay.com> >Monty Cantsin wrote: >>Incidentally, does anybody know what percentage of the research >>funding Marvin Minsky has used in his career was directly or >>indirectly related to the defense establishment? >> >>The interesting thing about the privacy "debate" is that there is an >>exceptionally high correlation between opposition to privacy and the >>consumption of public money. > >Monty's customary reasonableness goes bizarro with these statements. > >In that direct or indirect defense funding implicates just about >every US citizen, even world denizen, not holed up in a treetop for >the last half century of national security octopussing. Sore nerve in a glass house, eh? Charming Minsky still does a Denning. Trillion dollar pork barrel: some gives, some takes. Not both. Every rat pulls the lever, gets the pellet. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Minsky skeptical of privacy To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 16:44:09 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:44:09 +0800 Subject: Cantsin Protocol No. 2 Message-ID: <199712030038.BAA29410@basement.replay.com> Anonymous wrote: >Monty Cantsin writes: >> You can't see it up here, but this is a signed message using a >> protocol which is modestly titled "Cantsin Protocol No. 1". >> Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. > >A very interesting idea! Please consider the following suggestions >if you like, or feel free to ignore them. Your suggestions were very helpful. Thank you for making them! I'm calling the latest version "Cantsin Protocol No.2" and its identifying number is "25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3". It is similar to Cantsin Protocol No. 1, but the bug with the hash of the public key is fixed. Instead of concatenating the values p, g, and y, you concatenate "p:

g: y:" and compute the hash. p, g, and y should be represented as ASCII hexadecimal digits without leading 0s. The hashes should now be correct SHA1 hashes. >One problem with signatures which have no indication at the top is >that two passes over the data are necessary: the first to scan and >find the start-of-signature indicator, and another to go back and >calculate the hash. Signatures such as S/MIME and PGP have enough >information at the top of the signed message to allow one pass >processing. My thinking on this is that passes are cheap these days. I want the signature to be unobtrusive which probably can't be done if only one pass is required. Incidentally, a nice feature of these signatures is that they can be moved around in the file just by changing the offset. You don't need to control the secret key to do it. >> The first line is "16A5942B6EED349ECF4594C784DFD177 [Cantsin >> Protocol No. 1]". The hexadecimal number was chosen randomly and >> is the indicator that this is a Cantsin Protocol No. 1 signature. >> The number was chosen randomly and it is somewhat unlikely that >> anybody else will accidently choose it. > >You might want to think about what happens if the document itself >contains (maliciously, or perhaps because it is talking about your >signatures) the string in question (as yours does and this one does >as well). This could throw off an automated signature checker. The signature checker should ignore bad or incomplete signatures. I would consider this to be a bug in the software and not a bug in the protocol. A bad signature simply lacks meaning and an error message need not be reported. That might seem a little callous, but actually it's how we should regard signatures. The current model seems to be "computer, check the signature on this file and tell me if it's good", whereas the correct (in my view) model is, "computer, extract all of the material from this file which is properly signed and throw out the rest." (Of course, you could imagine a smart editor which highlighted the areas of a document which were signed by various parties. It seems a little early to implement this.) If it's not authenticated, you shouldn't even look at it. I've taken to putting the To: and Subject: header lines at the bottom of my messages for this purpose. There's really no need to keep any of the header fields. The header fields can be put at the end just as unambiguously as at the beginning, but at the end they can be signed. >> The second line in the signature is an SHA1 hash of the public key. >> The hash is computed on the concatenation of the hexadecimal ASCII >> forms of p, g, and y respectively. There should be no leading zeros. >> (Remember to leave off the newline!) > >Presumably you could use the key hash to look up the key to use for >verifying the message. Strictly speaking it's there to save space. If we put the public key components in every signature it wouldn't be much harder for the key management software to compute a hash on them somehow. This does not have to be standardized. >This has a mild denial of service attack. Someone else could create >a key with different boundaries between p, g, and y but which would >create the same string as this concatenation, and therefore the same >hash. If you left the "p: ", "g: ", and "y: " in place it would >prevent this. PGP's key fingerprints have had the same problem. ACK! I knew about this problem, but I couldn't remember exactly how it worked. So I said, "Monty, let's not be dumb like those PGP guys. Let's concatenate the keys together and compute the hash. Nobody will ever..." Thank you very much for pointing this out. >> The fourth line contains an offset and a length to specify the area >> of the text which is signed. The offset is relative to the >> signature itself. That is, the first character of the Cantsin >> Protocol No. 1 code is at position 0. As signatures are usually >> appended, the offset will usually be the additive inverse of the >> length. > >It is intriguing that this can be used to sign a subset of the text. >Presumably there could be multiple signature blocks each of which >signed different subsets, possibly with different keys. One problem >is that it is not obvious to the human reader what part of the text >is signed. A nice effect with PGP and S/MIME signatures is that even >readers who don't have the tools can have some slight confidence in >signatures, because other readers will often report it when >signatures don't verify. With a signature that only covers a portion >of the text, people might assume that if there are no reports of >failure, more of the text is signed than is the case. This is not a >technical problem but is a social phenomenon which may not interact >well with this signature format. People who want this feature should type something like "BEGIN CANTSIN PROTOCOL NO. 2" and "END CANTSIN PROTOCOL NO. 2" into the text at the right points. >You need to specify a canonical line ending format. Based on the >count values in your document, it appears that you are counting line >terminators as being one character long. Your count value of 1CB9 >corresponds to decimal 7353, there are exactly 7353 characters from >the first character of your message body to the beginning of your >signature magic number, if line ends are one character. > >The specific characters for line endings need to be specified as well >for the hash to be calculated consistently. Your hash appears to be >calculated with LF as the line ending (although the hash program is >broken, see below). Probably CR/LF would be preferable for the line >endings as that is a widely used internet standard as well as being >common on windows. My feeling on this is that this is outside the scope of a signature protocol. The protocol should not make any assumptions about what is being signed nor should it modify what is being signed. I use LF to terminate lines and would recommend this to others, but it is not part of the Cantsin Protocol No. 2 specification. In any event, if we must put in patches to handle the poor fidelity of electronic mail, the patches should go in afterwards. When a signature checking program finds ">From" it should replace it with "From" and see if it can get the right checksum. Likewise, it should try the various line endings until it gets a match. There can't be more than about 12 variants, so this shouldn't create an onerous burden on the machine. (And, I suppose, it would be possible to add a field after the length or after the hash which made a suggestion about the line ending.) >> You also need to be able to compute SHA1 hashes. I've been using >> something called "sha1file" which, I believe, originated at Adam >> Back's web site. > >That program has a bug. The routine SHA1_update in the file sha1.c >is missing a line: > > CENSORED BY THE UNITED ST > A > TES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES > GOVERNMENT CENSORED B > Y THE UNITED STATES GOVERN > MENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED > STATES GOVERNMEN > T CENSORED BY TH >*** E UNITED STA *** MISSING *** > T > >Correcting this will make your hashes be correct. Another great suggestion. The hashes should be correct now. Incidentally, in another thread I've been talking about partial signatures. The code above is an example of where this would be useful. In some countries we are not allowed to express ourselves freely without persecution. If I wanted to provably quote somebody who included forbidden ideas in their message, it wouldn't be possible without partial signatures. >> El Gamal is simple enough that the signature on this message can be >> checked using standard Unix tools such as dc version 1.1. Let's >> say M is the SHA1 hash of the message. It is checked by verifying >> the truth of this equation: (y^a * a^b) mod p = g^M mod p. > >El Gamal is a rather lengthy signature, although the verification >equation is relatively simple. DSS has a shorter signature. This might be a good thing to add to a later Cantsin Protocol. >There are some subtleties to choosing El Gamal keys, but with the >2048 bit values you have chosen you are pretty safe. Schneier doesn't mention this, although presumably this information will show up in one of his references. Do you know offhand of a published source which covers this? >Also, you can't really justify using 2048 bit keys when your hash is >only 160 bits. The hash becomes the weak link for keys beyond about >1024 bits, and unless you use a stronger hash your key strength is >misleading. This is why DSS is only specified up to 1024 bits. This is just intuition, isn't it? Since we really don't know how hard it is to factor it seems hard to claim we know the ratio of difficulty between breaking SHA1 and El Gamal. Factoring could be broken before SHA1. Not that any great science was applied to the choice of a 2048 bit prime, it just seemed like a good size. ;-) Also, I think it is a mistake for people to communicate the strength of a system by choosing various key lengths based on general popular views. It's probably better to say "I estimate this system requires at least 2^x operations to break." We've seen this with people choosing short keys so nobody will get the idea that it is secure. This just seems all wrong to me. The key length is only one way in which a key could be insecure. Monty Cantsin's authentication key, for example, is not kept very securely. But, the way to communicate that is to say "this key is not kept all that securely." However, in Cantsin Protocol No. 2 the size of the prime chosen is completely unspecified. There doesn't seem to be a reason to restrict the choice other people will make regarding the length of the prime. I could imagine choosing a short key for control over a semi-persistent identity. The advantage is that you can claim somebody else brute forced the key for statements you wish to repudiate. Similarly, I could imagine choosing an obnoxiously long key to make it hard for people who don't have super fast machines to associate with you. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Cantsin Protocol No. 2 To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Dec 2 17:23:50 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:23:50 +0800 Subject: hashcash spam throttle In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971202094253.037e0654@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <199712030044.AAA01172@server.test.net> Robert A. Costner writes: > It's much like spam. It's a very shortsighted view when a user says "why > can't you just hit the delete button?" This is an incorrect answer for a > user who received one piece of spam, but whose small ISP, being the relay, > lost all mail services for two days. See HashCash: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/hashcash/ Hashcash ensures that the would be spammer has to consume more resources than you do. Hashcash is arbitrarily expensive to create and cheap to verify. It's also decentralised and anonymous. Adam From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Dec 2 17:32:56 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:32:56 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971201204450.006c596c@popd.netcruiser> Message-ID: <199712030033.AAA01161@server.test.net> Jon Weinke writes: > Sounds like a good reason for remailers to use throwaway email accounts at > Juno, MailExcite, Yahoo, etc. as their exit points. Wasn't somebody > working on this? Ian Goldberg wrote some perl code to do it for a couple of the web based ones. I think some of the remailers are using it. Adam From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 17:40:47 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:40:47 +0800 Subject: Freemen and Serfs Message-ID: <199712030131.CAA08208@basement.replay.com> Anonymous wrote: >This model of "sheeple" doomed to slavery while cypherpunks >comfortably live independent of the state is even less plausible than >the original idea of crypto anarchy. It appeals to our elitist >instincts and makes us feel comfortably superior, but it has little >connection to reality. If elitism had been intended, the subject would have been "Lords and Serfs". Freemen are more like people with some rights, some property, and some skills, but who are not serfs. >This idea overlooks the "fax effect", where the value of a technology >rises in proportion to the number of people who use it. Cypherpunks >will have to set up a virtual Galt's Gulch, trading only with >themselves, and unlike in Rand's fantasy the limitations of such an >economy will soon be apparent. Early cypherpunk experiments like >"Magic Money" showed how pointless a virtual cypherpunk bank would >be. Cypherpunks should be able to provide services which slavers and others want. This could be code. It could be expertise. It could be connections. Whatever. The slavers have things to offer cypherpunks, whether it's food, construction work, hardware, etc. Whatever the medium used to trade these services, there is no reason why the slavers would forego the services they may want. Assuming that the Freemen aren't agitating on behalf of the slaves, that is. We don't need all the slavers to deal, nor do all cypherpunks have to deal with all slavers. Just some members of both groups need to get together and trade. >In an increasingly interdependent world economy, the only hope for >cypherpunk technologies to succeed is to extend them as far as >possible throughout society. Standard doctrine, but I no longer believe it is sound. We've been at it for years now. Are the masses using crypto? I didn't think so. It's a waste of time to sell to people who think they "have nothing to hide". Even if they were using crypto, they would accept snoopware if it were accompanied with the right media programming. Which means that instead of proselytizing, it's probably better to develop systems which we can use which are expensive-to-impossible to thwart even in hostile environments. There's no need to turn people away, of course, but begging people to help themselves is a poor investment. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Freemen and Serfs To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 18:05:26 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:05:26 +0800 Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? Message-ID: <199712030151.CAA10375@basement.replay.com> A ghost speaking through the medium replay.com communicated: >Everyone likes to overlook this, pretending that May didn't mean it. >Well, he never withdrew it, did he? He never apologized for it. >He's on the record as explicitly calling for the murder of high >officials. > >And of course May further revealed his true colors with this horror, >from the same message: > >> Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the >> right thing. Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken >> eggs and all that. > >May's apologists have tried to pretend that he didn't say this, that >he said that he was beginning to understand McVeigh, or something. >That's not what he says here. He says he is becoming convinced that >McVeigh did the right thing in murdering all those people. Whether we like it or not, many people are sympathetic with McVeigh. Some are considering whether actions like bombing Federal buildings are justified. It's far far better that these issues are raised and discussed. >He callously compares the shattered bodies of the children and other >innocent victims to broken eggshells. Monty Cantsin has provided us >a moving description of the painful deaths of the children in Waco. >Will dying of asphyxiation under pressure too great even to draw a >breath be any easier? You've hit upon something interesting here, Anonymous. Let's consider three groups of children. 1. ~100,000 children harmed in Iraq. 2. ~40 children harmed in Oklahoma City. 3. ~20 children harmed outside Waco. Of these three groups, the third upsets me the most. Why? There are several factors. One is the extent to which the people committing the actions claim to represent me. It is often claimed and widely believed that the Federal government is acting as a representative for and is answerable to the American people. (Allow Monty Cantsin a hollow laugh here.) That being the case, Waco is far more upsetting than Oklahoma City in this regard because McVeigh (or whomever) is not thought to represent a sizeable proportion of the American public. In the case of Iraq, this factor raises my concern well above other places in the world where children are mistreated. Of the three groups of victims, I identify most strongly with the people in Waco. While not strongly religious myself, I respect people who have unusual beliefs and stick to them. And I have sympathy for those who might live in unusual ways. While I share a culture with the victims in Oklahoma City, in general we would have little to say to each other. I don't know anything about people in Iraq. This factor probably governs my feelings on the matter most strongly. The motivations of the people committing the acts are important. I do not believe that McVeigh (accepting the standard paradigm) meant to kill children. He certainly meant to kill people who had no involvement with Waco. I do not approve of his choice. I would maybe even kill somebody to prevent it from happening. But, one feels differently when children die more or less by accident than when it is cold bloodedly premeditated. In the case of Iraq, it is extremely hard to justify killing kids for their oil. The provocation that leads to an act must also be considered. I am extremely sympathetic with McVeigh's desire to do something about Waco, even though I do things less violent and (hopefully) more effective. There was no reason whatsoever for the Waco crime to be committed, likewise people living in the Middle East have not really committed any provocative act more serious than having oil on their land. The mob mentality that seems to have gripped the United States during the Waco atrocity has a particular horror which is absent in the case of Oklahoma City and, right now anyway, mostly absent with Iraq. The blatant misrepresentation of what was occurring and the degree to which people were compliant with it is shocking. There was no serious attempt to investigate the motivation behind the raid, or even what was actually occurring from day to day. The aftermath was even more horrifying. The government attacks and murders ~80 innocent people in the most brutal way for no identifiable reason. And all anybody can seem to do is to try to protect the establishment, instead of finding out exactly what happened, instead of charging the criminals who perpetrated the horror, instead of taking the necessary actions to make sure nothing like this will ever be done again by the Federal government, and instead of telling the truth. The implications of the three situations create varying degrees of alarm. I do not expect to see many more bombings. Bombs are nothing new. They've been around for over 100 years and they are a manageable problem. Every few decades there's been a big explosion. It is unlikely McVeigh will do something like this again. In the case of Iraq, I'm used to governments behaving this way and I do not see it directly affecting me very soon. (Perhaps this is a bit insensitive.) Waco, however, is quite another matter. When you watch the footage it gives you the creeps because what is being reported belongs in the 1940s and the people should be speaking German. Instead, everybody speaks English with an American accent and it's happening right now. When you see an FBI agent justify what happened on the grounds that he goes to a "normal" church and has a "normal" family, and when you see other officials state that they wanted to harm the children to encourage the parents to turn themselves in, the implications are that we have a very serious problem that will not go away by itself. Finally, in the case of Waco, the people in charge had all the time in the world to think very carefully about what they were doing. They apparently decided to kill everybody they could, including particular children whose names they knew, whose pictures they had seen, and some of whom they may have even spoken to on the telephone. This really is hard for me to understand. I can't imagine what kind of person can do something like this. This horror is particular to Waco. In the case of McVeigh and the people making policy regarding Iraq, the victims are at least anonymous. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No. 2] 94C43229A76383D818D39952F7A41ACA0394C6FE 194C5F507117380477F77027D4EB123D860F9954 -193C 193C 67A00FF1E409CA006D411CBA6EC9083B7F2E6C8B840EFA61C463AC49BAEC41A989CA231DF41E61A9C948B3A018E43CA55CD2D095E490855E9DF8ACCD5691B6A3C671016CD2456FE6B82C1D5BB6BFDE4949FA2F8A9968B5EACD3BB8EDD135EDA4CD12593A097E0610275944B1B019996D2B43942A4F0589B6231511AD7483B114CC4474D589AC16873D6CE0F783A4EE8AAC984A34975291D5CB8745F0FF44F44E74C51660D8B1BC32109BCC681C396537BBEA3A4F0165F6F4D5D50A1A4CFEC9DFE622D625FF343F91E04964FAC4E43B064C80D89B6CC0C5D4DA6BBEFB0D9197B8B666CCAA7186D3678FDCABA2F0ECEAB999CDE43DDD1C6182634AE0709B8AE744 623AE2E8E3A140672148D4A476D6C3133C05B2689754563F0427DD8A053B089F85180F0764F75B17D50CDE95F7C650254BE23EBC10EA352280C9CBF31D217CF4C34177107D83754467A7C424FF68B32598B17747FA772453121370A4EB49C148ABD077231088DF65F0DDAA793A8EBA63501772C711D08CD82AF0BB11D81C950F9033C812DD93A6A6D1BC1798B1410E6DB522897A84B7EBE310A5BB53AAA0D833C497B6541BED9B19AA879BA87E1FE43039E5CC4568A1C152B4A699C80D70FF34E811E78D5A752D3A61638FA8EC3D277EC896806C9D84D948114649341D218900B5DD562787737223BA0580C81F1304F1F01645CD4CB1533859A1247098350598 From rfarmer at HiWAAY.net Tue Dec 2 18:25:43 1997 From: rfarmer at HiWAAY.net (Randall Farmer) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:25:43 +0800 Subject: Question for the [obscene Star Wars reference deleted] In-Reply-To: <199712022327.PAA25103@rentec.com> Message-ID: > > What is the best windows shell I can acquire to run PGP > > if I have windows 3.1? If I have windows 95? Thanks! > > In both cases the best shell to have is a shotgun shell. Naah, that'll wreak havoc with the win95 registry...Private Idaho is supposed to be fairly good. > Rick > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Farmer rfarmer at hiwaay.net http://hiwaay.net/~rfarmer From tcmay at got.net Tue Dec 2 18:30:31 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:30:31 +0800 Subject: Minsky skeptical of privacy In-Reply-To: <199712030029.BAA27972@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: At 5:29 PM -0700 12/2/97, Anonymous wrote: >Sore nerve in a glass house, eh? Charming Minsky still does a >Denning. Trillion dollar pork barrel: some gives, some takes. Not >both. Every rat pulls the lever, gets the pellet. > >Monty Cantsin >Editor in Chief >Smile Magazine Monty Cantsin = John Young? My stylometer is pegged at "100%." (On the other hand, even I can sometimes imitate John Young...read enough of him and the patterns and cadence sort of emerge. I won't try it here, though.) --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 19:02:46 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:02:46 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: Message-ID: <199712030243.DAA16591@basement.replay.com> Nerthus wrote: >Since anonymous remailing is now considered a free service in the >minds of most of its users, charging for it does not make sense. I'd >be curious to know how much money has been collected by the >ecash-accepting remailer that Ian Goldberg set up a couple months >back. My guess is it has brought in very little money. There is really no reason to use it. It seems to be the same as the jam remailer which is free. I had hoped to use it as an exit remailer, but even that is a loss as it apparently uses cracker (?) for that purpose. What we did learn is that it isn't that hard to set up a remailer to accept ecash. I doubt we've learned much about the market potential. The recent reports of the anonymizer pulling in $180,000 annually are worth thinking about. >[nym] remailer like I mentioned above may become lucrative if it >generates enough repeat customers (i.e., persistent nyms). So could >charging a fee for each address put in the Bcc: header. This is a good idea. Ecash accepting remailers should offer perks which are not generally available, or just offer a faster more reliable service to paying customers. For example, free messages are delayed 90 minutes while paid messages are sent immediately, modulo some details like mixing. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Pasting in From: To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom dformosa at st.nepean.uws.edu.au Tue Dec 2 21:42:58 1997 From: dformosa at st.nepean.uws.edu.au (? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:42:58 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971130202253.007595d8@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Bill Stewart wrote: [...] > So if the remailers don't support From: pasting, it's no loss. > Similarly, for Reply-To: and Sender: and Path: and Received: > and maybe a few other occasionally-forged header fields. There is a good reson to allow peaple to stick there a 'Reply-To:' in. This permits replies to be directed to some sort of anon post office box or other such mechanisum. - -- Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves? --Terry Pratchett. I do not reply to munged addresses. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNITYaqQK0ynCmdStAQFYhAQA4VuRr3mpzG+SJ4rNC5bIz9hcMQOLfSsi 2iKRBEvwGEOBb6hak76J8m9y7IuFTDGC68AjwKRNjzNEOZLYzH+BuBXYzggCqmBg j0nYmYpGBRcO9+saDnzIBwHJQ5mwixmRdEnzdN7TfL52xzLjaoN21dm0sJFefHgw DIE9JO6A9sk= =OQwG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From declan at well.com Tue Dec 2 22:01:01 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:01:01 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: <199712021617.LAA28265@arutam.inch.com> Message-ID: Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has highlighted the tensions between the different types of Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. The civil liberties groups (ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CPSR), and journalism, publishers, and media groups have lined up on one side [http://www.ifea.org/] saying the government shouldn't pressure the Internet to self-censor (or be censored by the Feds). They held a counter-summit press conference yesterday. Even the libertarian Cato Institute is in this corner. On the other side, the Center for Democracy and Technology [http://www.cdt.org/] is participating in the summit along with antiporn groups, high tech firms, and "censorware" vendors. CDT says that the Net needs to self-regulate or face the wrath of the U.S. Congress. (Folks at CDT generally take pro-industry positions and have been involved in many compromises in the past: wiretapping, "harmful to minors," and jail time for use of encryption in a crime.) CDT, however, has called for the development of multiple rating systems. You could easily tell the difference between the two outlooks today. ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt and CDT director Jerry Berman debated this afternoon. "If we sit back and we offer nothing... that's not a solution for the American public," Berman said. He said that CDT is "looking to balance free speech rights" with other values. -Declan At 11:04 -0400 12/2/97, Michael Sims wrote: >What "they" are saying: > >SF Chronicle: > >"Internet Self-Regulation Draws Wide Praise But advocates for free >speech call for extreme caution > >Jon Swartz, Chronicle Staff Writer > > Civil libertarians and porn peddlers yesterday praised the Internet >industry's attempt at sweeping self-regulation to keep smut out of >the hands of children and the government at arms' length. ..." > > >Civil libertarians praised sweeping self-regulation, eh? I hope >everyone realizes this is CDT that is doing this. They continue to >claim they are a civil liberties group, and continue to push for >restrictions on civil liberties. Has the ACLU considered setting up >a group which describes itself as "conservative and pro-family" in >its press releases and pushes continually for the elimination of >censorware and ratings? Such a trojan horse group could hardly do as >much damage to the censor crowd as CDT continues to do to the >free-speech crowd, but perhaps it would achieve some measure of >compensation. > >"Pros: [of "filtering"] Filtering does block out almost all >inappropriate material." > >I sure am glad our message is getting out. > >"Education. A series of TV spots and school-sponsored programs >touting filtering software will debut next fall." > >What a treat. Bennett? Know anything about this one? > > >Plenty more to come on this subject, I'm sure. > > >-- Michael Sims From snow at smoke.suba.com Tue Dec 2 22:03:51 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:03:51 +0800 Subject: If you fought to defend your country... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712030658.AAA00328@smoke.suba.com> > "snow" writes: > > Vulis said: > > > Only 2 inches are required to reach the prostate. Anything over that > > > is just windows dressing. > > Sounds like the voice of experience to me. > That's right - I habitually fuck Chris Lewis in the ass with a dildo. Why, your's not long enough to reach the prostate? From snow at smoke.suba.com Tue Dec 2 22:06:44 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:06:44 +0800 Subject: Freemen and Serfs In-Reply-To: <199712011615.RAA06313@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: <199712030702.BAA00352@smoke.suba.com> > How, exactly? We're not talking about computers as "the technology". > We mean anonymous remailers, digital cash, Chaumian credentials, > steganography, and other cypherpunk technologies. Who is using these > technologies to make more money today? Almost no one. The reason is Who was using the internet to make more money 5 years ago? 10? Think long term. From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 22:40:11 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:40:11 +0800 Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? Message-ID: <199712030634.HAA11992@basement.replay.com> A ghost speaking through the medium of replay.com communicated: >There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially >among members whose positions are otherwise indefensible. It's >surprising in a way because this fallacy is more common among >statists. > >There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be >illegal. We see this all the time. People think of the government >as their way of expressing moral values. Drugs are wrong, so they >must be made illegal. Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it >also must be illegal. We have countless bad laws based on this false >premise. > >On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, >it must be moral. Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, >hateful, immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was >legal, because of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Their >critic must be opposed to free speech if he objects to their words. > >Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game. It >leads to the false reasoning of the statists. We must remember that >there is a clear distinction between morality and legality. This is a good thing to remember. However, what you seem to be calling immoral is holding a belief with which you disagree. Is it possible to hold an immoral belief? I don't think so. Once you've drawn a conclusion about the nature of the world you can hardly decide that it would be immoral to understand the truth. Actions, on the other hand, can be immoral. Let's not confuse beliefs with actions. What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world because they are immoral. You have seldom addressed Tim's statements directly. Orwell had a word for this: "crimestop". Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Tue Dec 2 22:47:11 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:47:11 +0800 Subject: Freemen and Serfs In-Reply-To: <199712011615.RAA06313@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: <199712030747.XAA01567@www.ctrl-alt-del.com> At 01:02 AM 12/3/97 -0600, snow wrote: > Who was using the internet to make more money 5 years ago? 10? David Rhodes? --- | "That'll make it hot for them!" - Guy Grand | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Dec 2 23:12:57 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:12:57 +0800 Subject: The Eye Bank Message-ID: <199712030705.IAA15636@basement.replay.com> Vin McLellan wrote: >With respect, I disagree. I think it is quite likely that an >iris-scan technology can effectively differentiate between a living >eye and a reproduction (or, as one of my many correspondents on this >topic suggested, an eye forcibly removed from the socket of a >potential fraud victim.) In any case, the issue of false >positives/negatives will be settled with evidence. I think the >technology will probably be useful, in those terms. I can see the advertising campaign now: "Bank at Big Brother Bank, NA - have your eyes ripped out!" The device probably has trouble distinguishing between a mannikin with some real eyes and a real person. Conveniently for the robbers, the victim will be unable to identify anybody later. The plausibility of this threat model has a lot to do with whose eyes we're talking about. If they're your eyes, be my guest. It's probably safe. ;-) This is just one of the many risks of deployment of these technologies, but it's the one that makes even the most docile sheep pay attention. Consider the child implant issue. "You have nothing to worry about because your child's Protect-A-Life implant can only be removed with surgery!" The problem is, that's exactly how it will be removed. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: The Eye Bank To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom Cindy at mcglashan.com Wed Dec 3 17:57:10 1997 From: Cindy at mcglashan.com (Cindy Cohn) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:57:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bernstein argument is in Courtroom 1 Message-ID: <199712040125.RAA16414@gw.quake.net> Hi everyone, This is just to confirm that the Bernstein oral argument is scheduled in Courtroom 1 of the 9th Circuit building. The address is 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco. See ya there, Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy at McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Dec 3 03:01:43 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:01:43 +0800 Subject: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971203025104.00740bfc@popd.ix.netcom.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:45 AM 12/02/1997 -0600, TruthMonger wrote: > It never fails to amaze me that complainers point out that an >'abusive' letter started out, "I hate niggersfaggotsjewsyou!" >and then proceed to list the other fifty 'abusive' things that >the writer had to say. The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... > I can make my own Bill Stewart signature >and inundate the InterNet with "I like to kill babies after I molest Actually, I tend to go for drowning them in bath water, then throwing them out. But you know that, you've helped.... I've also got a TOTO filter set in Eudora that flags messages from TOTO's systems. Doesn't matter if it's him, or TM, or LittleDogMonger, or his neighbors in Saskatchewan, I'd rather have the warning :-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBNIU5l/thU5e7emAFAQFb4gIAnQJOfaUJIzhFkR2lsQMhYbrIfRzuCGT9 ubHaDVVv0jZUzZA+R2zZTXUiCx45kPmNJmjYd1D47cZNp7bE2L20kQ== =pkXy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From nobody at REPLAY.COM Wed Dec 3 04:15:13 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 20:15:13 +0800 Subject: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES Message-ID: <199712031210.NAA15767@basement.replay.com> Duncan Frissell wrote that the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: >Certainly, such a conclusion would be reasonable based upon this >promotional description coupled with the singular character of Hit >Man, which is so narrowly focused in its subject matter and presenta- >tion as to be effectively targeted exclusively to criminals. This claim is demonstrably absurd. There are roughly 26,000 murders a year in the United States each year. The number of contract killings is probably a good deal less than 10% of this which leaves 2600. Let's be generous to the Court and say 10% of these murders are committed by people who read the book. (This can probably be shown to be entirely false by comparing suspected contract murder rates before and after publication of the work.) If we treat the Court with extreme charity we will say that each contract killer reading the book has only killed one person. Total: 260 killers read the book. Presumably many more copies of the book were sold and will be sold. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that most of the people purchasing the book did so for reasons of morbid curiosity. This should not be very surprising. It appears that the judges in this case allowed their eagerness to punish Paladin get in the way of their duties, the law, and common sense. This decision should be overturned. The judges should be impeached. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom shop at ns.alpina1.net Wed Dec 3 20:28:43 1997 From: shop at ns.alpina1.net (shop at ns.alpina1.net) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 20:28:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Qualified Traffic Key to Toys.. Message-ID: <199712040300.VAA28943@mercury.gmds.com> and Hobbies Internet Sales. Special Announcement..First Time Offered to selected web sites - Exclusive Banner Program - **only four spaces available in Toys/Hobbies** As the Web gets more and more congested, you know that attracting qualified buyers to your site gets even more challenging! This New Exclusive Offer for your Toys/Hobbies Site will bring you specific, targeted, exposure. Established in 1994, our award-winning, World Wide Shopping Complex with avg 1.5 million hits a month now offers you EXCLUSIVE banner ads in our FOUR highly-visited Toys/Hobbies category directories. This is an exceptional opportunity at a very affordable rate and has not been previously offered. You will get tremendous exposure in four shopping locations. You could not get a more targeted audience for your products. These visitors are specifically looking in theToys/Hobbies section. Introductory Rates: ONE ONLY banner per location at top of Toys/Hobbies category directory. Per Location.....$495.00 for one year All Four Locations...$1495 for one year. What some of our storeowners have accomplished: One storeowner, after just over a year, grew to 5-figure Internet sales,another doubled their sales in just one month, another's business grew to over 70% international, an industrial client reports great response and sales, wholesalers and mfg. are getting distribution for their product lines, another storeowner has built a tremendous catalog mail order business, one store introduced a new product which started selling the first weekend online... To get full details of this exclusive banner offer, please hit reply and type BANNER OFFER in the subject line. However, there are only Four Banner Spots available in your category, so if you are interested, please email back at once. (We will also include other options for your information). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you wish to be permanently removed from our announcement mailings, please hit reply and type remove in subject line. Thank You. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Dec 3 05:30:51 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:30:51 +0800 Subject: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971203025104.00740bfc@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Bill Stewart writes: > The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel > at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, > and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people > keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, > and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers > first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... Yes, this is one of the problems. Earlier this year pedophile Chris Lewis from Northern Telecom forged a bunch of spam e-mail to look like it came from dm.com (my domain). I got about 500 obnoxious e-mails, which I semi-automatically responded to, and had a rather unpleasant conversation with the assholes at my upstrea (PSI): "If you prove that this e-mail didn't originate at your site, you will not be held responsible". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Dec 3 05:30:51 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:30:51 +0800 Subject: Freemen and Serfs In-Reply-To: <199712030702.BAA00352@smoke.suba.com> Message-ID: "snow" writes: > > How, exactly? We're not talking about computers as "the technology". > > We mean anonymous remailers, digital cash, Chaumian credentials, > > steganography, and other cypherpunk technologies. Who is using these > > technologies to make more money today? Almost no one. The reason is > > Who was using the internet to make more money 5 years ago? 10? Hello! My name is Dave Rhodes. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Dec 3 05:31:33 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:31:33 +0800 Subject: Pasting in From: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} writes: > > So if the remailers don't support From: pasting, it's no loss. > > Similarly, for Reply-To: and Sender: and Path: and Received: > > and maybe a few other occasionally-forged header fields. > > There is a good reson to allow peaple to stick there a 'Reply-To:' in. > This permits replies to be directed to some sort of anon post office box > or other such mechanisum. Just a thought: suppose "reply-to" points to a nym listed on a key server and the entire article is signed with a key for that nym? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Dec 3 05:32:26 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:32:26 +0800 Subject: If you fought to defend your country... In-Reply-To: <199712030658.AAA00328@smoke.suba.com> Message-ID: "snow" writes: > > "snow" writes: > > > Vulis said: > > > > Only 2 inches are required to reach the prostate. Anything over that > > > > is just windows dressing. > > > Sounds like the voice of experience to me. > > That's right - I habitually fuck Chris Lewis in the ass with a dildo. > > Why, your's not long enough to reach the prostate? ^ [sp] I don't want physical contact with pedophile forgers. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From comsec at nym.alias.net Wed Dec 3 06:29:36 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:29:36 +0800 Subject: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From: Message-ID: <19971203142004.12956.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TruthMonger wrote: > > So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their > >delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time > > >and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are > > >trying to offend them? > > > > Well TruthMonger (if that is your real name,) I think you are missing the > > point. For purposes of the discussion, no one cares about the content of > > the messages, who or why they are being sent, nor is anyone bothered by > > anything concerning the message itself. What's being discussed is scarce > > resources of remailer operators. > > I was responding to Bill and Lance's comments in regard to forgery > victims being set up as targets of retribution. I think references to > "deplorable content" indicate some measure of judgement in regard to > defining what is considered 'abuse' of a remailer. You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for material posted. > However, you are right about the thread basically dealing with the > reprecussions to the remailer operators and their resources as an end > result of the particular modes of remailer use. At the risk of actually > being on-topic in a thread, I should point out that I have always been > of the opinion that it is up to the individual remailer operators to > judge what level and types of use they are able to provide as a service > with their given time and resources. Agreed. My main concern is that those policies should be explicitly disclosed in advance. If certain keywords are forbidden in the Subject: line or body of a message, or if it is forbidden to post to certain NGs or to cross-post to certain combinations of NGs, those restrictions should be explained in the remailer's help file. I don't know whether remailers are currently engaging in content-based filtering or not (none are currently flying the "filter" flag in Raph's remailer list), but there seems to be a strong suspicion among certain posters to the alt.privacy.anon-server NG (probably from newbies) that this is indeed occuring. The usual scenario is that the person tries to make a bunch of posts, none of them show up, and it is assumed that they were blocked by the remailer operator based on their content. My guess is that in most cases the person screwed something up, like sending a message to a mail2news gateway with a malformed or missing Newsgroups: line, but it's rather rare that the poster is reassured by someone in a position to know what might have happened. It would be great if these people were told "we have no restrictions on content other than the length of the message" or at least, "it has become necessary to block certain types of posts, but those cases are spelled out in our help file". > > Most remailers are operated with donated time and resources. Problems with > > the remailer, especially artificially generated ones, are just simply not > > desired. > > True, but I doubt that the artificially generated attacks on a > remailer are possible to fully deter, no matter what convolutions > one puts themselves through in order to stop it. It's important that such attacks not succeed, lest they encourage even more such attacks. They succeed, or course, when they convince the remailer operator to do what the attacker wishes done. Often what is required is a bit of creative damage control. For example, when an attacker starts making posts with pasted From: headers in an attempt to get remailer operators to disable this feature, offering him source blocking instead. - --- Finger for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVb4gbp0h8ZvosNAQH2Ywf9H6HrrV/QA1TxdLo5OzA/RKKxmfnonuLI Kjd38SnXXw9WtVsTwbvGGdt7HiQ4BP93JWMSDseM0Rg61Rvsa5sBp017V3xeHqzF mr8wE70VkXGa/P0Dmk8ToP0R0wIQoFasyrK8QeBXNZpII0VZo0qlsz1SctwIhmpZ NQ44yBDRramc3zOy2OFzKoxM4iBz3TBLuZodqeiFFWbJtwmvK9PxxmZ3wYgxjDGA JnqHriOMwG74qUBYmmyrrR877HIL6WJreQR+m0PAiuzSvKSyJngT44ejcS1e33zf XMipKUZAAyVqmtfkRLsgBd3aVDS/zwBQWWgDMnLNo/Fzo70vhs33BQ== =OCx/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From comsec at nym.alias.net Wed Dec 3 06:30:27 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:30:27 +0800 Subject: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Message-ID: <19971203142009.20118.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bill Stewart wrote: > > It never fails to amaze me that complainers point out that an > >'abusive' letter started out, "I hate niggersfaggotsjewsyou!" > >and then proceed to list the other fifty 'abusive' things that > >the writer had to say. > > The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel > at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, > and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people > keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, > and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers > first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... Any ISP that would react that way should probably be avoided, anyway. Knee-jerk censorship like that is one of the best arguments around for posting via remailers. Not to mention the fact that posting anonymously prevents one's e-mail address from being misused in that fashion. But personally, the most persuasive argument is to keep people from compiling a de facto dossier on you based on your public postings, selling it to potential employers, and perhaps keeping you from getting a certain job because of your controversial, unpopular, and/or un-politically-correct opinions. IMO, people who rely on placebos like those "X-No-Archive" header flags are fooling themselves if they think they will be universally honored. Most so-called "forged postings" are rather crudely done, and the ones done using a remailer to paste headers are the most obvious ones of all. I'm not sure what the legal standard for "forgery" is, but if it's anything like that for fraud, it requires that a REASONABLE PERSON would be fooled. Given all the disclaimers present in the headers of remailer output, I doubt that any posts with pasted From: would meet that standard. Yes, I've heard the argument that "people don't read headers", but so what? Most of them probably don't read the fine print on contracts, either, but they're still responsible for what it says. - --- Finger for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVRpAbp0h8ZvosNAQHcBAf+MCa1DBhmtI4h93zsegO6/fR0RJPko68+ f5ImWOnzxdg1eN4WkbdD4ELn00jLTZC+7+Xw94BkeT9wj1KLmP/BE6NUANdYFzdW YRyAHIK/WsYN6k9dal54TdDviC7SpBUH3IHnQa2USYJjfd9raviYp5NoCpBz5D7s E0+mnfxo8ufTE9Z09qRGmjtxrEfO+gug6lYYCG0h5j7SD+6mVcGuWFmoxbDzhqma IkzngE1dn3xXmwdMTQ5WNvWj+qths52hnszeQ7ZPE/pwrROVobhMevlabM2NYPA0 BLv5L0Te+p12Hj2599znmzJyY5NdqsqBzBbg9yFfaqoavdM/bg4wVw== =4Ppz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Nerthus at server1.efga.org Wed Dec 3 07:03:58 1997 From: Nerthus at server1.efga.org (Nerthus at server1.efga.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:03:58 +0800 Subject: Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, & Writing Code... Message-ID: <75dc170e6b652c59e6183e81bc6266c6@anon.efga.org> [NOTE: This message was remailed by an anonymous remailing system. The original sender is unknown, and has inserted the From: header. This information has not been verified. As with all mail or news messages, you should examine the headers carefully before responding. Direct questions about this system to .] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Choate wrote: >Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a >clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of >world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process >doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen >source of crypto tools. Perhaps we should hold a Requiem for PGP, or maybe an Irish wake instead. Let's take a look back at some of the good things PGP did toward furthering the use of crypto. Phil Zimmerman took public key cryptography and brought it to a fairly wide base of users: 4 million people, plus or minus a million or two. :-) That's rather substantial given that less than 100 million people are estimated to be on the Net right now. Think of how many more yet-to-be Net users will demand strong cryptography in their communications, be it personal, financial, legal, recreational...who knows what else? PGP also showed how both a freeware and paid-for version of encryption software can be marketed together. The paid-for version of PGP 5.0 allows users to generate the new El Gamal/DSS keys as well as the familiar RSA keys, while the freeware only allows for the former. The important lesson here, I think, is that the writers of "the next wave of world-class crypto" can make money from the paid-for versions with the extra bells and whistles that some of us like, but they are not stifling the expansion of their software's user base because they are offering a freeware version that implements the basic protocols for communicating with users of the paid-for version, and of course other freeware users. Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIUHwxa1d3zm4nqOEQIG4wCgsDqyMsl64IsDwz814eL9SwdJmu0AoJ9M OaSWiBx2cZZqq97f0GZ1GuJR =Mqbu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] Wed Dec 3 07:05:04 1997 From: Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:05:04 +0800 Subject: ATTN: Gary L. Burnore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4c67f13a104bf33147da1edbef8265c4@anonymous.poster> gburnore at netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > :The remailer help documents I'm familiar with say they will act to prevent > :"harrassment" through the remailer. I presume the above would be viewed by > :the remailer owners as harrassment. > > Interesting presumtion. Hopefully true. The ONLY difference between remailers > and ISP's in this case, is that with an ISP, if you forge another's real ^^^^^ > address there's at least a possibility that you can be held accountable for > it. It's nothing at all to do with the CONTENT of the post. If same can be > said of a remailer, ie if you get UCE based on a post made with your address > as a from line the _real_ poster can be held accountable, then there is no > issue. That argument might have some validity if Netcom (your own ISP) didn't allow its own mail servers to be utilized by spammers and tell people who complain about this practice to G.F.Y. Just read some of the complaints about Netcom on the news.admin.net-abuse.email NG. If you had been "UCE baited" by someone using Netcom's mail servers, rather than those of a remailer, would you attempt to harass Netcom like you did Jeff Burchell who ran Mailmasher and the Huge Cajones Remailer? Would one of your associates at DataBasix demand that Netcom be shut down since they are unable or unwilling to stop the abuse of their servers? Would you threaten legal action to get Netcom to turn over all of their sendmail logs to you? What do you mean by "held accountable"? Having a throwaway Netcruiser account (perhaps one of many), acquired under a phony name, cancelled? You've already been informed, and admitted that it has been effective, that if you don't wish your e-mail address to appear in a From: line from a remailer you can request source blocking. It's sort of like the blocking of a/c 900 telephone numbers. If you are worried about abuse of your phone, you can request that calls to 900 numbers from your phone be blocked. You don't have to insist that they be blocked from EVERYONE'S phone just because they're a problem FOR YOU. Can you point to any equivalent safeguard against someone's e-mail address being forged through Netcom's SMTP servers, either by a Netcom user or by someone else? If not, isn't it time to make sure your own house is in order before meddling in the neighbors' houses? IMO, the remailers are already doing more to prevent what you perceive to be a problem than your own ISP is willing to do -- and this by VOLUNTEERS who are not being paid by you, or anyone, for their efforts. I also note that you're using the word "forge" again. Yet in another post from you within a day or two of this one, you claimed that you weren't concerned about forgery. Which is true? -- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Dec 3 07:05:06 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:05:06 +0800 Subject: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? In-Reply-To: <199712011825.TAA22548@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: > You've both forgotton the fourth leg of the tripod, the one where Tim May > calls for the governor of Florida to be shot (along with other officials). > Governor Chiles' capital crime? He refused to allow California wine to > be sold in Florida. You claim that restricting free trade by force is not a capital crime? > > Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against the > > Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other traitors. > > Everyone likes to overlook this, pretending that May didn't mean it. Well, > he never withdrew it, did he? He never apologized for it. He's on the > record as explicitly calling for the murder of high officials. I don`t overlook this, and I think you`ll find a number of list members, along with Tim himself fully support the statement made. These traitors should be shot, neither Tim, nor anyone else has claimed he did not say that, and I, for one, agree. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jk at stallion.ee Wed Dec 3 07:51:54 1997 From: jk at stallion.ee (Jyri Kaljundi) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:51:54 +0800 Subject: AT&T Research "Crowds" -- Perl web anonymity proxy -- needs users In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Lucky Green wrote: > > > That is unlikely to happen. The copies are personalized. > > > > In what way? If two people get copies of it and then diff them, the > > personalizations are obvious. > > Yes, indeed the personalizations are obvious. Even with just one copy. As > in "user ID" and "password", both of which are required to join the AT&T > crowd. Which happens to be the only crowd that it currently even makes > semi sense to join. Now that Crowds 1.1 is released, I had another look and it seems it is easy to set up your own crowds. So it should be uploaded to replay and other crypto sites. Jyri Kaljundi jk at stallion.ee AS Stallion Ltd http://www.stallion.ee/ From declan at pathfinder.com Wed Dec 3 07:55:28 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:55:28 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971203113613.00843ef8@idt.net> Message-ID: This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: -- MacKinnonite antiporn laws (she's a self-identified Marxist, I recall) -- "Hate speech" bans -- Sexual harassment "hostile environment" regulations (Give me a break. This is the justification for at least one library censorware installation.) -- Various FCC regulations aside from indecent stuff -- Advertising censorship (check out the Center for Media Education, a leftist group if I ever heard of one. In fact, as I pointed out in my Thanksgiving piece last week, CME's scaremongering Kids and the Net paper was cited by Enough is Enough as justification for the CDA) -- Labeling/compelled speech requirements (Jamie, are you out there?) >bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >speech when it appears to be a threat. Well, at least the libertarians in the audience are consistently opposed to government censorship. -Declan At 06:36 -0500 12/3/97, Jay Holovacs wrote: >Interesting article in Columbia Journalism Review, pointing out that the >political left is becoming more and more a cause censorship. I think the >bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >speech when it appears to be a threat. > >http://www.cjr.org/html/97-11-12-firstamend.html From sunder at brainlink.com Wed Dec 3 08:02:35 1997 From: sunder at brainlink.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:02:35 +0800 Subject: More microsoft monopoly::Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released (fwd) Message-ID: Microsoft has now broken up the Service Packs into Bug Fix and Option Pack (new feechures) packages. However the catch is this: they require you to have Internet Exploiter 4.01 installed *BEFORE* you can install the Option Pack (whose features have little to do with Internet Exploiter, though they are part of the IIS web server. For example RAIDUS Remote Access Authentication has nothing to do with Exploiter.) IMHO: This is a cheap shot at making their browser more "incorporated" with the OS, that way they can get around the Justice Dept. :( Lame. Another message claims VC++ requires IE as well -- can anyone confirm this? =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder at sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ========================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:08:57 -0500 From: Russ To: NTBUGTRAQ at LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM Subject: NT 4.0 Option Pack released FYI, the final release of the NT 4.0 Option Pack has been posted, you can get full details at; http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/default.asp For those that aren't already aware, Microsoft has split the old Service Pack into two components. One is the Option Pack, which includes new features and functionality, while the Service Pack will be kept to bug fixes or patches only (or so they say, we still haven't seen what this new SP will look like). Amongst other things, this first release of NTOP includes; IIS 4.0 Microsoft Transaction Server 2.0 Microsoft Message Queues 1.0 Microsoft Certificate Server 1.0 Internet Connection Services for Microsoft RAS (Radius) Microsoft Site Server Express (Web Usage and Content analysis/reporting) Internet Explorer 4.01 These components will now ship on a separate CD included with NT. Its important to note that IE4.01 *must* be installed prior to installing any of the NTOP components. Cheers, Russ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:05:35 +0200 From: "Juha [ISO-8859-1] J�ykk�" To: NTBUGTRAQ at LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM Subject: Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released > Its important to note that IE4.01 *must* be installed prior to > installing any of the NTOP components. And MSIE must be installed before installing Visual C++.. Soon we hav= e it that MSIE must be installed before TCP/IP is installed... and then befo= re NT in installed! Is there no limit to this??? Is there any way to prevent = MS from *FORCING* us to install MSIE - other than boycott all MS products entirely (with NT5 it would seem that we have to boycott even the OS to= save ourselves from MSIE)??? Sorry the bitter tone - I just don't like programs that require me to install yet another program which I don't want to install. --=20 ----------------------------------------------- | Juha J=E4ykk=E4, juolja at utu.fi | | home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/ | | pgp-key: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/pgp.txt | ----------------------------------------------- From frissell at panix.com Wed Dec 3 08:34:46 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:34:46 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971203113613.00843ef8@idt.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971203112519.006ecdcc@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:42 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob >Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors >on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: > Not to forget the CPUSA's long time platform plank that promised to make racisim a crime punished by imprisonment. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIWH6oVO4r4sgSPhAQH7YwQAo/vMb7hqDMQ/6GP+gBXtruClj31qstbx mBSrb8VG8+9ZQO8/Tl8zY3h2FzRKea/sOQIlhpVeD2kryQUyqc2D6z79dklru5vu D7b5iJEY1na8xkQW/c3nD3ejsJRQ/5kjcNcZBQ4zxG/jM95B0tt3Wmn4B0/uMmid bJZDE0fMMEQ= =9qf9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] Wed Dec 3 08:58:36 1997 From: Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:58:36 +0800 Subject: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed (was: Re: not so fast Re: Kudos to NETCOM!) In-Reply-To: <3484fa3f.15802574@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <1d7856cec219ec3624f40522eef1457b@anonymous.poster> "Sam" wrote: > In article <3485813d.117631170 at nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, > gburnore+NOspam at netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes: > > > On 2 Dec 1997 14:59:30 GMT, "Sam" wrote: > > > >:Found it: > >: > >:Subject: Re: Burnore forgeries easily solvable > >:From: Sam > >:Date: 1997/07/10 > >:Message-ID: <5q3ms3$phq at chronicle.concentric.net> > >:Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.anonymous,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.censorship,news.ad > >: > >: > > > > > > Nice try Sam but no go. > > Not so fast. In the message that this was a follow-up to, > , your own exact words were: > > > This one dated 9 July 1997 > > is a good example. See the forged from line? Ths did not come from > > mmdf at databasix.com > > Well, no matter how you look at it, it was. It did came from > mmdf at databasix.com. There was no forgery. And that was precisely the > point of my initial post. I cannot believe that someone who is supposed to > administer a mail server cannot recognize an auto-ack generated by his own > machine, instead insisting that the message came from a third party, forged > with his return address. > > This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against > UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect. ^^^^^^^^^^ You've noticed that too, huh? Gary Burnore's "big lie" technique depends upon his claims being retold over and over, by himself and his associates such as Belinda Bryan , WITHOUT SERIOUS ANALYSIS like yours, in order to be believed. Gary's continuous whining about "forgeries" is becoming pathetic. In his haste to falsely claim that something was "forged" he missed the fact that the claimed "forgery" was traceable back to HIS OWN SERVER. He shot himself in the foot trying to frame the remailers this time. What would be the point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look like it came from "mmdf at databasix.com", anyway? Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly suspect. First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer. Despite being challenged to do so, Gary has never been able to produce a single piece of documentation showing that Mailmasher ever had the ability to paste From: headers. The "evidence" that was posted had truncated Path headers that stopped at the mail2news gateway and contained "X-No-Archive" headers, just as Gary's own posts do, presumably to explain why none of these posts is independently available from third-party archives for verification. If the posts even existed in the first place, they are more likely to have been generated from a Netcruiser account, complete with headers designed to frame Mailmasher, than from Mailmasher itself. -- From honig at otc.net Wed Dec 3 09:27:31 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:27:31 +0800 Subject: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971203025104.00740bfc@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971203091239.007e4410@206.40.207.40> At 07:53 AM 12/3/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >Bill Stewart writes: > >> The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel >> at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, >> and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people >> keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, >> and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers >> first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... > >Yes, this is one of the problems. Earlier this year pedophile Chris Lewis >from Northern Telecom forged a bunch of spam e-mail to look like it came >from dm.com (my domain). I got about 500 obnoxious e-mails, which I >semi-automatically responded to, and had a rather unpleasant conversation >with the assholes at my upstrea (PSI): "If you prove that this e-mail didn't >originate at your site, you will not be held responsible". If you could find a competant jury you would be able to show breach of contract had they done anything, because they should know better than to believe forgeries. Admittedly this is a major hassle you should not have to endure. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From honig at otc.net Wed Dec 3 09:32:22 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:32:22 +0800 Subject: More microsoft monopoly::Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971203092302.007d8b30@206.40.207.40> At 10:52 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Ray Arachelian wrote: >Microsoft has now broken up the Service Packs into Bug Fix and Option Pack >(new feechures) packages. > >However the catch is this: they require you to have Internet Exploiter >4.01 installed *BEFORE* you can install the Option Pack (whose features >have little to do with Internet Exploiter, though they are part of the >IIS web server. For example RAIDUS Remote Access Authentication has >nothing to do with Exploiter.) > >IMHO: This is a cheap shot at making their browser more "incorporated" >with the OS, that way they can get around the Justice Dept. :( Lame. >Another message claims VC++ requires IE as well -- can anyone confirm >this? > You must have IE (3+) installed in order to use MS's visual java, FYI. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From honig at otc.net Wed Dec 3 09:40:10 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:40:10 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: <199712021617.LAA28265@arutam.inch.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971203090005.007d2340@206.40.207.40> At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will >never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has >highlighted the tensions between the different types of >Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh) routine is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem acceptable. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From tcmay at got.net Wed Dec 3 09:53:52 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:53:52 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971203113613.00843ef8@idt.net> Message-ID: At 8:42 AM -0700 12/3/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob >Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors >on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: > >-- MacKinnonite antiporn laws (she's a self-identified Marxist, I recall) And her partner, Andrea Dworkin, belies the oft-quoted notion that someone so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin is so far left she's just plain _left_. She argues that porn for womyn (or is it wimmin?) is fine and dandy, because this represents lesbian sisterhood exploring their own blah blah blah, but porn aimed and directed at men, even if containing precisely the same images of naked chicks, is inherently exploitative and should be banned. (How?) Dworkin has clamined, several times, that all heterosexual sex is rape. >-- "Hate speech" bans And "hate speech" laws are already spreading on the Net. Just a day or two ago there was a report that a student is being prosecuted for "hate speech" messages mentioning Asians (or maybe just Japanese?) in a derogatory way. What part of "shall make no law" is not being understood here? What part of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" did they not understand? (This being one of the lessons, along with several other crucial memes, that some of us learned early on...apparently this lesson, and the fable of the grasshopper and the ant, has been replaced by the Dworkin-approved "Heather Has Two Mommies" lesbian propaganda.) >-- Sexual harassment "hostile environment" regulations (Give me a break. >This is the justification for at least one library censorware >installation.) This is a fairly old one, at least 15 years old. Girlie calendars, even of bikini girls, are banned in most work environments. GIFs or JPEGs with sexy themes are banned (unless, one presumes, they are "lesbigay or transgender" (!), in which case they must be encouraged by Management so as to provide a nurturing environment for lesbigays...sort of a kind of affirmative action for dykes and fags). The City of Berkeley has floated proposals to ban public reading, in diners, restaurants, etc., of magazines like "Playboy." Not because children might catch a glimpse of a naked breast, but because womyn and other sensitive souls might be offended. (I don't know if this was ever passed into law, let alone challenged in court.) >-- Various FCC regulations aside from indecent stuff Like mandatory voluntary ratings. Like mandatory voluntary "public service announcements." Like denials of licenses for politically incorrect stations. >-- Labeling/compelled speech requirements (Jamie, are you out there?) > Labelled speech will be the touchstone for the next couple of decades of debate about censorship, hurtful speech, and mandatory voluntary self-ratings. "But you can say anything you wish, provided you voluntarily and accurately self-label your words, and provided none of the protected class members are offended or insulted." >>bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >>speech when it appears to be a threat. > >Well, at least the libertarians in the audience are consistently opposed to >government censorship. Such has it always been, such will it always be. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Wed Dec 3 11:03:41 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:03:41 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 9:44 AM -0700 12/3/97, Tim May wrote: >Labelled speech will be the touchstone for the next couple of decades of >debate about censorship, hurtful speech, and mandatory voluntary >self-ratings. > >"But you can say anything you wish, provided you voluntarily and accurately >self-label your words, and provided none of the protected class members are >offended or insulted." I should add a brief anecdote about the mind-set these people have. In the early 90s the city of Santa Cruz, CA, considered an "appearance discrimination" law. It was aimed at banning discrimination on the basis of appearance. The cited examples were of restaurants and other businesses in town which had rules against employees wearing nose rings, tongue studs, spiky hair, mohawks, lip piercings, tatoos, scarification, and such things. And "weight discrimination," as in the also-famous case of a Santa Cruz health food store turning down the employment application of a "person of poundage." (The grossly obese Toni Cassista, who sued the health food store citing weight discrimination...I believe she eventually settled out of court.) Inasmuch as the U.S. has not quite yet reached the point where such "appearance discrimination" is barred under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the city fathers and mothers considered having their own appearance discrimination law. It was eventually tabled. Much national attention got focussed on it, as some of you may recall. ("What will Santa Cruz think of next?") I attended one of the public hearings, held in the Civic Center before a crowd of several hundred. Those who spoke pubically, during the hours-long public input, were apoplectically insistent that thoughtcrime be purged, that restaurants and other businesses be forced to hire those with extreme body decoration, piercing, tatooing, and such. A woman I vaguely knew from science fiction circles, who had divorced her husband and become a Radical Dyke (tm), summarized the view of the crowd: "The First Amendment gives these bigots the right to think anything they wish. But it doesn't give them the right to act on their bigoted thoughts publically." This view is, I think, the increasingly common view of the Left: that the First Amendment is about private thoughts, but that public expressions of such thoughts, either in published form or in hiring and firing decisions, etc., is not covered by the First Amendment. Sadly, if the Civil Rights Act is upheld, they are probably correct. Any public utterance or publication of certain politically incorrect thoughts is likely to be viewed as a violation of the "civil rights" of some aggrieved minority. (I, of course, would like to see all parts of the Civil Rights Act except those dealing directly with _governmental_ discrimination against certain races or gender, struck down. The Civil Rights Act should only be about government allowing equal access to voting booths, publically-funded facilities, etc. It should not interfere with a person's right to associate with whom he wishes, to hire and fire whomever he wishes, and to serve or sell to whomever he wishes. Without these rights, there is no real freedom.) --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From cnn at dev.null Wed Dec 3 11:03:42 1997 From: cnn at dev.null (Canadian Nutly News) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:03:42 +0800 Subject: Khristian Kult Killings Message-ID: <3485A585.BFD@dev.null> [CANADIAN NUTLY NEWS-Bienfait, Saskatchewan]AN ASSORTMENT OF POLITCAL criminals from Washington, DC, held a press conference at the Coaldust Saloon last night, with the main topic of discussion being the gangland battles between rival Christian cults. Bill Clinton expressed dismay over secret intelligence reports that not only were the Christian gangs widely dispersed throughout the school system, but that there was evidence of involvement by many teachers and school administrators, as well. "Many of these cults have beliefs very similar to the Heaven's Gate cult, with their members involved in preparing to participate in an exiting of the physical plane in a similar manner, and the eventual overthrow of democratic government in all countries, led by their currently exiled guerilla leader." Lying Jackoff Fuck Louis J. Freeh stated that more crimes are committed in America by followers of the Christian cults than even the large number committed by people with Italian names. "The problem is enormous." Freeh stated. "Many of the children are committed to these gangs by their parents, almost from birth. It is not surprising that the kids seldom manage to escape the grip of these cults, even as adults." Murdering Nazi Cunt Janet Reno stated that BATF agents had informed her that Christian cult members throughout the U.S. were in possession of more weapons than members of the paramilitary. "The real threat of having weapons in these people's hands is that, like most paramilitary members, they don't regard the Federal government as being the supreme authority." Anonymous sources at the scene of the recent cult slaughter at a high school in Kentucky confirmed that several copies of a popular cult manifesto were found in the homes of both the shooter and the dead participants in the bizarre ritual. The manifesto, which is vastly more subversive and violent than books such as "The Turner Diaries," is often referred to by cult members in oblique coded-language as simply, "The Book." Bar maids and local drunks at the Coaldust Saloon denied the rumors that the book, known as the Word of God to most cult followers, was actually one of the early manuscripts of the author of 'The True Story of the InterNet,' and that 'God' was nothing more than a thinly veiled anagram for 'Dog', representing one of the author's many nefarious aliases. However, A Sorry Drunk To Be Named Later informed gathered reportwhores that if Christian cult members around the world sent their tithes, in cash, to PO Box 281, Bienfait, Saskatchewan, that they would be assured a space on the spaceship approaching earth in the shadow of comet Khrist-Bop-Shoo-Bop. (When pressed for details as to the time of arrival of the mythical space aliens worshipped by the cult, A Sorry Drunk To Be Named Later merely winked and said, "Let's just say that cult members will be swept up into another dimension on the same day as their computers.") Canadian Nutly News sources confirmed earlier today that the shooter in the ritual slaughter at the high school in Kentucky was wearing a T-shirt with a radical cult slogan often used to whip cult members into a violent frenzy, "He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of Dog." ~sog~ From honig at otc.net Wed Dec 3 11:07:16 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:07:16 +0800 Subject: 'Off' the parking pigs! In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971202122124.007a4b60@otc.net> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971203104104.007cbd60@206.40.207.40> At 04:31 PM 12/2/97 -0600, TruthMonger wrote: >David Honig wrote: >> relevant to anon remailers & society thread... > >> SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance, >> federal prosecutors will >> retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to >> Asian students at UC Irvine. > >> Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was >> first charged. > > Are we supposed to feel 'safer' in public, knowing that we may be >surrounded by people to whom it may be worthwhile to kill a few cops >and innocent bystanders in order to avoid punishment for sending >nasty email, or having an unpaid parking ticket? Turn the facetiousness down a notch, Monger-san. This moron sent death threats to individuals. Its stupid that Fed "hate mail" laws inflate the case, when its already a death-threat case, and its stupid that it gets press because its the internet, but hey, this is the 90's. It is pretty reasonable IMHO to hold people responsible for direct threats when AND ONLY WHEN they can be traced to them (duh). As for the loser in question, 'fleeing' to Mexico is an short drive from Irvine, its not like he actually had to pull some desperado stunts that would have endangered others. I'm frankly surprised Machado (or his presumably more intelligent attorneys) didn't try to deny sending the messages ("I left my terminal to go potty"). (This may have to do with the technical circumstances of his capture, of which I'm unaware.) But if the messages were traceable, I've not yet read a (usually brilliant) Monger rave wherein you argue that personal responsibility for threats is a null concept. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From honig at otc.net Wed Dec 3 11:16:01 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:16:01 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971203104756.007e9320@206.40.207.40> At 09:44 AM 12/3/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >At 8:42 AM -0700 12/3/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob >>Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors >>on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: >> >>-- MacKinnonite antiporn laws (she's a self-identified Marxist, I recall) > >And her partner, Andrea Dworkin, belies the oft-quoted notion that someone >so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin >is so far left she's just plain _left_. She argues that porn for womyn (or >is it wimmin?) is fine and dandy, because this represents lesbian >sisterhood exploring their own blah blah blah, but porn aimed and directed What you watch is pornography; What I watch is erotica. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Wed Dec 3 11:49:53 1997 From: real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (Graham-John Bullers) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:49:53 +0800 Subject: your mail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, bureau42 Anonymous Remailer wrote: I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. > Timmy C[...] May is a slant-eyed, rice-gibbling jap in a redneck disguise. > > ---._.--- > / | \ > / * \ > ( @@ ) > / _/-||-\_ \ > / '/ || \` \ > / / () \ \ > / /| |\ \ > / / | | \ \ > / / / o o \ \ \ > / / ( ) \ \ > <_ ' `--`___'`___'--' ` _> > / '~~--- / = \ ---~~` \ > ,,,/ / ( v ) \ \,,, > \ / / @|-' '-|@ \ \ / > \__/ ////// \__/ > > > Dave Smith bends over for Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the rest > of the Databasix gang. > > --- > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM > Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Graham-John Bullers Moderator of alt.2600.moderated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ email : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Wed Dec 3 12:15:15 1997 From: real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (Graham-John Bullers) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:15:15 +0800 Subject: RSA In-Reply-To: <199712021055.LAA19014@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Anonymous wrote: I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. > Tim C[retin] May studied yoga back-streching > exercises for five years so he could blow > himself (nobody else will). > > (((> /< > ( / > ((({{{{{:< Tim C[retin] May > \ > \< > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Graham-John Bullers Moderator of alt.2600.moderated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ email : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From tcmay at got.net Wed Dec 3 12:49:57 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:49:57 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 11:47 AM -0700 12/3/97, David Honig wrote: >At 09:44 AM 12/3/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >>And her partner, Andrea Dworkin, belies the oft-quoted notion that someone >>so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin >>is so far left she's just plain _left_. She argues that porn for womyn (or >>is it wimmin?) is fine and dandy, because this represents lesbian >>sisterhood exploring their own blah blah blah, but porn aimed and directed >What you watch is pornography; >What I watch is erotica. Indeed, and in a wonderful case of schadenfreude, when the Dworkin-MacKinnon anti-porn law was enacted in Canada, "Lesbitan Erotica" bookstores and publishers were shut down. (I believe this was in Toronto, and it may have only been in that city or region that the law was enacted, not in all of Canada. Toto can clarify.) Predictably, the feministas squealed like stuck pigs (or is it pigesses?). They claimed that the law was intended to block "male uses" of certain images, not uses by womyn and other exploited peoples. Be careful what you wish for, double-edged swords, and all that. When will they learn that the simple cure to such double-edge swords is not passing authoritarian laws in the first place? --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From hauman at bb.com Wed Dec 3 13:02:56 1997 From: hauman at bb.com (Glenn Hauman) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:02:56 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 1:47 PM -0500 12/3/97, David Honig wrote: >What you watch is pornography; >What I watch is erotica. And what the person over there watches is filth. Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes http://www.bb.com/ From tm at dev.null Wed Dec 3 13:12:33 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:12:33 +0800 Subject: 'Off' the parking pigs! In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971202122124.007a4b60@otc.net> Message-ID: <3485C76A.1963@dev.null> David Honig wrote: > At 04:31 PM 12/2/97 -0600, TruthMonger wrote: > >> SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance, > >> federal prosecutors will > >> retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to > >> Asian students at UC Irvine. > > Are we supposed to feel 'safer' in public, knowing that we may be > >surrounded by people to whom it may be worthwhile to kill a few cops > >and innocent bystanders in order to avoid punishment for sending > >nasty email, or having an unpaid parking ticket? > > Turn the facetiousness down a notch, Monger-san. I think you have me confused with TluthMongel. > This moron sent death threats to individuals. > It is pretty reasonable IMHO to hold people responsible for direct threats > when AND ONLY WHEN they can be traced to them (duh). In the jury's humble opinion, the prosecution didn't prove its case. This is no problem for the government. They have the deep pockets required to prosecute as many times as needed to refine their attempts to manipulate the minds of the jurors, or to get lucky and have a few members of a split jury vote to convict because they don't want to blow their trip to the Stones' concert. Lame fucks spending taxpayer money want to throw away a shitload of money prosecuting this dweeb for a dweeb stunt and throw away a bunch more money keeping him from fleeing the country so that he can be thrown out of the country if convicted. Meanwhile, murderers who have actually killed people will be getting plea agreements that result in being released decades earlier. Why? Because the court system is overloaded. > But if the messages > were traceable, I've not yet read a (usually brilliant) Monger rave > wherein you argue > that personal responsibility for threats is a null concept. Chief CypherPunks Hate Criminal, Tim May, can generally be counted on to expound much more eloquently than myself on the concepts and sometimes subtle differences between freedom of speech and freedom to get your ass kicked for being a fucking loudmouth asshole. My specialty is my ability to back up my bad hominy random character assassinations, a la George Carlin, by telling people what they already know (but pretend they don't really know), by shining the Verbal Light of Truth upon the InfoFog generated by others and ourselves in a desparate attempt to convince ourselves that the sign announcing the entranceway to the Home for the Criminally Insane is not, in fact, on the 'wrong' side of the door. (aka - hollering "Bullshit!") e.g. - "Knixon knew!" "The Iranian hostages who cost Carter the election were released on Reagan's inauguration day. How lucky can you get?" OswaldActedAloneMonger From tm at dev.null Wed Dec 3 13:13:05 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:13:05 +0800 Subject: Bad Cop, Worse Cop / Bum and Bummer / Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: <199712021617.LAA28265@arutam.inch.com> Message-ID: <3485B272.16C7@dev.null> David Honig wrote: > At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will never > >disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has highlighted the tensions > >between the different types of Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. > I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh) > routine is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices > seem acceptable. Yes, but Freeh is now positioning himself to be best pals with the incoming Republican President. Would _you_ vote for a politician whom the FBI Director has implied is part of a criminal tag-team that deserves investigation by a special prosecutor? A politician whose previous running mate was embroiled in WhiteWATER and FosterGATE at a time when hard evidence that a former president was GUILTY in WATER-GATE is coming to the fore? "Vote for the manipulated public image of your choice, but vote." Our 'democracy' is run by Information Management Engineers. Or so I would have you believe... TruthMonger From tcmay at got.net Wed Dec 3 13:14:04 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:14:04 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 10:00 AM -0700 12/3/97, David Honig wrote: >At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will >>never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has >>highlighted the tensions between the different types of >>Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. > > >I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh) >routine >is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem >acceptable. And made many people clamor for self-policing software. I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles, magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology, or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey, find some filter services or program your own.... However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.") And there are some who want "mislabelling" made a crime. Thus, if I claim that my site and my words are suitable for children, and someone (like Janet Reno) disagrees, I could be charged with "misrepresentation." This is a wedge to demolish free speech, this "accuracy in labelling" business. Religions could be forced to "accurately label" their messages. Speech could be shut down while courts debate whether "misrepresentation" occurred. As the saying goes, "What is truth?" And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing, publishing, and broadcasting.) (Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the key to bad speech.) So, the government should just bow out completely, as it is inappropriate for government to be involved in any way with speech rating. "Congress shall make no law..." should really be interpreted as "Government should not get involved at all in...." But of course government has wiggled and connived its way into speech in many ways. From the catch-all excuse of "regulating commerce," to the increasing number of restrictions on commercial speech, on speech in violation of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, to selective prosecution for threats and RICO conspiracy and on and on.... --Tim May Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years From declan at well.com Wed Dec 3 13:51:08 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:51:08 +0800 Subject: Transcript of Gore's remarks at "Censorware Summit" Message-ID: This is a transcript of Al Gore's remarks (not his prepared remarks, but his actual remarks) at the "Censorware Summit" yesterday. --Declan *********** REMARKS BY VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE AT THE INTERNET/ONLINE SUMMIT INTERNET/ONLINE SUMMIT: FOCUS ON CHILDREN RENAISSANCE HOTEL 999 NINTH STREET NW WASHINGTON, DC TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1997 VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you, Christine. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you very much for your warm welcome. And Christine Varney, I want to thank you for your kind introduction. And I want to tell you how much I appreciate your friendship over the years, and how much President Clinton and I appreciate the outstanding work that you did in the White House and the Federal Trade Commission and as a leader in so many ways. And that leadership is demonstrated again as you chair this Internet/Online Summit. Let me also thank and congratulate co-chair Bill Burrington and the summit host, Steve Case of American Online, and host Dan Schulman of AT&T and Laura Jennings of Microsoft and Jake Weinbaum (sp) of Walt Disney and Dan Oakrent (sp) of Time Warner. And I want to acknowledge with special praise my colleague in President Clinton's Cabinet, the secretary of education, Richard Riley, who will speak after I do. I want to thank the students of Hind (sp) Junior High School here in the District of Columbia and Rocky Run Middle School in Fairfax, Virginia; Rock Creek Valley Middle School in Maryland; and Du Fief (sp) Elementary School in Maryland. These kids who are behind me took part in an Internet demonstration in an adjacent room just before this morning's session, and I was very, very impressed with all of the things they showed me and their skills and their teachers and their librarians. And I want to thank all of you for inviting me here today and congratulate you for this summit. The president and I hosted a meeting back on July 16th, with many of those who are leaders of this summit. We challenged the industry to move forward. This independent initiative which has been undertaken is, I think, most impressive and a very, very important step forward. Your interest in expanding the vast opportunities and living up to the growing responsibilities of the Internet is admirable. I'm pleased to be here today to outline some objectives and announce some important initiatives to help make this exciting new tool safe for our children. Both the president and I have long been convinced that the Internet is not a luxury or a diversion; it is an essential tool for children. And its use is fast becoming an essential skill for adults. That is why we're committed to connecting every classroom and school library to the Internet by the year 2000. We have already connected 65 percent of our schools in a very short period of time. We're ahead of schedule in meeting our broader goals. Earlier this morning, as I mentioned a moment ago, I heard some more reasons why we should encourage our young people to get on-line. The parents and children that are behind me, and their teachers and librarians, told me about how their families use the Internet. The high value these parents place on their children's Internet explorations is more proof that the Internet offers unsurpassed opportunity for our children and also for the businesses that can serve this fast-growing market. You know, throughout the history of our civilization, we have learned how to store knowledge outside of our own brains, first in spoken language and then in written language, in culture and its various manifestations, including song and dance. And then with the invention of the printing process, the ability to store knowledge outside the brain grew by leaps and bounds. The Electronic Revolution further advanced this process. But now the Internet allows our civilization to take a quantum leap forward, dramatically changing the way we relate to this rapidly growing amount of knowledge that's stored outside the brain and is accessible to people all over the world. And as our children go through the learning and acculturation process, it is absolutely essential that they learn how to use the Internet, just as it became essential for children, in the learning process, to learn how to read books when the print process was first invented. Ten million children are already on the Internet, and that's four times as many as just a few years ago. In a short time, more young people will be connected to the Internet than any other segment of the population. And yet the parents I talk to express deep concerns about Internet content they consider inappropriate for children. They made it clear that if the Internet industry hopes to serve the interests of America's children, it must first gain the trust of America's parents. That is why this administration has charged the Internet industry with taking the responsibility and taking the lead for making the Internet safe for children. You have taken some important and impressive first steps. I want to congratulate you for your efforts in this area - the search engines, the filtering and blocking software, the access to high- quality children's sites and a choice of rating systems so that parents can find the one that meets their families' needs. In tandem with that, I want to congratulate the sponsors of the tens of thousands of web sites who have voluntarily self-rated those sites. And I want to congratulate you again for organizing this conference and stepping into the middle of a very difficult debate. And we need to understand clearly why it is so difficult and not be daunted by that task or scared away from wading into the middle of this and finding a solution. It's a debate about a 21st century question: How do we keep our children safe while protecting the First Amendment and preserving the limitless opportunities of this exciting new technological medium that changes form and content on a daily basis? Some say we should refrain from any action, that all action to block children's access to objectionable content amounts to censorship. To them I say, blocking your own child's access to objectionable Internet content is not censoring; that's called parenting. And it is essential. And a parent's right to block offensive speech is as fully protected by the First Amendment as the right to issue that speech. There is a view, which I consider an absurd view, that defines "children" as "nothing more than miniature adults," not really in need of special protection from material that their parents believe they're not ready to process and handle. Well, children are not "miniature adults." Their minds are developing and growing and evolving. And they are especially vulnerable to some kinds of images and information that, of course, ought to be freely available to adults who have matured and developed and have the full rights of citizenship to choose whatever they want to see and listen to and read and look at. Children are in a different category, and that ought not be a controversial conclusion. But still others say that government must immediately come in with a heavy hand and outlaw certain activities on the Internet. Well to them, I say we need to listen to the justices of the Supreme Court and to the United States Constitution that binds them. Since the days of George Washington and John Marshall, when Chief Justice Marshall, the greatest chief justice of all, told us that the Supreme Court does indeed interpret the Constitution; as a nation of laws, we have been bound to follow our Constitution and the interpretations of that Constitution given by our Supreme Court. And the court has ruled that we must find methods to keep our children safe that do not infringe on the free speech of others. Therefore, we must give ourselves the time we need to develop these methods. In short, we must meet this 21st-century challenge in a 21st-century way, not by using the heavy hand of government in ways that would harm and squelch this exciting new resource, and certainly not by ignoring the dangers and allowing our children to roam free and unsupervised on the Internet. Instead, we should pursue a third way, an American way: allow the industry to take the lead, with the help and guidance of government, advocacy groups, and families, to provide parents with the education and the tools they need to preserve both safety and freedom on the Internet. You have begun this effort. And I know that there's only a small percentage of sites on the Internet that parents feel are not healthy for their children. You have begun designing the tools to guide children away from content that their parents consider harmful and steer them toward content that their parents consider helpful. So the work you've begun is extremely important, and doing it well, so that it is an effective solution, is an absolutely essential task. You know as well as I do that the Internet will never be a fixture in every home until parents have the tools they need to make it safe for their children's explorations. There is a danger for this effort to degenerate into a discussion about how to avoid regulation. To be successful, it must be elevated to a discussion about how to meet the needs of America's families. Industry will never be able to meet those needs unless it devotes the same resources and commitment to designing parental controls that it would devote to the design and launch of any new product. I'm convinced that this is an area where you will do well by doing good. So again I say, industry must do more. I congratulate you on what you have done and on the great promise signified by this meeting here. But it means that industry must keep working to make the new technologies easier to use, more effective, and more widely available. And this is not to slight the current developments, because they are indeed impressive, but it is to put them in the context of our overall goal of making sure that every parent has the technology and the technological know-how to guide their children to sites on the information superhighway just as easily as they guide their families to places on the interstate highway. These tools must become as commonplace and as easy to use as the remote control on the family TV. And yet, allowing parents to block access to sites they deem objectionable is not the only issue the industry faces. To gain the trust of parents and families, you must give users, and especially children and parents, control over how their private information is used over the Internet. In addition, we must also look at direct marketing to children. If Internet sites for kids continue to feature advertising blurred into entertainment and targeted directly at children, parents may soon shut off the Internet. You might as well prepare yourselves if there's not an effective industry-led solution. You might as well prepare yourselves for a massive nationwide backlash that will stunt the growth of this exciting resource. That shouldn't happen. It doesn't have to happen. But it will happen unless the industry-led solution to these problems also are effective, not just - let me emphasize again - not just theoretically effective, not just designed in a way that they ought to be effective, but really and actually effective in the real-life experiences of American families. You've got a lot at stake, and so the resources and the level of effort you devote to this task ought to be commensurate with the importance of finding a real solution. The Department of Commerce will be hosting conferences early next year to focus on issues of quality, content, access, privacy, marketing and advertising for children. The first of these conferences will focus on access and will take place from February 25th through February 27th. I challenge the industry to bring to these conferences, just a few months from now, several clear ideas for addressing these issues and, by addressing them, go a great distance toward gaining the trust of concerned parents. Of course, we have said that industry's role is to take the lead, not to carry the entire load. And so today, I am pleased to announce several initiatives that will work in tandem with industry efforts by helping educate parents about the availability of parental controls and how they can use them to help protect their children. First of all, I am delighted to announce the release of a new "Parents Guide to the Internet" prepared, at the president's request, by the Department of Education. And Secretary Riley will be talking more about this in a few moments, but this "Parents Guide to the Internet," we hope, will become a valuable resource for parents who want to understand how they can play a responsible role as parents in helping to protect their children against inappropriate sites and inappropriate material, and finding the exciting opportunities that really are available for educational and cultural purposes on the Internet. Parents today face a "technogeneration" gap that's different from anything that they ever experienced with their own parents. One journalist wrote that it's almost as if Ward and June Cleaver were suddenly charged with supervising the Jetson children, Judy and Elroy - (laughter) - a pretty good analogy. This new guide introduces parents to the Internet and suggests how they can help their children experience its wonders and dodge its hazards. I'm also pleased to announce a new national public awareness campaign calling - called "Think, Then Link." This will feature a national town hall meeting, scheduled for next fall, to be held in schools all across the country and designed to educate adults and children about how to create a safe online environment. This will be followed by local town hall meetings at libraries, schools, and community centers across the country. This is part of our effort to give parents the tools they need to ensure a safe, constructive Internet experience for their children. But those tools themselves are not enough. They must be accompanied by aggressive enforcement of the anti-stalking, child pornography, and obscenity laws as they apply to cyberspace. And that's why I'm pleased that the leading Internet service provider associations are announcing a new agreement to cooperate with law enforcement authorities on a zero-tolerance policy against child pornography. Internet service providers will be working closely with law enforcement to report and pursue any suspicious activity. I really want to congratulate these providers for stepping forward in this fashion. We've had experiences in the Reinventing Government effort that has resulted in airlines reporting on information that drug smugglers might be involved in air freight shipments. And the partnership between the airline carriers and the Customs people has resulted in a really dramatic improvement in that whole law enforcement effort. And this new partnership, I believe, is likely to have similar dramatic effects. I'm also pleased to announce a cybertips line - in effect, a 911 number for the Internet. This number will work like an emergency hot line or a crimestoppers tip line, and will take reports on illegal Internet activity related to child pornography and predation. This project is sponsored by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with a sizeable grant from the Department of Justice. It is a warning to criminals and a promise to parents: There are Internet police for those activities that are illegal, and they will capture and punish those who would use the Internet to harm and hurt our children. Together, these new initiatives will make a significant difference in the ability of parents and law enforcement to work together to keep our children safe on the Internet. Most parents quickly learn the value of letting children explore. Small children can learn much more from emptying a cupboard of pots and pans onto the floor than they could ever learn by direct instruction. Weight, balance, sound, texture, touch, temperature - there is no human being competent to teach a child all those lessons. They're just too vast and varied. Therefore, sometimes the best teaching is to encourage exploring. So, just as a parent covers electrical outlets when a baby is crawling around and locks medicine cabinets to protect children against poisoning, and cushions the hard corners of coffee tables to make a home safe for a child to explore, we must also help parents anticipate and block dangerous places on the Internet to make it safe for a child to explore. And again, children are special, and different from adults. I think it's hard for us to debate that point about the Internet, partly because throughout the history of civilization, societies that have core values always have difficulty debating issues that bring those core values into place. Our core value in the United States of America is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. Those who founded the United States came here in order to establish that core value. And any time a new proposal or a new idea or a new challenge rubs up against that core value in any way, it's very difficult for our country to come to terms with it. And there's always going to be a group that takes an absolutist view that is different from what the Supreme Court has said the Constitution endorses, and we'll always have very, very heated debates whenever this subject is dealt with. And we understand you can't eliminate all risk, but you can get to the point where the risk of letting children explore is less than the risk of not letting them explore. And we can deal with this issue in a way that does not compromise our core value of freedom of expression. This will take a lot of effort, and the combined conversation of all the boardrooms, classrooms, living rooms and chat rooms in America, to sort out the issues and give parents the tools they need to childproof the Internet. We will never achieve a complete consensus here in Washington, DC, I guarantee you. But that's okay. The debate will not be won in Washington; it will be won in the hearts and minds of America's families. And that's where the only victory that matters is going to take place. For the sake of our children, let's keep up the fight to uphold both freedom and safety on the Internet. I'm convinced, after seeing and hearing all of you here today, it's a fight that we're going to win as Americans. Thank you very much for what you're doing and for having me here today. (Applause.) Thank you. From nospam-seesignature at ceddec.com Wed Dec 3 13:52:07 1997 From: nospam-seesignature at ceddec.com (nospam-seesignature at ceddec.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:52:07 +0800 Subject: The Policeman Inside In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971125212727.00770890@pop.sirius.com> Message-ID: <97Dec3.164131est.43009@brickwall.ceddec.com> >Kent Crispin wrote: >However, the "anarchy" in cryptoanarchy is quite structured. (I was >quite seriously criticized for using a dictionary definition of >anarchy, you may recall...) If there were *no* rules, then murder is >OK, and ownership means nothing. Furthermore, cryptoanarchy requires >the sanctity of contracts, which implies a whole bunch. Of course I can get confused when some cryptoanarchists links the militia movements (which aren't properly anarchic) with cryptography. A second point is that it requires an internet social structure that allows for reputation capital - contracts are enforced technologically (e.g. you did or not digitally sign something so the truth of a violation is not really subject to argument in an idealized version), but the only recourse is to spread true negative gossip, which requires recursive reputation capital - i.e. I must be already known to be truthful and not petty for someone to believe such gossip, and the target of the gossip will have to have a history of cheating. >The whole notion of "the policeman inside" is stupid sloganeering. Of >*course* we have a policeman inside -- we have something that tells us >(at least some of us) that murder, theft, and dishonesty are >behaviors to be avoided. We have something that tells us (some of us) >it would be foolish to make a habit of running red lights. Others can't seem to tolerate the idea that there should be any lights and we should rely on our ability as drivers to avoid killing each other. My point with on internet pornography, etc. is that we should avoid such things out of convention (a red light that is not under surveillence) so as to avoid the requirement for law. On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > "The policeman inside" is neither a conscience nor an instinct towards > self-preservation. I'm familiar with the term being used to refer to the > internalization of a system of external rules, coupled with a belief in > pervasive surveillance and/or the adoption of the viewpoint of an external > supervisor, such that one with a "policeman inside" learns to fear > punishment at every moment and in every situation. See, for example, > Bentham's Panopticon or Foucault's _Discipline & Punish_ for more on the > topic. I have more reading to do. For the moment I can accept your definition, but it doesn't change the real world: Even if no one ever watches a junkie shoot up, the needle containing the HIV virus will still infect him and he will still incur that punishment. Good and evil are not like Schrodinger's cat where observation is necessary to determine the outcome. The second assumption is a society where there are bad laws - the system of external rules in your above description are tyrannical. But to return to the root, I don't think anyone that has said "that it is not right to advocate nasty things" (e.g. kiddie porn being posted to the internet) is doing so because of your definition of the policeman inside, they do so because they think the act is intrinsically wrong. The only other reason is that doing so is bad from a propaganda standpoint - most people will dismiss the most rational argument when it is said by a nasty person. They aren't in perpetual fear of punishment. > Also, you may note that two of the three terms you used as examples of > "wrong" behavior themselves imply judgments and a moral position - "theft" > and "murder". Whether or not the taking of a physical thing is "theft" can > be a complex question, that has a lot to do with contracts and agreements > and socially constructed ideas about property. Similarly, "murder" is (to > adopt a broad definition) an unlawful and intentional homicide - which, > again, presupposes certain judgements about relationships between people. Or these may not be merely be societal conventions, but trancendent truths (Natural Law to use the old-fashioned term). Moreover, it is not a complex question unless lawyers get involved, or we start making the definitions fuzzy in some other manner. Of course definitions of evil acts presupposes moral judgements, but anything else presupposes relativism (which in itself is a moral judgement) or worse. This is one of the reasons I get so upset about the state of our educational system. If words don't have a solid meaning, or that the vocabulary is too small to work to express the concepts necessary to describe things, then the result is a relativism by default since no one knows what "ownership" or "property" or "theft" means. These words have had fixed meanings in many languages for thousands of years. There is a lot of semantic confusion, but if semantics doesn't exist, then every message ever posted disappears into Babel. Otherwise you have to use the existing words, moral implications and all. > It's easy to say that "theft and murder are wrong", because wrongness is > part of the meaning of the terms "theft" and "murder". It's much less > satisfying to say something like "it's wrong to take things that someone > else thinks they own, unless they're mistaken or you have a superior claim" > or "it's wrong to shoot someone who didn't deserve to be shot". I only see it as an expansion of the definition. If I have a true claim on something, I own it and taking it from me without my consent is theft by definition; If I am mistaken, then I didn't own it in the first place. You can also continue this recursively (take - move, remove, destroy, control...) so you can expand "theft is wrong" into a book. And this might be to the benefit of those who don't yet understand the concept of theft. But it won't help those who understand and reject that concept. A serial killer might consider a law against murder as tyrannical, and thus have a "policeman inside" that prevents him from murdering for the wrong reasons (instead of having a properly formed conscience), but in either case the murder is prevented. > It's the creation of a "policeman inside" which causes people to lose their > ability to make judgements about which people (if any) ought to be shot and > which people deserve to keep their stuff. And that loss of the ability > (cognitive and moral) is, I think, a direct cause of the very crimes (theft > and murder) you mention. The ability to regulate one's self is being wasted on complying with silly or immoral rules (I filled out the form so give me my government benefits) rather than on civility. It is easier to be a pro-government automaton than to be a free moral agent. And in that I agree that it is probably the cause of those crimes. But the government has a stake in creating automatons and to keep people in fear, so instead of creating moral agents who won't murder and rob, they let crimes continue to scare people into abandoning their free will. And in that sense, a "policeman inside" is a far worse evil because it is subtle - it passes for morality but is an abandonment thereof. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com --- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Dec 3 14:03:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 06:03:07 +0800 Subject: [RePol] Re: Pasting in From: you@yourmachine.com In-Reply-To: <19971203142004.12956.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971203093552.00748ecc@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 02:20 PM 12/03/1997 -0000, Charlie Comsec wrote: >You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the >content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, >then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. >That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control >over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for >material posted. If some victim of forged hatemail to Usenet requests that your remailer block all email containing her name and address, is that legitimate? Or if somebody's forging death threats with her name at the bottom? I think yes, assuming the forgee is not a sufficiently public figure like Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno that would lead to obvious disbelief. (If Gary Burnore makes the same request, you've got a tradeoff between doing the safe thing, and blocking, or doing what he deserves and also reposting copies run through some jive filter. :-) I agree that blocking postings based on content that isn't specifically targeting someone who's requested in advance is probably not a good idea. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From declan at well.com Wed Dec 3 14:09:54 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 06:09:54 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Danny, I may respond in more detail to your post shortly (I'm supposed to be working on an article right now), but I wanted to ask you: Does CDT consider itself to be a "civil liberties" group? If so, how do you reconcile that stance with CDT director Jerry Berman's statements this week and elsewhere that we need to "balance free speech" and "balance civil liberties" with other concerns? If so, how do you reconcile this with your anti-civil liberties "compromises" on issues like wiretapping, the "harmful to minors" version of the CDA you supported, and the "crypto in a crime" jail penalties you continue to support? CDT seems to take positions that are often much closer to business lobbyists than civil liberties groups. Now, I don't mind business lobbyists -- I'm friends with many of them and I talk with them every day -- but I want to be clear on your position. -Declan On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: > At 12:45 AM -0500 12/3/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will > >never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has > >highlighted the tensions between the different types of > >Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. > > > >The civil liberties groups (ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CPSR), and > >journalism, publishers, and media groups have lined up on > >one side [http://www.ifea.org/] saying the government > >shouldn't pressure the Internet to self-censor (or be > >censored by the Feds). They held a counter-summit press > >conference yesterday. Even the libertarian Cato Institute > >is in this corner. > > > >On the other side, the Center for Democracy and Technology > >[http://www.cdt.org/] is participating in the summit along > >with antiporn groups, high tech firms, and "censorware" > >vendors. > > Declan, > > Life would indeed be dull without tensions, but it's important to have a > clear picture of what's going on in the tension over filtering. > > Somehow you have filtered out a few groups on what you call the "other > side." Even though your was present for much of the Summit, you neglected > to mention important participants in the Summit including: > > People for the American Way, one of the nation's leading civil liberties groups > American Library Association > Media Access Project > > These groups are some of the leading defends of free expression in the > country, so I'm not sure why you left them out. > > In a statement issued at the Summit, People For the American Way's > President said: "We do not want an Internet where lawmakers and > corporations have decided for us what the best filtering method is, but > neither do we advocate a 'Wild West' where any safeguard is called > intrusive. We stand for traditional democratic principles like freedom of > expression and freedom of choice, and as such we believe that families > shold have an array of choices about how best to guide their children." > > CDT shares this view with People For and is committed to assuring that: > > 1) the Net does not become dominated by a single rating system; > 2) that the choice to filter or not is always up to parents, not > governments; and, > 3) anyone using filters has full knowledge of the filtering criteria used. > > Painting this as CDT vs. all other civil libertarians may be convenient, > but it's wrong. I do thank you for acknowledging, at least, the CDT is > committed to a diversity of options. > > We'll have more to say about what happened at the Summit in a day or so. > We welcome the debate over the desirability of filtering, and various > approaches to the issue can go on, but it isn't served by misleading > characterizations. > > Thanks. > > ============================================================================ > * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * > Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt > > ------------- > > Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Director > Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.9800 (v) > 1634 Eye St., NW Suite 1100 202-637.0968 (f) > Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org/ > > > > > From love at cptech.org Wed Dec 3 14:18:36 1997 From: love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 06:18:36 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3485D7B7.E444A846@cptech.org> Declan, apparently having missed the fab 50's, seems to be enjoying his use of the "leftist" word lately. Since this seems to mean quite different things to different persons, perhaps Mr. McCullagh can define his terms. What exactly is a "leftist" in 1997, in his opinion? Jamie Declan McCullagh wrote: >Other fave leftist censorship causes: [snip] > > [snip] (check out the Center for Media Education, a > leftist group if I ever heard of one. -- James Packard Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 | fax 202.234.5176 love at cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Dec 3 14:41:04 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 06:41:04 +0800 Subject: How long before McAfee PGP v6.0 with GAK? Message-ID: <199712032128.VAA01388@server.test.net> Someone forwarded a wired article: > | PGP is competing with RSA Data Security Inc.'s S/MIME (Secure > | Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension) to become a standard for E-mail > | encryption. So far, PGP appears to be winning the hearts of the IETF > | (Internet Engineering Task Force) because it is based upon the public > | Diffie-Hellman algorithm. Whoever wrote this isn't paying attention. S/MIMEv3 is an IETF process and also uses patent free algorithms. > ===> http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/8906.html > > | Pretty Good Privacy Not Looking So Great > | > | Legendary cypherpunk and former PGP Inc. chief technology officer Phil > | Zimmermann is in the uncomfortable position of having to eat his > | words. Following Monday's US$35 million cash acquisition of PGP by > | Network Associates, the man who once testified before the Senate that > | key recovery could "strengthen the hand of a police state" now works > | for a company that actively promotes it. > | > | Reaction from e-privacy activists was swift and harsh. > | > | "The users of PGP can no longer rely on the credibility of Phil > | Zimmermann to ensure that the product is everything that they've been > | promised it's been previously," said Dave Banisar, attorney for the > | Electronic Privacy Information Center and co-author of The Electronic > | Privacy Papers pgp5.x had corporate message recovery (CMR) features in it from the git-go. Not quite as bad as KRAP (Key Recovery Alliance Partnership -- the government toady scheme for companies argreeing to add GAK to their products), but still risky stuff the way that they implemented it. Anyone who is interested should read: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/cdr/ where I attempt to compare the risks of PGP Inc's method of disaster recovery with more logical and more secure alternatives. The folks at PGP Inc who poo-pooed the uproar caused by their CMR exploits are now left with the thought that they have built the GAK mechanism for a KRAP company. The KRAP program calls for companies to implement GAK in a two year time-frame, in exchange for this they have the bribe of being allowed to export puny 56 bit encryption in place of the joke 40 bit encryption. So it may be necessary to forget PGP Inc. If I was PRZ I would demand that the name PGP not be used for KRAP. > | Network Associates, formerly known as McAfee Associates, is an active > | member of the Key Recovery Alliance, an organization that lobbies > | Congress for key recovery that would grant law enforcement agencies > | back-door access to private encrypted communications. Yup, they're government sell outs who are part of the "program" helping government to install key recovery government master back door keys etc. PGP Inc's CMR looks set to be the architecture for GAK much earlier than it's detractors predicted. Shame on those at PGP who invented it, and defended it. > | Network Associates and other companies support key recovery because > | it would allow them to export strong crypto software without bothering > | to make a separate nonrecoverable version for the domestic market. Not really, they are allowed to export 56 bit crypto which is still ultra puny. They won't be able to export 128 bit IDEA, or 128 bit CAST, or 112 bit 3DES which is what PGP5.x uses. So they'll either need two versions or they'll dumb down the whole lot to 56 bits, which is just too weak by far. > | But Zimmermann, a pioneer of strong encryption, has spent years > | crusading against key recovery, calling it an invasion of privacy. And > | the most recent release of PGP's encryption software allows users to > | disable key recovery. Many of us were already upset with PRZ for his part in the development of CMR, and for allowing it to happen. It was far too politically risky a technology to associate with the PGP name, or for someone who cared about privacy or personal freedom to endorse. > | "People should give their consent to use [recovery]," Zimmermann said. > | When asked whether future versions of the package will retain that > | option, Zimmermann replied, "Certainly, as long as I have anything to > | say about it." I would imagine that PRZ doesn't retain much control. > | "It's going to take some time to figure things out," said Zimmermann. I hope PRZ does the right thing. > | "It will require a fundamental examination by human rights groups and > | others about whether any newer versions of PGP are truly trustworthy," > | said Banisar. pgp5.x is already tainted with the features to interoperate with future GAKked software from NAI versions of PGP which will likely have GAK to comply with McAfee's KRAP program. Adam From comsec at nym.alias.net Wed Dec 3 15:06:42 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:06:42 +0800 Subject: *** PGP HAS A BACKDOOR - by Phil Zimmerman In-Reply-To: <6441635046.162107260@news.stray.cat.edu> Message-ID: <19971203224005.20152.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anonymous wrote: > > PGP 5.5 for Business Security can be configured to use escrow keys. It > > isn't automatic, you have to explicitly enable this. I am pretty sure, > > but not positive, that once enabled, the user is warned that that an > > escrow key is being used. > > Okay, we lived with Viacrypt and PGP 4.5 before. > Let's talk about reasons to include those pieces of suspicious code > in the 5.0 -version for _personal privacy_. > Activated or not, the idea alone is a bad thing and smells like betrayal. > > Why has it been done? Certainly it is not a big problem to compile a version > 5.0 with an activated key escrow-function? Is PGP Inc. waiting for the > law to catch up? > We should observe closely in the future and look out for the little > "enhancements" which will make PGP Inc. keep their market shares: Actually, I'm told the reason for those code hooks is so that commercial users can do INTERNAL key "escrowing", so that if a vital individual dies or quits and refuses to turn over his key to his successor, his employer can recover the key and access encrypted data that would otherwise remain inaccessible. If the employer is paying him to produce something, then the end result is the property of the employer and should not be lost if the employee dies or becomes disgruntled, quits, and refuses to turn over the key (or claims he "forgot" his passphrase) to his employer. OTOH, an employee should be allowed to properly revoke his key upon quitting and distribute the revocation certificate. (The employer may be wise to REQUIRE that.) I really have no problem with that as long as its use remains VOLUNTARY at the user's discretion. Needless to say, an employee in a situation like that should use one key for work-related purposes and a separate, non-escrowed one for his personal use. Although anything is possible, I doubt that the government would use this as a means of implementing MANDATORY key escrowing. The powers-that-be at the NSA seem to have real fits with software encryption to start with, and something that's available in source code and thus modifiable would give them nightmares. I'd expect anything they eventually approve/mandate to be merely a software interface to a tamper-resistant encryption engine in firmware (complete with embedded key[s]). - --- Finger for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIWeZQbp0h8ZvosNAQE1GAf9E0/ZlxyCZSO9FUMIQ8EbdWJce84wqXDs Zm4MgrdVpOkaQJWeC14WEwE2cLl6RRtcS8NSq+2YWpaZw2+8lxFsOcAhPqSCowCi 5OoBw8MraGZd6ARmQSIoveqcEBWTvggwwg9hGUy1/Eh4JDNy2ZfWj+WLgRILG0Hj kV6Uzrlm56oPKdDW4927jwelQcFdj76UDbQSfeVVWXM6hpJtEpxayDdB9vXCWRZ5 eOVf2FA5Lu6LM23zqQ3+gpA1+XTFK4ENCWO+MSDk3OU20Pk7l5SAZ89bfuI7887a yai8KKwHnHmE18Y5DYOrKoP6aDbjgS0207R5Z5khKsv3BLqJ4zKdPQ== =BnQo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rotenberg at epic.org Wed Dec 3 15:12:38 1997 From: rotenberg at epic.org (Marc Rotenberg) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:12:38 +0800 Subject: FC: The tensions between Internet advocacy groups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Danny - I think where the free expression groups differ fundamentally from the position CDT has set out is that we do not believe that the Net should be dominated by rating systems. We recognize that parents have some legitimate concerns about the availability of objectionable material. But we think that there are alternatives to widespread ratings -- including learning more about the benefits of the Internet -- that are preferable. We also recognize that there is a risk that Congress will try to pass CDA II. But we believe that it will be difficult for such an act to survive Constitutional review after Reno v. ACLU. We are perhaps more concerned that an architecture of ubiquitous ratings will provide, as Barry Steinhardt said well at the summit, a blueprint for legislation that would be upheld. What exactly does CDT plan to say to the enthusiastic member of Congress who backs your rating plan and wants to see it enforced with sanctions? What are your own views about a filtering search engine that block access to 99% of the references concerning the "American Red Cross"? A diversity of rating systems is the not the same as a diversity of viewpoints. It is rather a diversity of fears and prejudices. I hope we never see the day when national organizations are routinely called upon to draw up lists of what they do not want others to see. I suspect that those who are concerned about the future of free expression share this view. Marc Rotenberg EPIC From jim.burnes at ssds.com Wed Dec 3 15:28:02 1997 From: jim.burnes at ssds.com (Jim Burnes) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:28:02 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Tim May wrote: > And made many people clamor for self-policing software. > > I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles, > magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are > fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology, > or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey, > find some filter services or program your own.... > > However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be > fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their > development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction > would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials > helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves > and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and > avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.") I believe I've been beating the drum for that one for a couple months. Now all we need is to talk to a winsock geek and find out how we can wedge our software into the winsock layer so that we could release roll your own censoring software. We then sell it to all know religious organizations (including those not necessarily claiming to be ;-). A small royalty from every thousand copies sent out is then put into the retired cypherpunks relief fund. seriously. rather than complaining that many people find some material objectionable to their tastes we should take advantage of it...and make it widely available. All those millions of dollars sent to churches could then be spent on services delivered to the member families to babysit their kids. Net effect...Clinton/Bore/Freeh/etc fascist dreams of controlling the net go up in smoke.. worth it? jim From declan at vorlon.mit.edu Wed Dec 3 15:30:08 1997 From: declan at vorlon.mit.edu (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:30:08 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3485D7B7.E444A846@cptech.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, James Love wrote: > Declan, apparently having missed the fab 50's, seems to be enjoying his > use of the "leftist" word lately. Since this seems to mean quite > different things to different persons, perhaps Mr. McCullagh can define > his terms. What exactly is a "leftist" in 1997, in his opinion? Jamie, I may have missed the fab 50s but I suspect you spent a little too much time in the psychadelic 60s. In 1997, a leftist can best be defined as a big government fetishist. :) Tell your boss Ralph Nader hi for me... -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Dec 3 15:31:26 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:31:26 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd add to Marc's post one comment and one question: * We heard a lot of hot air at the summit this week about "diversity." But I'm not as interested in experiencing a "diversity" of PICS-based systems as I am a diversity of ideas. * Danny, your boss told me today that "you can't stop legislators from legislating." (Personally, I think you can: the 9-0 CDA ruling gives them cover.) But if you believe legislation is inevitable, do rating systems help or hinder civil liberties? Do they provide a framework that Congress will formalize make mandatory? And do they let the DoJ argue that it's easier to comply with a CDA II through "mandatory voluntary" self-rating? BTW, good news from Time-Warner. We are NOT going to self-rate or self-label. This is a corporate-wide policy and applies to pathfinder.com, all the Warner Bros movie and cartoon sites, and other sites like cnn.com. -Declan On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote: > Danny - > > I think where the free expression groups differ fundamentally > from the position CDT has set out is that we do not believe > that the Net should be dominated by rating systems. > > We recognize that parents have some legitimate concerns about > the availability of objectionable material. But we think that > there are alternatives to widespread ratings -- including > learning more about the benefits of the Internet -- that > are preferable. > > We also recognize that there is a risk that Congress will try to > pass CDA II. But we believe that it will be difficult for such > an act to survive Constitutional review after Reno v. ACLU. > We are perhaps more concerned that an architecture of ubiquitous > ratings will provide, as Barry Steinhardt said well at the summit, > a blueprint for legislation that would be upheld. > > What exactly does CDT plan to say to the enthusiastic member > of Congress who backs your rating plan and wants to see it > enforced with sanctions? > > What are your own views about a filtering search engine > that block access to 99% of the references concerning the > "American Red Cross"? > > A diversity of rating systems is the not the same as a > diversity of viewpoints. It is rather a diversity of > fears and prejudices. I hope we never see the day > when national organizations are routinely called upon to > draw up lists of what they do not want others to see. > I suspect that those who are concerned about the > future of free expression share this view. > > Marc Rotenberg > EPIC From love at cptech.org Wed Dec 3 16:10:21 1997 From: love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:10:21 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3485ED4B.21881E76@cptech.org> Declan McCullagh wrote: > Jamie, I may have missed the fab 50s but I suspect you spent a little too > much time in the psychadelic 60s. In 1997, a leftist can best be defined > as a big government fetishist. :) A "big government fetishist" is cute, but it seems fairly non-specific. Are moral majority types leftists? Are the supporters of the Department of Commerce leftists? Are supporters of a bloated defense department leftists? Can't get enough of that CIA funding leftists? IMF supporters are leftists? FED lovers are leftists? Groups that lobby for higher crop supports are leftists? S&L bail out supporters are leftists? Supporters of GATT are leftists? Are supporters of more NIH funding leftists? (how about the PhRMA support for this?) Supporters of aggressive new government programs to define (and enforce) new Intellectual Property rights are leftists? I think the term "leftists" must mean something more than "a big government fetishist." Frankly, I know of few persons who are consistently advocates of big government, but I know lots of groups, many certainly not leftists, who have their favorite government programs. Maybe, however, you think all these folks are leftists? Jamie -- James Packard Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 | fax 202.234.5176 love at cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org From nobody at REPLAY.COM Wed Dec 3 16:19:38 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:19:38 +0800 Subject: Censorship Message-ID: <199712040004.BAA14178@basement.replay.com> There are two pieces of code included in this message. Or, at least, there would be if I were allowed to express my ideas. Accordingly, the first piece of code has been carefully censored. The second piece of code is a Perl script which does the censoring. The model is that of a tape which the censor lays across anything "offensive." The Perl script has -C and -Perl modes which try to preserve comments. (They can be fooled, so you should look over the results before distributing.) You can also specify the string which is "printed" on the tape. The idea is that every time I write a piece of code which I cannot distribute freely, a censored version will be mailed to appropriate newsgroups, mailing lists, newspapers, and politicians. This should have the effect of continually raising and dramatizing the issue, as well as demonstrating repeatedly how ridiculous it is. I would hope that some decades into the future we will be able to look through the archives for these scraps of censored code and find it amusing. -------------------------------------------------- CENSORED BY THE UN /* A reference implementation of SHA1. */ ITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVE RNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNME NT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED ST ATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES /* Circular left shift operation. */ GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES G OVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UN I TED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORE D BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CEN SORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERN MENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GO VERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STAT ES /* Prototypes */ GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY TH E UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED S TATES G OVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES G /* Hash is contained in H array. */ OVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITE D STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES G O VERNME NT CEN SORED BY THE UNITED STAT ES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENS ORED BY THE UNITED ST /* Initialize H array here. */ ATES GOVERNMENT CE NSORED BY THE UNIT ED STATES GOVERNME NT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOV ERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES G OVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES G OVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STAT ES GOVERNMENT CENSORE D BY TH E UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED ST ATES GOVERNMENT CE N SORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED S T A TES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY T H E UNIT ED STATES GOVERNMENT CENS ORED BY THE UNI TED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATE S /* Handle latest character. */ GOV ERNMENT CENSO R E /* Add padding byte. */ D BY THE UNITE D STATES GOVERNMENT CENS O RED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMEN T CENSORED BY THE UN ITED /* Pad out with zeros. */ STATES GOVERNMENT CEN SORED BY THE U NITED STATES GOVERNMENT C ENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED ST A TES GO V ERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNM ENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNIT E /* Add padding byte. */ D ST ATES GOVERNMENT CENS ORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSO RED BY T H /* Pad out with zeros. */ E UNITED STATES GOVERN MENT CENSORED /* Add length information */ BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNME NT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSO RED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY T /* Final block. */ HE UNITED STATES GOVERN MENT CENSORED B Y THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNI T E D STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSO R ED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVE RNMENT CENSORED BY T HE UNI TED ST ATES GOVERNMENT CEN SORED BY THE UNITED STATE S GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GO V ERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNI TED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMEN T CENSORE D BY THE UNITED ST ATES GOVE RNMENT CENSORED BY THE UN ITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STAT ES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERN MENT CENSORED B Y THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATE S GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED S TATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOV ERNMENT CENSORE D BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED ST A T ES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GO VERNMENT CENSOR ED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED S T A TES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITE D STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENS ORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CENSORED BY THE UNITED S TATES GOVE RNMENT CEN SORED BY T HE UNITED STATES GOV E -------------------------------------------------- #!/usr/local/bin/perl -w require 5; use strict; $main::censor_string = "CENSORED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT "; $main::next_censor_char = 0; $main::c_mode = 0; $main::Perl_mode = 0; sub main { my($switch); while( $switch = shift(@ARGV) ) { if( $switch =~ /^-/ ) { if( $switch eq "-C" ) { $main::c_mode = 1; } elsif( $switch eq "-Perl" ) { $main::Perl_mode = 1; } elsif( $switch eq "-s" ) { if( scalar(@ARGV) > 0 ) { $main::censor_string = shift(@ARGV); } else { die "usage: censor.pl [-C] [-Perl] [-s censor-string]\n"; } } else { die "usage: censor.pl [-C] [-Perl] [-s censor-string]\n"; } } else { die "usage: censor.pl [-C] [-Perl] [-s censor-string]\n"; } } @main::censor_char_list = split(//, $main::censor_string); while(<>) { chomp; if( $main::c_mode && /^\s*\/\*.*\*\/\s*$/ ) { print "$_\n"; } elsif( $main::c_mode && /^(\s*)(\S*.*\S|\S)(\s*\/\*.*\*\/\s*)$/ ) { my($censored) = get_censor_chars(length($2)); print "$1$censored$3$4\n"; } elsif( $main::Perl_mode && /^\s*#.*$/ ) { print "$_\n"; } elsif( $main::Perl_mode && /^(\s*)(\S*.*\S|\S)(\s*#.*)$/ ) { my($censored) = get_censor_chars(length($2)); print "$1$censored$3\n"; } elsif( /^(\s*)(\S.*\S)(\s*)$/ ) { my($censored) = get_censor_chars(length($2)); print "$1$censored$3\n"; } elsif( /^(\s*)(\S)(\s*)$/ ) { my($censored) = get_censor_chars(length($2)); print "$1$censored$3\n"; } else { print "$_\n"; } } } sub get_censor_chars { my($length) = shift; my($i); my(@char_list); for( $i=0; $i < $length; $i++ ) { push(@char_list, $main::censor_char_list[$main::next_censor_char]); $main::next_censor_char = ($main::next_censor_char + 1) % length($main::censor_string); } my($censored_string) = join('', @char_list); return $censored_string; } main(); Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Censorship To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom jya at pipeline.com Wed Dec 3 16:20:20 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:20:20 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971203235643.006f3164@pop.pipeline.com> Declan wrote: >Jamie, I may have missed the fab 50s but I suspect you spent a little too >much time in the psychadelic 60s. In 1997, a leftist can best be defined >as a big government fetishist. :) Oh my, this appears to suggest "leftist" means "liberal," the evil twin of evil libertarianism. Some, one or two or least, leftists are far right of the hard right in opposing big government, and even beyond that in opposing big business (Time-Warner, say, or ACLU), and ever further oppositon to big ambitions for big heads prescribing nostrums for the nation and the world under universalizing creeds of liberty, freedom and, well you know how liberals and kissing cousin libertarians lip and gum. Say, how do you distinguish between the two libers in matters of wanting to tell the world what's good for it, wanting to run it just so? Wasn't it the '60s radicals who pronounced pox on feverish liberals and rabid libertarians for their righteous complicity in gov, com, edu, etc., their common inability to forgo wanting to run things from the top, to hang out with the most influential, ahem, each other's dear friends, the "leaders"? Fabulous Ralph Naders, all. From love at cptech.org Wed Dec 3 16:34:01 1997 From: love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:34:01 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3485F5DD.459EB83C@cptech.org> Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Jamie, if you're seriously confused about the differences between > left-wing and right-wing groups I can help educate you, perhaps with a few > rules of thumb. But I suspect that you really don't want a serious answer. I didn't think the big government fetish answer was very good. I don't want to put words in your mouth. But if you think you can really explain what constitutes a leftist, in your view, I'm ready to read it. Jamie -- James Packard Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 | fax 202.234.5176 love at cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org From love at cptech.org Wed Dec 3 16:39:06 1997 From: love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:39:06 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3485F534.18116EDD@cptech.org> Declan McCullagh wrote: > Jamie, I may have missed the fab 50s but I suspect you spent a little too > much time in the psychadelic 60s. In fact, there was quite a bit of red baiting in the 60's. We (this country) actually fought a war in Vietnam, in part because many American political leaders didn't want to be accused of being soft on communism. Red baiting, making non substantive and usually irrelevant accusations about one's values (and loyalties), was a popular sport then, for certain demagogues. Nixon was good at this, in both decades. In the late 60s and early 70's, there was also a time when anyone with a necktie was in danger of being called a fascist. Much of this wasn't anything to be proud of either. The 90's don't seem to me to be a period when labels from the early part of this century are the most telling. I'm often surprised to find what people really think or want, once you move away from older battles or stereotypes. I think its safe to say that stalin-like communism isn't an appealing future for anyone I know. I find these increasingly frequent references to "leftists" or "fellow travelers" (something I recall from an earlier thread) a bit odd. One one sense, it is a form of content labeling, designed to get people to filter out or ignore certain information. On the other hand, it seems designed to polarize communities that often have much in common, even as they disagree on other points. Mr. McCullagh isn't the only one who does this. I'm sure I do this in my own way, from time to time. But perhaps from having lived through more decades (and fads) than Mr. McCullagh, I increasingly find this counter productive. Jamie -- James Packard Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 | fax 202.234.5176 love at cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org From rah at shipwright.com Wed Dec 3 16:44:04 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:44:04 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release Message-ID: Yet Another Watermark... Anyone wanna take bets on how long before it's broken, or at least easily pirated? Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text From: "Blair Anderson" To: "dcsb at ai.mit.edu" Cc: "Peter Cassidy" , "Brad Cox" Date: Thu, 04 Dec 97 12:58:05 +1300 Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Superdistribution development/release Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Blair Anderson" Silver Bullet for Digital Publishing Arrives TragoeS Announces General Availability of RigthsMarket(TM) PR Newswire - December 02, 1997 16:10 TRGO. %ENT %MLM V%PRN P%PRN CALGARY, Dec. 2 /CNW-PRN/ - RightsMarket hits the bull's-eye business opportunity of the 21st century - electronic commerce through digital publishing on the Internet for the $71.3 billion (US) publishing industry (Value-Line, April 11/May 20/May 30, 1997). ``RightsMarket harnesses powerful economic forces that will show people the money in digital document publishing on the Internet,'' stated Lindsay Moir, President of TragoeS Inc., during the company's news conference November 18th at COMDEX `97, Las Vegas. ``With RightsMarket suppliers of digital documents will be paid and 99% of the revenue loss due to piracy will be eliminated.'' TragoeS has successfully implemented the Superdistribution paradigm in RightsMarket. Superdistribution tracks usage rather than possession and is recognised as the best approach to selling digital property (digital versions of text, data, knowledge, pictures, music, videos, etc.) on the Internet. Pricing of RightsMarket is $50,000 (US) plus integration, support fees, and annual license renewal fees. Unique RightsMarket features include: Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. Rights Marketing `back office' (RightsServer) - Allows marketers to set the terms and conditions of use for the digital property. Features include support for the newly announced international Digital Object Identifier (DOI) publishing standard. Fault Tolerant Middleware (RightsConnection) - Provides a secure link to the `back office' from the user's desktop. As well, there is no requirement to be connected full time to the Internet in order to view the digital document. Metering and Enforcement (RightsClient) - Provides decryption services, meters use, and sends usage information to the RightsServer via secure middleware. Acrobat(TM) Trusted Tool plug-ins - Makes Acrobat, the world's most popular digital publishing tool from Adobe Systems Incorporated(C), ready for prime time digital document economic transactions on the Internet. With a plug-in for the Exchange and Reader, customers can encrypt documents and have a trusted player for viewing content. Shane Hayes, TragoeS' Vice President, Customer Implementation will be presenting at The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Technology Forum Wednesday, December 10, 1997 in New York City. The DOI is an important emerging international standard for identification of published material online. It forms the foundation layer of a set of technologies that will enable commerce in published material on the Internet so that copyright is protected, content creators can be compensated for their work, and consumers can benefit from technology that is sophisticated, yet seamless and easy to use. The International DOI Foundation (IDF), a non-profit organization established to administer the DOI standard, is looking to technology vendors to implement the necessary technology components and integrate them into secure electronic publishing solutions for the IDF's constituency: the worldwide publishing industry and beyond. In April 1998 in Washington, DC, TragoeS Inc. will participate in a three day conference sponsored by the Library of Congress, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), and the University of Virginia. The conference is titled ``Exploring the New Media - The Paradigm Shift in Publishing: >From Book to Bytes''. TragoeS Vice President, Marketing and Sales, Fred Yee, will sit on a panel discussing `Solutions to Copyright Protection in Cyberspace'. TragoeS Inc., established in 1993, is a Canadian high technology company specializing in software products and services that support financial transactions. Its product, RightsMarket is the solution for the protection, metering and payment of digital intellectual property. TragoeS is a public company reporting in Alberta and Ontario and is listed on the Canadian Dealing Network (CDN TRGO). The Canadian Dealing Network or other regulatory authorities have neither approved nor disapproved of the information contained herein. SOURCE: TragoeS Inc. /CONTACT: Lindsay Moir, President, TragoeS Inc., (403) 571-1835, Fax: (403) 571-1838, Email: moirl(at)tragoes.com, Website: www.tragoes.com, www.rightsmarket.com or Mr. Peter Taylor, Investor Relations, (416) 368-0121, Fax: (416) 368-9175/ (TRGO.) Blair Anderson (Blair at technologist.com) International Consultant in Electronic Commerce, Encryption and Electronic Rights Management "Techno Junk and Grey Matter" (HTTP://WWW.NOW.CO.NZ [moving servers, currently inactive]) 50 Wainoni Road, Christchurch, New Zealand phone 64 3 3894065 fax 64 3 3894065 Member Digital Commerce Society of Boston ---------------------------- Caught in the Net for 25 years ---------------------------- For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request at ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: From honig at otc.net Wed Dec 3 16:57:00 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:57:00 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971203090005.007d2340@206.40.207.40> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971203152908.007ea690@206.40.207.40> At 12:56 PM 12/3/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: > > >And there are some who want "mislabelling" made a crime. Thus, if I claim >that my site and my words are suitable for children, and someone (like >Janet Reno) disagrees, I could be charged with "misrepresentation." > To pluck that string, I'm occasionally developing an essay which teaches kids about encryption.. building up to strong product-ciphers by exploring what you can do with iterating simple operations, and how they affect the data. At the end of the lesson they learn that giving this document to a foreign-born friend would make them ITAR criminals. Subversive online cypherpunk comic books? If I could draw. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From honig at otc.net Wed Dec 3 17:06:14 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:06:14 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971203164340.007f21f0@206.40.207.40> At 05:05 PM 12/3/97 -0500, James Love wrote: >Declan, apparently having missed the fab 50's, seems to be enjoying his >use of the "leftist" word lately. Since this seems to mean quite >different things to different persons, perhaps Mr. McCullagh can define >his terms. What exactly is a "leftist" in 1997, in his opinion? > > Jamie Yeah, the relevant political dimension is statist vs. individualist, but you knew that. And the difference between republocrat and demipublican is vanishingly small. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From declan at well.com Wed Dec 3 17:15:17 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:15:17 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3485ED4B.21881E76@cptech.org> Message-ID: Jamie, if you're seriously confused about the differences between left-wing and right-wing groups I can help educate you, perhaps with a few rules of thumb. But I suspect that you really don't want a serious answer. -Declan From jim.burnes at ssds.com Wed Dec 3 17:35:30 1997 From: jim.burnes at ssds.com (Jim Burnes) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:35:30 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3485F5DD.459EB83C@cptech.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, James Love wrote: > Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > > Jamie, if you're seriously confused about the differences between > > left-wing and right-wing groups I can help educate you, perhaps with a few > > rules of thumb. But I suspect that you really don't want a serious answer. > > I didn't think the big government fetish answer was very good. I > don't want to put words in your mouth. But if you think you can really > explain what constitutes a leftist, in your view, I'm ready to read it. > > Jamie Man! Talk about burning bandwidth on politics 101. The problem is that you're both stuck using Orwellian newspeak for political classification. If people only have a single dimension to classify political beliefs then there can't be very many beliefs. Multidimensional political beliefs systems don't hash into the one dimensional left/right axis very well. The collision rate is too high. For a somewhat better map at least check out the Nolan chart. http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml enjoy jim From declan at well.com Wed Dec 3 17:37:08 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:37:08 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Jim Burnes wrote: > http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian. Libertarian Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity. From lizard at dnai.com Wed Dec 3 17:39:34 1997 From: lizard at dnai.com (Lizard) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:39:34 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971203170222.03484d78@dnai.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 05:05 PM 12/3/97 -0500, James Love wrote: >Declan, apparently having missed the fab 50's, seems to be enjoying his >use of the "leftist" word lately. Since this seems to mean quite >different things to different persons, perhaps Mr. McCullagh can define >his terms. What exactly is a "leftist" in 1997, in his opinion? When the leftists try to avoid being called 'leftists', you know it's all over but the mopping up. But, nonetheless, let me try: "A leftist is someone who advocates increasing government control over private actions, especially in the name of such mummeries as 'equality' and 'fairness'. Contrast to a rightist, who advocates increasing government control over private action in the name of 'decency' and 'values'." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIYBHTKf8mIpTvjWEQL5SwCfa54X344lCmYy25teJGCRUp1QfIUAn3F1 4d9HjdglfH+c0NJZ9+jmyw+6 =LXws -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Dec 3 18:01:40 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:01:40 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim May writes: > Predictably, the feministas squealed like stuck pigs (or is it pigesses?). Sows. As in "your mama". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Dec 3 18:19:10 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:19:10 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3485ED4B.21881E76@cptech.org> Message-ID: <199712040101.BAA03648@server.test.net> [Can we quit using cypherpunks at toad.com please ... it is no longer the active list address. (Substituted cyberpass.net).] James Love writes: > > a leftist can best be defined as a big government fetishist. :) > > A "big government fetishist" is cute, but it seems fairly > non-specific. Are moral majority types leftists? Are the supporters of > the Department of Commerce leftists? Are supporters of a bloated > defense department leftists? Can't get enough of that CIA funding > leftists? IMF supporters are leftists? FED lovers are leftists? > Groups that lobby for higher crop supports are leftists? S&L bail out > supporters are leftists? Supporters of GATT are leftists? Are > supporters of more NIH funding leftists? (how about the PhRMA support > for this?) Supporters of aggressive new government programs to define > (and enforce) new Intellectual Property rights are leftists? > > I think the term "leftists" must mean something more than "a big > government fetishist." Frankly, I know of few persons who are > consistently advocates of big government, but I know lots of groups, > many certainly not leftists, who have their favorite government > programs. You have a sucking big cancerous growth which is the government, it provides legalised theft services, and the politicians acts as power brokers in bartering back the stolen money to special interest groups. The huge burgeoning unproductive work force which ineptly administers this monster is a large burden on the economy. Those persons you describe who inconsistently advocate big government is natural enough -- they are sucked into the game, they are lobbying in their special interest groups for some of the stolen loot to be handed to them. A leftist is someone who buys heavily into the legalised theft concept. Charity taken at the point of a gun is not charity, it is theft. And the stolen funds are used incredibly inefficiently, mostly having the opposite effect to the claimed problem being solved, for game theoretic reasons. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: Here an incentive: if anyone breaks this, I'll write an article about it and another profiling the person who does. When you have this kind of "encryption" scheme running on untrusted hardware to which the user has access, it's doomed to fail. Even if it's custom hardware, it'll probably be broken, but it'll just take longer. -Declan At 19:27 -0500 12/3/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Yet Another Watermark... > >Anyone wanna take bets on how long before it's broken, or at least easily >pirated? > > >Cheers, >Bob Hettinga > >--- begin forwarded text > > >From: "Blair Anderson" >To: "dcsb at ai.mit.edu" >Cc: "Peter Cassidy" , "Brad Cox" >Date: Thu, 04 Dec 97 12:58:05 +1300 >Priority: Normal >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Subject: Superdistribution development/release >Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: "Blair Anderson" > >Silver Bullet for Digital Publishing Arrives TragoeS Announces General >Availability of RigthsMarket(TM) > > PR Newswire - December 02, 1997 16:10 > TRGO. %ENT %MLM V%PRN P%PRN > >CALGARY, Dec. 2 /CNW-PRN/ - RightsMarket hits the bull's-eye business >opportunity of the 21st century - electronic commerce through digital >publishing on the Internet for the $71.3 billion (US) publishing >industry (Value-Line, April 11/May 20/May 30, 1997). > >``RightsMarket harnesses powerful economic forces that will show people >the money in digital document publishing on the Internet,'' stated >Lindsay Moir, President of TragoeS Inc., during the company's news >conference November 18th at COMDEX `97, Las Vegas. ``With RightsMarket >suppliers of digital documents will be paid and 99% of the revenue loss >due to piracy will be eliminated.'' > >TragoeS has successfully implemented the Superdistribution paradigm in >RightsMarket. Superdistribution tracks usage rather than possession and >is recognised as the best approach to selling digital property (digital >versions of text, data, knowledge, pictures, music, videos, etc.) on the >Internet. Pricing of RightsMarket is $50,000 (US) plus integration, >support fees, and annual license renewal fees. Unique RightsMarket >features include: > >Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the >digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a >court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter >how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently >redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left >decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. > >Rights Marketing `back office' (RightsServer) - Allows marketers to set >the terms and conditions of use for the digital property. Features >include support for the newly announced international Digital Object >Identifier (DOI) publishing standard. > >Fault Tolerant Middleware (RightsConnection) - Provides a secure link to >the `back office' from the user's desktop. As well, there is no >requirement to be connected full time to the Internet in order to view >the digital document. > >Metering and Enforcement (RightsClient) - Provides decryption services, >meters use, and sends usage information to the RightsServer via secure >middleware. > >Acrobat(TM) Trusted Tool plug-ins - Makes Acrobat, the world's most >popular digital publishing tool from Adobe Systems Incorporated(C), >ready for prime time digital document economic transactions on the >Internet. With a plug-in for the Exchange and Reader, customers can >encrypt documents and have a trusted player for viewing content. > >Shane Hayes, TragoeS' Vice President, Customer Implementation will be >presenting at The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Technology Forum >Wednesday, December 10, 1997 in New York City. The DOI is an important >emerging international standard for identification of published material >online. It forms the foundation layer of a set of technologies that will >enable commerce in published material on the Internet so that copyright >is protected, content creators can be compensated for their work, and >consumers can benefit from technology that is sophisticated, yet >seamless and easy to use. The International DOI Foundation (IDF), a >non-profit organization established to administer the DOI standard, is >looking to technology vendors to implement the necessary technology >components and integrate them into secure electronic publishing >solutions for the IDF's constituency: the worldwide publishing industry >and beyond. > >In April 1998 in Washington, DC, TragoeS Inc. will participate in a >three day conference sponsored by the Library of Congress, the >Association of American Publishers (AAP), and the University of >Virginia. The conference is titled ``Exploring the New Media - The >Paradigm Shift in Publishing: >From Book to Bytes''. TragoeS Vice >President, Marketing and Sales, Fred Yee, will sit on a panel discussing >`Solutions to Copyright Protection in Cyberspace'. > >TragoeS Inc., established in 1993, is a Canadian high technology company >specializing in software products and services that support financial >transactions. Its product, RightsMarket is the solution for the >protection, metering and payment of digital intellectual property. >TragoeS is a public company reporting in Alberta and Ontario and is >listed on the Canadian Dealing Network (CDN TRGO). > >The Canadian Dealing Network or other regulatory authorities have >neither approved nor disapproved of the information contained herein. >SOURCE: TragoeS Inc. > > /CONTACT: Lindsay Moir, President, TragoeS Inc., (403) 571-1835, >Fax: >(403) 571-1838, Email: moirl(at)tragoes.com, Website: www.tragoes.com, >www.rightsmarket.com or Mr. Peter Taylor, Investor Relations, (416) >368-0121, >Fax: (416) 368-9175/ > (TRGO.) > > >Blair Anderson (Blair at technologist.com) > >International Consultant in Electronic Commerce, >Encryption and Electronic Rights Management > > "Techno Junk and Grey Matter" (HTTP://WWW.NOW.CO.NZ [moving servers, >currently inactive]) > 50 Wainoni Road, Christchurch, New Zealand > > phone 64 3 3894065 > fax 64 3 3894065 > >Member Digital Commerce Society of Boston > >---------------------------- Caught in the Net for 25 years >---------------------------- > > > >For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to >"dcsb-request at ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". > >--- end forwarded text > > > >----------------- >Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox >e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' >The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ >Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: From ksahin at best.com Wed Dec 3 18:40:09 1997 From: ksahin at best.com (Koro) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:40:09 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971203090005.007d2340@206.40.207.40> Message-ID: <34860E94.1430@best.com> David Honig wrote: > > At 12:56 PM 12/3/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: > > > > > >And there are some who want "mislabelling" made a crime. Thus, if I claim > >that my site and my words are suitable for children, and someone (like > >Janet Reno) disagrees, I could be charged with "misrepresentation." > > > > To pluck that string, I'm occasionally developing an essay which teaches > kids about > encryption.. building up to strong product-ciphers by exploring what you > can do with > iterating simple operations, and how they affect the data. At the end of > the lesson they learn > that giving this document to a foreign-born friend would make them ITAR > criminals. I hear it's not ITAR anymore. Now it's an EAR violation. Of course, ITAR was more fun. If you violated that law under ITAR you can proudly wear the title of International Arms Trafficker. > Subversive online cypherpunk comic books? If I could draw. Get your Ultra-Top-Secret 1024-bit Decoder Ring kiddies! -- KORO From whgiii at invweb.net Wed Dec 3 19:04:54 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:04:54 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712040255.VAA24642@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 12/03/97 at 07:27 PM, Robert Hettinga said: >It is never left >decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. LOL!! I guess they require the use of that crypto-crainial inplant. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIYbSo9Co1n+aLhhAQJSYAP8CXf75V38EUy8+gwKPfrWoz6YcxpZzf1b Vu32s8C0RkfGhv7QgG0h1f1mfsp5R+QuuLaDPG/XaKI3sgnPjRxRQVngBIjXaQ9V wIQr+M/jM9ZhFzKLv+yTcWVkmwFAHAZXYSf43cPwOkd9SoclAVO8VNaU3Db2hIua zqhfjlk2oos= =mNsr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From brian at smarter.than.nu Wed Dec 3 19:13:16 1997 From: brian at smarter.than.nu (Brian W. Buchanan) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:13:16 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Here an incentive: if anyone breaks this, I'll write an article about it > and another profiling the person who does. > > When you have this kind of "encryption" scheme running on untrusted > hardware to which the user has access, it's doomed to fail. Even if it's > custom hardware, it'll probably be broken, but it'll just take longer. Should be relatively trivial to break the encryption, since it can't be over 40-bit (or 56-bit if the company joined the kiss-ass alliance). Probably just as easy or easier to disassemble the software or do some creative tweaking of Windows DLLs to intercept data. Custom hardware is probably out due to cost and distribution problems, and even with it, it's still possible to intercept data between the hardware and the software, or the software and the OS. -- Brian Buchanan brian at smarter.than.nu No security through obscurity! Demand full source code! 4.4BSD for the masses - http://www.freebsd.org From hallam at ai.mit.edu Wed Dec 3 19:16:26 1997 From: hallam at ai.mit.edu (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:16:26 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) Message-ID: <01bd005f$d59b74b0$06060606@russell> >Indeed, and in a wonderful case of schadenfreude, when the >Dworkin-MacKinnon anti-porn law was enacted in Canada, "Lesbitan Erotica" >bookstores and publishers were shut down. (I believe this was in Toronto, >and it may have only been in that city or region that the law was enacted, >not in all of Canada. Toto can clarify.) Tim you miss the best part one of the first books to be banned was by Dworkin. Dworkin writes with a pseudo academic style but despite a third of her book being 'references' very little of her argument is supported. She deliberately quotes out of context and tries to claim feminist icons such as Simone de Beauvoir for her cause despite the fact that "Mrs Jeane Paul Satre" was anti censorship. Don't write the feminists off too quickly Tim, de Beauvoir's essay 'Must we burn de Sade' is the anti-censorship equivalent of your cypherpunk manifesto. MacKinnon is a more respectable flake. Her book 'Towards a Feminist theory of the state" starts off explaining that she is trying to construct a Marxist theory of the state. Even this wouldn't be quite so bad if what she was writing had some recognisable connection to anything Marx wrote. Its more a sort of left wing US academia game in which the object is to shock your liberal friends. Phill From tm at dev.null Wed Dec 3 19:22:11 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:22:11 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting testicle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34861C6C.67C@dev.null> James Love writed: > Declan McCullagh wronged: > > Jamie, I may have missed the fab 50s but I suspect you spent a little too > > much time in the psychadelic 60s. In 1997, a leftist can best be defined > > as a big government fetishist. :) > > A "big government fetishist" is cute, but it seems fairly > non-specific. Are moral majority types leftists? Are the supporters of > the Department of Commerce leftists? Are supporters of a bloated > defense department leftists? Can't get enough of that CIA funding > leftists? IMF supporters are leftists? FED lovers are leftists? > Groups that lobby for higher crop supports are leftists? S&L bail out > supporters are leftists? Supporters of GATT are leftists? Are > supporters of more NIH funding leftists? (how about the PhRMA support > for this?) Supporters of aggressive new government programs to define > (and enforce) new Intellectual Property rights are leftists? Declan McCullagh replied: > Jamie, if you're seriously confused about the differences between > left-wing and right-wing groups I can help educate you, perhaps with a few > rules of thumb. But I suspect that you really don't want a serious answer. That's my cue...prepare for a deadly non-serious answer. The left-wing and right-wing extremests have finally moved so far off of center that they have completed the circle of the Tao, moving in opposite directions, and will shortly be exactly the same for a brief instant, before continuing on to become the polar opposite of what they previously were. {They will, however, each remained as convinced as ever that the 'other' is totally wrong in their beliefs, despite the fact that the 'other' will now hold beliefs exactly in tune with their own 'old' beliefs.} Actually, recent discussions about the need for the Republicans and Democrats to work toward redefining themselves so that there is actually a difference between them indicates that society and government have reached a stage where it is getting very difficult for members of an 'individualist' society to keep pretending that there is a difference between 'discrimination' fascists and 'equality' fascists, 'free-market' fascists and 'communist' fascists, 'moral' fascists and 'immoral' fascists. Right...let's throw out the bums who are passing laws to 'force' us to imprison Jews and elect bums who will pass laws to 'force' us to imprison Jew-haters. Nazi - "I don't put them in the ovens, I just turn on the gas." Fascist - "I don't freeze them to death, I just turn off the gas." LISTEN UP!!! (I'LL TYPE SLOWLY...) Faster horses, older whiskey, younger women, more money. Democracy is a political system designed to put Fascism in the hands of the people. Fascism is a political system designed to take Democracy out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the Machine. Money and Guns... Guns - "If we were caught hiding Jews, the Gestapo would send us to prison with them." "If we spoke out against the actions of the Israelies, the Justice Department would arrest us as members of a hate group." "If we resisted the Nazi Party, we were hounded from our jobs and reviled by our neighbors." "If we supported the Communist Party, we were hounded from our jobs in Hollywood and reviled by our neighbors." "If we called John Gilmore a cocksucker, we were forcefully unsubscribed from the CypherPunks mailing list." Money "Those with the most money can buy the most guns." NEWS FLASH!!! Whether you are forced to 'do right' or forced to 'do no wrong' will depend on whether the 'leftists' or the 'rightists' have the most money and guns. NEWS FLASH ADDENDUM!!! Those seeking to 'save' you are likely to afflict as much damage to your rights and freedoms as those seeking to 'oppress' you. NOTE TO BOY SCOUTS!!! If an old lady doesn't want to cross the street, that is an act of 'passive aggression' and you have a right to use as much force as necessary to get her across the street. Is there a difference in the degree of 'dead' between a person shot by a left-hander and one shot by a right-hander? Do you have a preference for having an individual, a government or a corporation as your dictator/oppressor? Is it of great concern to you to be allowed to 'vote' as to which person gives you an unneeded prostrate exam? By the time everyone reaches agreement on the proper definition of 'leftist' and 'rightist', it will be time to turn to the person chained to you in the dark, dank prison cell, and ask them what their defenition of 'imprisonment' is. Don't take any wooden dictators... TruthMonger From tm at dev.null Wed Dec 3 19:35:35 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:35:35 +0800 Subject: Unbreakable Encryption / Re: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34862332.4D32@dev.null> Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Here an incentive: if anyone breaks this, I'll write an article about it > and another profiling the person who does. > > When you have this kind of "encryption" scheme running on untrusted > hardware to which the user has access, it's doomed to fail. Even if it's > custom hardware, it'll probably be broken, but it'll just take longer. I-ay et-bay ou-yay an't-cay eak-bray is-thay essage-may. For a limited time (ACT NOW!) I am offering shares in my new encryption ompany-cay that has developed an unbreakable new pig-latin technology. Rumors that I acquired this technology by buying out DataETRetch are completely unfounded. Uth-trayOnger-May From love at cptech.org Wed Dec 3 19:54:26 1997 From: love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:54:26 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3486262E.C70FF40@cptech.org> Lizard, Don't get me wrong. I think the right left dichotomy does continues to have meaning in some contexts, and when appropriate, it would make sense to describe me as left (certainly by some contemporary standards). I just don't think of this is the only way to think about what is going on today, and for many issues that I work on day to day, it predicts next to nothing, in terms of who supports what. Here are some examples. I have been working on a very wide range of issues relating to intellectual property, since 1990. I don't really see most of the alliances on those issues well defined by a right left dichotomy. I work on a number of privacy issues too. And I don't think anyone could describe the alliances on privacy issues as having much to do with a right left dichotomy. Freedom of Information and right to know issues (Ralph Nader was the single most important actor in getting the modern FOIA laws) have a very broad constituency. Access to government information over the Internet? The pro-access coalition is very broad. I work on issues relating to pricing of digital telephone services (ISDN and various unbundling issues relating to xDSL pricing). Except for a handful of zero government true believers, this doesn't end up being a left right issue either. Should cable be permitted to control DBS spectrum? Not a right left issue. Should South Africa be permitted to import pharmacuetical drugs (parallel imports)? There are big commerical interests lobbying on this, but I don't think of the fundemental issues as right left. I'm certainly on the side of the CATO institute on this one. Is Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive practices? A hot topic, certainly, but the persons who are concerned with Microsoft are a pretty broad coalition, in terms of traditional ideological labels. Now, if one sees the burning issue of the day the fight to rid the world of government as we know it, maybe right left labels make sense. By defining both the left and the right as groups who advocate increasing government control over private actions, you describe what seems most important to you. I found this characterization of "leftists" as shallow as Declan's, however. Jamie Lizard wrote: > When the leftists try to avoid being called 'leftists', you know it's > all over but the mopping up. > > But, nonetheless, let me try: > "A leftist is someone who advocates increasing government control > over private actions, especially in the name of such mummeries as > 'equality' and 'fairness'. Contrast to a rightist, who advocates > increasing government control over private action in the name of > 'decency' and 'values'." -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176 http://www.cptech.org | love at cptech.org From bd1011 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 20:16:50 1997 From: bd1011 at hotmail.com (Nobuki Nakatuji) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:16:50 +0800 Subject: About the way of regulating Japanese encryption export Message-ID: <19971204035452.2105.qmail@hotmail.com> About the way of regulating Japanese encryption export Permission shouldn't be necessary. ( For example, in such cases as the dealings of providing the technology of the public wisdom. ) And, if corresponding is considered, Export permission isn't needed. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From JonWienk at ix.netcom.com Wed Dec 3 20:17:02 1997 From: JonWienk at ix.netcom.com (Jonathan Wienke) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:17:02 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971203195235.006e7318@popd.netcruiser> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 07:27 PM 12/3/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Yet Another Watermark... [snip] >From: "Blair Anderson" [snip] >Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the >digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a >court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter >how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently >redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left >decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. [snip] >Metering and Enforcement (RightsClient) - Provides decryption services, >meters use, and sends usage information to the RightsServer via secure >middleware. "It is never left decrypted and exposed" but the software "Provides decryption services." Doesn't this sound oxymoronic? These guys need help. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 iQA/AwUBNIYpAcJF0kXqpw3MEQIZ3QCfdwaVPxlD0B94hELCctja2VYScEQAnjut IzSWyLdnnbougFr6qKA+1WYZ =1mk9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Jonathan Wienke PGP Key Fingerprints: 7484 2FB7 7588 ACD1 3A8F 778A 7407 2928 3312 6597 8258 9A9E D9FA 4878 C245 D245 EAA7 0DCC "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams "Stupidity is the one arena of of human achievement where most people fulfill their potential." -- Jonathan Wienke Never sign a contract that contains the phrase "first-born child." RSA export-o-matic: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the > digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a > court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter > how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently > redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left > decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. They have lost their mind. Since humans are notoriously bad at performing decryptions in their head in real time, whatever is sent to the display *must* be cleartext. Any competent programmer can grab it at that point. -- Lucky Green PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" From blancw at cnw.com Wed Dec 3 21:01:16 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (Blanc) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:01:16 +0800 Subject: Transcript of Gore's remarks at "Censorware Summit" Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971203205653.00699b08@cnw.com> I just had an incorrect thought that I've decided to share with everyone: The reason Al Gore (and the others) are focusing on helping All the Little Children, is that this is the only group they can offer assistance to in the U.S. who would accept it. Everyone else is stocking up on guns & ammo, waiting for The Big One. .. Blanc From anon at anon.efga.org Wed Dec 3 21:03:33 1997 From: anon at anon.efga.org (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:03:33 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: AMEN. > >so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin > >is so far left she's just plain _left_. She argues that porn for womyn (or > >is it wimmin?) is fine and dandy, because this represents lesbian > >sisterhood exploring their own blah blah blah, but porn aimed and directed > > > > What you watch is pornography; > What I watch is erotica. > From lord_buttmonkey at juno.com Wed Dec 3 21:11:36 1997 From: lord_buttmonkey at juno.com (Matthew L Bennett) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:11:36 +0800 Subject: PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT] In-Reply-To: <348412DA.D8D@dev.null> Message-ID: <19971203.165735.12934.3.Lord_Buttmonkey@juno.com> >> PGP 5.0i for Windows95/NT source code & binary are >> available now. >> >> http://www.pgpi.com/ > > ftp://ftp.jp.pgpi.com/pub/pgp/5.0/international/win95nt/ > pgp50i-win95nt-src.zip (4,126,514 bytes) > pgp50i-win95nt.zip (2,732,657 bytes) I have a few questions for everyone. 1.) Can this be compiled with the -DUSA option (the equivalent for Win95) so it is usable in the USA? 2.) What language is it written in? 3.) Can it be compiled with Borland C++ 4.0? 4.) Does it have a convienient project file? Thanks. From whgiii at invweb.net Wed Dec 3 21:29:07 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:29:07 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971203195235.006e7318@popd.netcruiser> Message-ID: <199712040524.AAA26313@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.3.32.19971203195235.006e7318 at popd.netcruiser>, on 12/03/97 at 07:52 PM, Jonathan Wienke said: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 >At 07:27 PM 12/3/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >>Yet Another Watermark... >[snip] >>From: "Blair Anderson" >[snip] >>Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the >>digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a >>court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter >>how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently >>redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left >>decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. >[snip] >>Metering and Enforcement (RightsClient) - Provides decryption services, >>meters use, and sends usage information to the RightsServer via secure >>middleware. >"It is never left decrypted and exposed" but the software "Provides >decryption services." Doesn't this sound oxymoronic? These guys need >help. I think the point they were trying to make was the data is not left in the clear on the storage media (this is typical marketing droids at work). For practical reason data must be in the clear in memory at some point in time. Also the data must be transferred into some type of peripheral so the user can do somthing with the data (read text off a monitor, print a document, listen to music, ...ect). This is the biggest failings in these systems. Once the user has the ability to decrypt the data the game is lost. One does not need to break the crypto system as they give you the keys with the product!! Will this prevent John doe from giving a copy of the document to a friend?? Nope as he will just give the friend the passphrase (or what ever mechanism they use) along with the copy. Will this prevent the Warez groups?? It may slow them down some but it woun't get rid of them. Will it stop commercial pirating?? HAH!! It will not even slow it down, a minor inconvenience at best. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIY+X49Co1n+aLhhAQKngwP9Eb0LH0DiLVixgF8S+GjOF8X2YPyaI0wj YctNtPKDUa76zMgZQGNVU3okcgmjSv2O09lanuA2pHAufUejHq/tJQiF423lGkqI 2bg7mUhCEPCmnYoPNpagvsvEsR2vPmnQfg9SPBzEOB5UGkVvrW8j/9Vw077zrVKv 5ZhVFWE4cAI= =FywU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From whgiii at invweb.net Wed Dec 3 21:29:31 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:29:31 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3486262E.C70FF40@cptech.org> Message-ID: <199712040507.AAA26160@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3486262E.C70FF40 at cptech.org>, on 12/03/97 at 10:40 PM, James Love said: >Now, if one sees the burning issue of the day the fight to rid the world >of government as we know it, maybe right left labels make sense. By >defining both the left and the right as groups who advocate increasing >government control over private actions, you describe what seems most >important to you. I found this characterization of "leftists" as shallow >as Declan's, however. There is no difference between the "left" and the "right" in Amerika politics other than which tit on the federal sow they wish to suck on and which "buzz" words they use in their FUD campaigns to hurd the sheeple in support of their cause celebre. The one unifying principle of these "leaders" is the acquisition of power and the using of the Federal Government to get it. It doesn't matter if it's a Tree Hugging Communist like Ralf Naider or a Religious Nut like Pat Robertson. Their agendas are the same, their modus operandi are the same, and their results are the same: They get more power, the feds get more power, and the "people" get fucked once again. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIY6VY9Co1n+aLhhAQI+0QQAnTzvENP9MvRSa3x1OZ3tFmlUeSO7VQtB 1SBcXQ2ciOg2GLJqBI7zjSrpEiIHX4dLgZVavLin9JxHlclvV7QFNl+iTnrROV4C cveCoBtL/EsaEI9wwuUYMMf7kkodhkaVdksILq8xF+Twgl541J8sXWoFMk4Jt6gc ZzZexYD/R50= =b0oD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From anon at anon.efga.org Wed Dec 3 21:45:42 1997 From: anon at anon.efga.org (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:45:42 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <2cbffee5893cc0ab108d748c922ffe2d@anon.efga.org> Unless there was decryption hardware in the monitor itself. Then I suppose you'd have to video the screen as each new "always encrypted" "totally secure" frame came up. > > On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > > > Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the > > digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a > > court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter > > how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently > > redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left > > decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. > > They have lost their mind. Since humans are notoriously bad at performing > decryptions in their head in real time, whatever is sent to the display > *must* be cleartext. Any competent programmer can grab it at that point. > > -- Lucky Green PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. > "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" > -- From brian at smarter.than.nu Wed Dec 3 22:04:33 1997 From: brian at smarter.than.nu (Brian W. Buchanan) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:04:33 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: <199712040524.AAA26313@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote: > For practical reason data must be in the clear in memory at some point in > time. Also the data must be transferred into some type of peripheral so > the user can do somthing with the data (read text off a monitor, print a > document, listen to music, ...ect). > > This is the biggest failings in these systems. Once the user has the > ability to decrypt the data the game is lost. One does not need to break > the crypto system as they give you the keys with the product!! Ut oh. Now the government is going to protect us from the new Horseman, copyright violators, by mandating diskless network computers that run only government-approved software. We can't let those awful hackers unlawfully disassemble software for the purpose of stealing other data, now can we? After all, it's for the children... and this solves that pesky strong crypto problem too. -- Brian Buchanan brian at smarter.than.nu No security through obscurity! Demand full source code! 4.4BSD for the masses - http://www.freebsd.org From declan at well.com Wed Dec 3 22:14:14 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:14:14 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jamie correctly calls my earlier quip about "big government fetishists" a "shallow" definition of leftist. Obviously it was not meant to be serious; I didn't think Jamie wanted to explore this issue in any serious way. Based on his post below, he seems to want to have a reasonable conversation, so I owe him a reasonable response. Let me try another take on a few of the issues he raises below. COPYRIGHT: Clearly not a real left-right split. Rather a battle of different business interests. There's the content owners, the Hollywood firms and the software companies, on one side. On the other are companies like Sony that want you to be able to tape movies and the Baby Bells and ISPs that don't want to be liable for infringments. Firms like Time-Warner that own cable companies and content are somewhat split. Lefty/public interest groups joined by librarians play a role, but the corporations are the ones driving the debate. PRIVACY FROM GOVERNMENT: Lefty groups join libertarians and occasionally some right wing groups (Eagle Forum) here. Their battle is with defense/law enforcement and (largely) right-wing groups that are ideologically sympatico. This collection of right-wing groups includes police chiefs, attys general groups, and columnists like Frank "ban crypto" Gaffney from the Washington Times. We can be more precise if we break down "privacy from government" into narrower issues like wiretap, crypto, medical privacy, etc. Gets more complicated (as you note) when we're talking about balancing access to gvt info with privacy; journalist groups come down hard for access. PRIVACY FROM BUSINESSES: On government regulations designed to "protect your privacy," you'll see mostly lefties out there crying that the Direct Marketing Association is the archenemy, and AOL is the demon of cyberspace because of its privacy policies, etc. Libertarians like CEI and Cato take free-market position saying that gvt regs do more harm than good. Though conservative think tanks like Heritage are starting to become more interested in this. More a battle between lefty/public interest/privacy/pro-regulatory groups on one side and businesses/free-market groups on the other. MICROSOFT: Mostly a battle between business groups: MSFT vs. its competitors. Libertarians (CEI, Cato) and conservative thinktanks (Heritage) are opposing antitrust regulations. Lefty/"consumer" groups are all over this one, of course. Bottom line: left-right analyses don't give you all the information you need. A more complex analysis helps; fortunately, some other folks here have suggested some. Now it's time for me to go to sleep; it's too late to be writing this stuff. Hope it makes sense. -Declan At 22:40 -0500 12/3/97, James Love wrote: >Lizard, > >Don't get me wrong. I think the right left dichotomy does continues to >have meaning in some contexts, and when appropriate, it would make sense >to describe me as left (certainly by some contemporary standards). I >just don't think of this is the only way to think about what is going on >today, and for many issues that I work on day to day, it predicts next >to nothing, in terms of who supports what. Here are some examples. I >have been working on a very wide range of issues relating to >intellectual property, since 1990. I don't really see most of the >alliances on those issues well defined by a right left dichotomy. I >work on a number of privacy issues too. And I don't think anyone could >describe the alliances on privacy issues as having much to do with a >right left dichotomy. Freedom of Information and right to know issues >(Ralph Nader was the single most important actor in getting the modern >FOIA laws) have a very broad constituency. Access to government >information over the Internet? The pro-access coalition is very broad. >I work on issues relating to pricing of digital telephone services (ISDN >and various unbundling issues relating to xDSL pricing). Except for a >handful of zero government true believers, this doesn't end up being a >left right issue either. Should cable be permitted to control DBS >spectrum? Not a right left issue. Should South Africa be permitted to >import pharmacuetical drugs (parallel imports)? There are big >commerical interests lobbying on this, but I don't think of the >fundemental issues as right left. I'm certainly on the side of the CATO >institute on this one. Is Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive >practices? A hot topic, certainly, but the persons who are concerned >with Microsoft are a pretty broad coalition, in terms of traditional >ideological labels. > >Now, if one sees the burning issue of the day the fight to rid the world >of government as we know it, maybe right left labels make sense. By >defining both the left and the right as groups who advocate increasing >government control over private actions, you describe what seems most >important to you. I found this characterization of "leftists" as >shallow as Declan's, however. > > Jamie From anon at anon.efga.org Wed Dec 3 22:31:06 1997 From: anon at anon.efga.org (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:31:06 +0800 Subject: Fear of a Random Planet... Message-ID: the following excerpt from tomorrow's WSJ... {snip} YELLOW C's NOW AVAILABLE... Be the first on your block to comply with HR-666/S-7, the 'Freedom and Sane Conservation in Social Technology' (FASCIST) Law, recently signed by Chancellor Clinton... As you know, new Federal Regulations require all cryptographers, both professional and amateur, to register with the State Department, surrender their passports, and sign Form 11065-R (Int'l Travel Prohibition Ban Consent Decree). The recent amnesty granted to the cryptographic community due to the shortage of YELLOW C badges ends January 1, 1998. The badges are now available at your local Post Office, Federal Building, or authorized Microsoft retailer. Remember, 'Export a Cryptographer, Go to Jail!' {/snip} love and kisses, CPL Kaos. From lizard at dnai.com Wed Dec 3 22:37:20 1997 From: lizard at dnai.com (Lizard) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:37:20 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3486262E.C70FF40@cptech.org> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971203220823.0347ca84@dnai.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 01:01 AM 12/4/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >PRIVACY FROM GOVERNMENT: Lefty groups join libertarians and occasionally >some right wing groups (Eagle Forum) here. Their battle is with defense/law >enforcement and (largely) right-wing groups that are ideologically >sympatico. This collection of right-wing groups includes police chiefs, >attys general groups, and columnists like Frank "ban crypto" Gaffney from >the Washington Times. We can be more precise if we break down "privacy from >government" into narrower issues like wiretap, crypto, medical privacy, >etc. Gets more complicated (as you note) when we're talking about balancing >access to gvt info with privacy; journalist groups come down hard for >access. Well, this isn't entirely true. Some of the loudest voices in banning/regulating crypto come from the left:Senator Lieberman, Senator Feinstein,Rep. Dellums, the Clinton Administration in general, etc. The fear of 'bomb making information' and 'terrorist militia groups' is almost entirely a left-wing fear, one about as realistic and plausible as the 60's John Birchers fear of 'Communist insurrection' behind every middle-class loser youth who grew his hair too long or waved around (but probably never read) Mao's Little Red Book. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIZI1jKf8mIpTvjWEQJGLACgppADJBSjr32pEdSJ3jHyCOure78AnRew ACdyp2md6/ZG9yWbuWiauNIt =fR42 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From whgiii at invweb.net Wed Dec 3 22:43:25 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:43:25 +0800 Subject: In-Reply-To: <2cbffee5893cc0ab108d748c922ffe2d@anon.efga.org> Message-ID: <199712040637.BAA27017@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <2cbffee5893cc0ab108d748c922ffe2d at anon.efga.org>, on 12/04/97 at 12:42 AM, Anonymous said: >Unless there was decryption hardware in the monitor itself. >Then I suppose you'd have to video the screen as each new "always >encrypted" "totally secure" frame came up. Naw picture quality will go all to hell. Better to tap in between the decryption hardware and the feed to the picture tube. A couple of days on the workbench and you should be able to pull the data at your leasure. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIZPdI9Co1n+aLhhAQJ+XAQAiIaFmsKaTsjDZucoclR/LIbJhnRvN/I1 RV6tllzAzrNL/yMIFLj36XXX3Ka4WiyiWwVJkhrKxALpz96lC95syNZgix8hfU1d Rj5PqzScJ2Bt9Y8yCslcBo8dPRRcymy3xVi5e/kH6FBJWJUy04/9JWxBN/i6Og03 XNMgaWp1O64= =D8Ec -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From whgiii at invweb.net Wed Dec 3 23:15:18 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:15:18 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712040711.CAA27313@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 12/03/97 at 09:56 PM, "Brian W. Buchanan" said: >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote: >> For practical reason data must be in the clear in memory at some point in >> time. Also the data must be transferred into some type of peripheral so >> the user can do somthing with the data (read text off a monitor, print a >> document, listen to music, ...ect). >> >> This is the biggest failings in these systems. Once the user has the >> ability to decrypt the data the game is lost. One does not need to break >> the crypto system as they give you the keys with the product!! >Ut oh. Now the government is going to protect us from the new Horseman, >copyright violators, by mandating diskless network computers that run >only government-approved software. We can't let those awful hackers >unlawfully disassemble software for the purpose of stealing other data, >now can we? After all, it's for the children... and this solves that >pesky strong crypto problem too. Yep see Electronics and Computer Science added to the Evil Book Topic list: Evil Book Topic List ==================== Chemistry -- could be used by "Terrorist" Physics -- could be used by "Terrorist" Biology -- could be used by "Terrorist" Mathematics -- could be used by "Terrorist" Not to mention the fact that if you have any equipment related to any of these evil topics and you are not a state approved scientist automatically elevates you to either "terrorist" or drug manufacture if not both. Basically it is getting to the point where having an IQ greater than 100 is a crime (no doubt generated out of jealousy by those who work for the State). One has to wonder how far Edison would have gotten in times such as today. "Beware the bureaucrats as they do far more damage than all the Hitlers and Stalins combined." - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIZXXY9Co1n+aLhhAQICWwQAkVOE1sc6rTuQHQsqAhT+EnGMPLWy2KC2 +f2KS31H/apqGgOJBSUMp4iLaQQ1JG03Fc5m5SSDk+f/xhOveMZP7myroEWeyqhi sgvF7bQj4kKt7ABfdnOF4PwiWwhzijU61m3tV8S0IBO/HbrrOSFzN7/CsOqoVV1v bMAoApXiFRs= =g7NI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kent at songbird.com Wed Dec 3 23:16:21 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:16:21 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3485F5DD.459EB83C@cptech.org> Message-ID: <19971203225059.40910@songbird.com> On Wed, Dec 03, 1997 at 06:10:32PM -0700, Jim Burnes wrote: [...] > > Multidimensional political beliefs systems don't hash into the > one dimensional left/right axis very well. The collision > rate is too high. > > For a somewhat better map at least check out the Nolan chart. > > http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml > > enjoy > > jim Interesting. I was absolutely dead center. Centrist Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty. Your Personal Self-Government Score is 50%. Your Economic Self-Government Score is 50%. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html From JonWienk at ix.netcom.com Wed Dec 3 23:44:14 1997 From: JonWienk at ix.netcom.com (Jonathan Wienke) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:44:14 +0800 Subject: About the way of regulating Japanese encryption export In-Reply-To: <19971204035452.2105.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971203223728.00695c48@popd.netcruiser> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 07:54 PM 12/3/97 PST, Nobuki Nakatuji wrote: >Permission shouldn't be necessary. ( For example, in such cases as >the dealings of providing the technology of the public wisdom. ) >And, if corresponding is considered, Export permission isn't needed. What the heck is "providing the technology of the public wisdom"? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 iQA/AwUBNIZPpsJF0kXqpw3MEQKK9wCfQQWm0nd7/jpmfDagAFEyLEh86uEAoJQX eZdBv5OZ6Xoa/WR9jETrlNd3 =z419 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Wed Dec 3 23:52:28 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mix) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:52:28 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199712040732.XAA14714@sirius.infonex.com> www.borders.com: "Borders is opening new stores almost every week. If there's not one near you now, there will be soon." This is depressing. Something has to be done about "free"-market capitalism. It is as destructive as government, and built on the same lies. From whgiii at invweb.net Thu Dec 4 00:11:33 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:11:33 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <19971203225059.40910@songbird.com> Message-ID: <199712040753.CAA27660@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <19971203225059.40910 at songbird.com>, on 12/04/97 at 01:50 AM, Kent Crispin said: >On Wed, Dec 03, 1997 at 06:10:32PM -0700, Jim Burnes wrote: >[...] >> >> Multidimensional political beliefs systems don't hash into the >> one dimensional left/right axis very well. The collision >> rate is too high. >> >> For a somewhat better map at least check out the Nolan chart. >> >> http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml >> >> enjoy >> >> jim >Interesting. I was absolutely dead center. >Centrist >Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize >practical solutions to current problems. They >tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that >government serves as a check on excessive >liberty. >Your Personal Self-Government Score is 50%. >Your Economic Self-Government Score is 50%. Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%. Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%. Not a big surprise there though :) - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIZhKo9Co1n+aLhhAQJjLgQAsW/hcug6Gs6+1eVAVyzXHfMZ5zhiNslB PSSbsAxIo03g39aE6DZflQ133M5BND5330FdbvcTin2IKtVSmkjV0L4+5F1g9rR/ VzW4NeWW9HOtuN6KtuEwEvHMxq4fnki6VVd5wDLs318wacTQ+x137rgOZDofjnqm x7+jVO+naAM= =EA4o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From zooko at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 4 01:42:46 1997 From: zooko at xs4all.nl (Zooko Journeyman) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:42:46 +0800 Subject: words have value, for good or ill Message-ID: <199712040937.KAA10843@xs1.xs4all.nl> Anonymous wrote: > > >There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially > >among members whose positions are otherwise indefensible. It's > >surprising in a way because this fallacy is more common among > >statists. > > > >There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be > >illegal. We see this all the time. People think of the government > >as their way of expressing moral values. Drugs are wrong, so they > >must be made illegal. Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it > >also must be illegal. We have countless bad laws based on this false > >premise. > > > >On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, > >it must be moral. Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, > >hateful, immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was > >legal, because of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Their > >critic must be opposed to free speech if he objects to their words. I didn't write this, but I wish I had. It is exactly correct, and well-done. If I had written I would've attached a nym in an attempt to accrue some reputation capital. (The author should e-mail me so I can credit her repcap account. :-) ) Monty Cantsin wrote: > > >Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game. It > >leads to the false reasoning of the statists. We must remember that > >there is a clear distinction between morality and legality. > > This is a good thing to remember. However, what you seem to be > calling immoral is holding a belief with which you disagree. Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the cash token. :-) ) > What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should > refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world > because they are immoral. I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks discourse. The rightness of one's actions is independent from the legality of those actions. (Except, of course, that it is sometimes wise to avoid doing something illegal out of pragmatic concern for consequences.) If a cypherpunk is accused by her fellows of a wrong act, it is completely irrelevant and out of character for her to reply by stating that the act is legal. This is a such an obvious truth that I'm surprised no-one, including myself, has brought it up before Anonymous did. Regards, Zooko --- Software engineer for hire. http://www.xs4all.nl/~zooko/resume.html From whgiii at invweb.net Thu Dec 4 02:02:32 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:02:32 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3485D7B7.E444A846@cptech.org> Message-ID: <199712040950.EAA28589@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3485D7B7.E444A846 at cptech.org>, on 12/03/97 at 05:05 PM, James Love said: >Declan, apparently having missed the fab 50's, seems to be enjoying his >use of the "leftist" word lately. Since this seems to mean quite >different things to different persons, perhaps Mr. McCullagh can define >his terms. What exactly is a "leftist" in 1997, in his opinion? The Left-Right paradigm is hair splitting on which topics they use in their FUD campaigns for greater power. Typical Left FUD ================ EEO Social Security Universal Health Insurance "It takes a village" Global Warming "Gay Rights" Blah, Blah, Blah Typical Right FUD ================= NAFTA GATT Family Values War on Drugs Blah, Blah, Blah Quite often camps from both the Left and the Right will come together on various issues. This can become confusing to some and blur the lines between the two. Once one gets past the FUD spread by members of both groups one realizes that both groups are STATIST and SOCIALIST. All the bickering is not over the right and wrong of Unconstitutional State intervention into the lives of the citizens but over who gets how much of the pie and who to steal the pie from. In thinking over the Libertarian Party Political diamond I find it to be quit flawed. It makes the false assumption that state intervention in personal matters is independent from state intervention in economic matters. The two go hand in hand. I consider the following a better representation: C G D P R L Statist -|---|--|-|-|----------------------------|--------- Anarchist N D=Democrat R=Republican L=Libertarian G=Green P=Perot C=Russin/Chineese Communism N=German/Italian/Japanese Fascism Positioning on the graph represents current party leadership philosophy. Since these groups philosophies are so close you will find individual members that will fall on either side of the parties plank but will rarely fall very far away from it. An intriguing side note: Libertarian != Anarchist. This is a distinction that several members of this list have missed. Most Libertarians favor a limited government kept on a short leash but are unwilling to go as far as the anarchy of mob rule. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIZ8lY9Co1n+aLhhAQKRBgQAzGjCsC4kfN/rPxZPGXtFVFhQWzUdi4O+ W1rDf/gXs4zCYRT1g3Rw4Op9cRBivgZe8YtnFJa3JdB8HqD3rKqPwjPIw2AvbDE3 IOEkUkDqpsQBfKKx1/+uEFZfOZB6pAqKpA+dP6LxySNXy067F4y2bBCDVYbdBhVq aIydEowN5f0= =3+f/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From BrownList at GOPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 02:37:00 1997 From: BrownList at GOPLAY.COM (BrownList at GOPLAY.COM) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:37:00 +0800 Subject: Brown != Blue Message-ID: <199712041024.FAA10743@www.video-collage.com> Giving you a BROWN reason to complain. Get busy. This BrownList is harder to find. From webbiz at MCI2000.com Thu Dec 4 18:50:03 1997 From: webbiz at MCI2000.com (webbiz at MCI2000.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:50:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fwd: Please Read This!] Message-ID: <01IQSHNLVQO6004GW1@MAIL-RELAY.PCY.MCI.NET> P*L*E*A*S*E Do NOT Delete This Message! Hi, Just wanted to pass along some info about that I now call my "secret weapon". It's amazing! Listen to this... Myself and hundreds of others can now reach "millions of potential customers" absolutely FREE! A lot of us are creating immediate "cash flow explosions" literally overnight! And blowing our competition right out of the water! You have to check this thing out. To get some details, all you have to do is go to the web address below. Take care. I'll talk with you later. Bill Go to http://www.insider-secrets.com/home.html This is NOT wild spam! If you do not want this information and wish to be placed on a global remove list put "remove" in the subject box and mailto:hotline at insider-secrets.com From whgiii at invweb.net Thu Dec 4 03:17:02 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:17:02 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712041107.GAA29227@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 12/03/97 at 06:10 PM, Jim Burnes said: >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, James Love wrote: >> Declan McCullagh wrote: >> > >> > Jamie, if you're seriously confused about the differences between >> > left-wing and right-wing groups I can help educate you, perhaps with a few >> > rules of thumb. But I suspect that you really don't want a serious answer. >> >> I didn't think the big government fetish answer was very good. I >> don't want to put words in your mouth. But if you think you can really >> explain what constitutes a leftist, in your view, I'm ready to read it. >> >> Jamie >Man! Talk about burning bandwidth on politics 101. The problem is that >you're both stuck using Orwellian newspeak for political classification. >If people only have a single dimension to >classify political beliefs then there can't be very many >beliefs. >Multidimensional political beliefs systems don't hash into the one >dimensional left/right axis very well. The collision rate is too high. >For a somewhat better map at least check out the Nolan chart. >http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml As I stated in my previous post the Nolan chart is flawed. In it's attempts to be "two-dimensional" it artificially separates interdependent philosophies. Economic Freedom = Personal Freedom. You can not have one without the other. The major failings of the socialist is their unwillingness to accept this fact. A free society can not survive under a socialist regime any more that a totalitarian society can survive under a capitalist one. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIaOmY9Co1n+aLhhAQIQSgP/apwzqHaQ6IZUfHCstIZW8erxWTNFkNn6 FD33wSoFDs0Af9G6GL9bp1JgtE2GbSlkUqpCtPGhOm63Hv4CVBN/NACpVhNwWZfj YoS5BnbFTiSk1hDYOAEaQRkM9KA11YWxsBV6nNPqvIIdVMSBTBY9uUbJBqgkNGye BwKDPxAEmM8= =954+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From holovacs at idt.net Thu Dec 4 03:56:57 1997 From: holovacs at idt.net (Jay Holovacs) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:56:57 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971204114530.006ef8dc@idt.net> At 05:16 PM 12/3/97 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. >They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion >and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic >and social diversity. > Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. Several members of the religious right also call themselves libertarians. Sometimes what is meant is freedom from interference in the market rather than real freedom. Jay From jmr at shopmiami.com Thu Dec 4 04:05:31 1997 From: jmr at shopmiami.com (Jim Ray) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:05:31 +0800 Subject: Sabrin in NJ (Was: Re: Censorial leftists ... Message-ID: <3.0.16.19971204065549.09e7efce@pop.gate.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:45 AM 12/4/97 -0500, Jay Holovacs wrote: ... >Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my >wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. Mr. Sabrin also accepted political welfare (matching funds, a form of compelled speech if ever I saw one). This annoyed me, since he did it in a nationwide campaign for contributions claiming that this retreat from principle would give him a chance to win. As I recall, he got about 10% of the vote, and IMO didn't even deserve that. He was, however, another great argument for NOTA's (None Of The Above) candidacy -- as if another one were needed. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQEPAwUBNIaaKzUhsGSn1j2pAQGjHAfQ1a1MJKRyDr7gBgR1nGCcbTrVvLTdQ5NZ Ce2Z4w1XPzb/6ml8uilPZE1/4oDCmwWH5R42NW6QmPpQjeQSmqh3cCApo11AeZ+/ ZRQQxD+SO3FtrnGXr+kGD2CniY6UxXBfzTYtAjpdv5roF4jkRxJwkd9px/GyZjCg jyKMTTaZTVoTfZUbadjFhyX14OjJ7gkbxFOkZKHBZ1lYes6fpW4Yj6V0selR6CKp 3jJHmHAJUgWbdwhaU3rIHpV5+7QKYyk7dFRblS5pC0p91rec5JDNAecfXYltwNwR YLTcg0gqYLIPOQi0MlJxXYBogKMbYxXC7a7YOQS+OiUUug== =7bMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From whgiii at invweb.net Thu Dec 4 05:21:30 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:21:30 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971204114530.006ef8dc@idt.net> Message-ID: <199712041305.IAA30177@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <1.5.4.32.19971204114530.006ef8dc at idt.net>, on 12/04/97 at 06:45 AM, Jay Holovacs said: >At 05:16 PM 12/3/97 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >>Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. >>They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion >>and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic >>and social diversity. >> >Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my >wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. Do I really want to start this thread up .... An intriguing selection of NewSpeak being used here. The forcible ending of another humans life is wrong (add in the standard caveats for self-defence). When it is a planed event it is called Murder. No society in the history of mankind has permitted unrestricted murder of fellow members of society on such superficial excuses of inconvenience. To call this murder "choice" just doesn't pass the straight face test. It is on the same level as calling what the Germans did to the Jews "choice". >Several members of the religious right also call themselves libertarians. >Sometimes what is meant is freedom from interference in the market rather >than real freedom. While such superficial labeling may make it easier for you and your wife to sleep at night it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is neither a religious issue nor a left-right issue any more than theft is. Nothing inconsistent with being a Libertarian and anti Murder. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIaqcY9Co1n+aLhhAQIUEwQAg7t+xyjhMQqnjaoK6s7p0UBrqzeFBcQp x10S2Ees0Xu7mYlPF1oi9LZXWlgsd41td7YOU3U7KwnQ95GY8ah9FHZR0o2BF+ye dfgy0kuKBXYcMs1HmWtziKcs+uJ25OgG1cXqRJLyMLi7YgDAAhTcniQkGgt8t7CK oXj+qXxt+LA= =1lCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jschult at javanet.com Thu Dec 4 05:25:45 1997 From: jschult at javanet.com (Jeff Schult) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:25:45 +0800 Subject: Lieberman/Clinton Message-ID: <01bd00b4$97a92580$d2a085d0@jschult.javanet.com> > >Well, this isn't entirely true. Some of the loudest voices in >banning/regulating crypto come from the left:Senator Lieberman, >Senator Feinstein,Rep. Dellums, the Clinton Administration in >general, etc. The fear of 'bomb making information' and 'terrorist Lieberman is hardly considered "of the left" in his home state -- he squeaked out a win over former Sen. Lowell Weicker by staking out positions considered to the right of Weicker and has stayed over that way. There have been recent articles in the Connecticut media speculating that Lieberman could become a Republican. Though that won't happen, GOP leaders were effusive about how welcome the senator would be ... As to the Clinton administration, if you can pin it down from minute to minute on the political spectrum, you're a lot faster with pins than I ... Jeff Schult Marketing Director, JavaNet http://www.javanet.com Internet culture and technology writer, New Haven (CT) Advocate From tom at Empire.Net Thu Dec 4 05:28:16 1997 From: tom at Empire.Net (tom) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:28:16 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712041305.IAA30177@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: <199712041316.IAA18769@Empire.Net> William H. Geiger II writes: > > > In <1.5.4.32.19971204114530.006ef8dc at idt.net>, on 12/04/97 > at 06:45 AM, Jay Holovacs said: > > > >At 05:16 PM 12/3/97 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >> > >>Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. > >>They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion > >>and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic > >>and social diversity. > >> > > >Interestingly, New Jersey's recent Libertarian candidate (Sabrin) lost my > >wife's vote when his own ads portrayed him as anti choice. > > Do I really want to start this thread up .... > > An intriguing selection of NewSpeak being used here. The forcible ending > of another humans life is wrong (add in the standard caveats for > self-defence). When it is a planed event it is called Murder. No society > in the history of mankind has permitted unrestricted murder of fellow > members of society on such superficial excuses of inconvenience. > > To call this murder "choice" just doesn't pass the straight face test. It > is on the same level as calling what the Germans did to the Jews "choice". > > >Several members of the religious right also call themselves libertarians. > > >Sometimes what is meant is freedom from interference in the market rather > >than real freedom. > > While such superficial labeling may make it easier for you and your wife > to sleep at night it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is > neither a religious issue nor a left-right issue any more than theft is. > > Nothing inconsistent with being a Libertarian and anti Murder. > Semantics. When does a piece of tissue become a human being? When is it a 'life'? First define your terms. Then talk about murder. Tom -- Tom Gillman, Unix/AIX/Solaris/IRIX |"Personally, I have always found the Administrator-type Weenie For Hire |First Amendment to be a little irksome (404) 713-5189 <-- NEW PHONE # |and a nuisance" Patrick A. Townson, tom at empire.net |moderator, comp.dcom.telecom Don't even *think* that I speak for empire.net, Dave does that. key to UNIX: echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D4D465452snlbxq'|dc From jya at pipeline.com Thu Dec 4 05:45:37 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:45:37 +0800 Subject: Land Attack on Routers/Servers Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971204132552.00b64cd0@pop.pipeline.com> Hackers Out for IP Blood with New Land Attack The Internet underworld last week unsheathed a new weapon capable of knocking out IP-based routers and servers, sending vendors scrambling to find ways to safeguard their gear. Land Attack, officially known as land.c program code, was posted on the Net by someone called "Meltman" and used last week in attacks on Cisco Systems, Inc. routers and Unix and Windows NT servers. Some of the targeted machines were slowed to a crawl, while others had to be rebooted. Land Attack represents a new twist on the dreaded "TCP SYN flooding" denial-of-service attack. But unlike TCP SYN flooding, Land Attack sends out just one sinister SYN packet in which the sending devices IP address has been swapped out for the IP address of the destination machine. When the destination machine tries to acknowledge receipt of the transmission, it ends up using its own address, which means it sends the message back to itself, resulting in a potentially fatal loopback condition. "If someone could find a way to use this Land Attack program to spread this across the Internet, it could cause major service disruptions," said Chris Klaus, chief technology officer at Internet Security Systems, Inc. ---------- More at: http://jya.com/land-attack.txt From whgiii at invweb.net Thu Dec 4 06:32:58 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:32:58 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712041316.IAA18769@Empire.Net> Message-ID: <199712041419.JAA30815@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199712041316.IAA18769 at Empire.Net>, on 12/04/97 at 08:16 AM, tom said: >Semantics. >When does a piece of tissue become a human being? When is it a 'life'? >First define your terms. Then talk about murder. Hmmmm well the safest answer to this is at the point of conception though I would imagine that it is hard for most to consider a couple of cells life. :=/ Unfortunately trying to pin an exact point after conception leads into an endless hair-splitting debate (should it be 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, ...). The current method of considering "birth" as the defining moment is quite arbitrary as is "viability outside the womb" as science is ever pushing this back. Considering we are talking life and death here don't you think it would be wise to error on the side of caution? I think everyone here would be outraged if the State started implementing capital punishment without being sure that the person is guilty. "Sorry we don't know if you did it or not but what the hell we'll gas you anyway." It should be noted that many who are against capital punishment are against it for that very reason. I have always beleived that executions should be public. If a society can't stomach to watch what the government does on their behalf then the governmnet shouldn't be doing it. I find it quite odd that a society can condone the murder of a 6mo old child so long as it is still in the womb yet would be horrified if the same thing was done to a child in an incubator in the neo-natal ward. Who knows maybe the pro-choice crowd *does* approve of a doctor taking a big pair of pliers, crushing the skull then ripping the arms and legs off a 6mo old then pulling out the shop vac to clean up the mess? - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIa7xY9Co1n+aLhhAQJ+uwP+MxYxEcfnrXaTyAi1UzjBoe+CU09LFZor +x5yPeeMfZG6VMuQLCRYnpwcygwYJce6qKyj1T4Ty/3gglcp+dS3uU4qjak0+rUI NvSJbySGsOneGzOrkLBipKOjwloVhpNNSZOKMr/dfj+BvypLV5+IZXFYs5va1E/S b0/6JGOqXkg= =B7eg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From anon at anon.efga.org Thu Dec 4 07:04:11 1997 From: anon at anon.efga.org (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:04:11 +0800 Subject: [RePol] Denizen Message-ID: <225c8ebafe5f0a6f706013832385db52@anon.efga.org> TruthMonger wrote: > Ralph Hotmail wrote: > > > > In a moment of boredom, I took the opportunity to check into "Denizen". > > I also read his posts under a number of names to the critical mass > > mailing list and their replies. > > > In saner moments, Beckjord runs the UFO and Bigfoot Museum. > > > > This is the person who wants to use BCC from an anonymous remailer to > > get his opinion to the subscribers of the Critical Mass list. The > > message is simple - if you help him out,you can kiss your remailer > > goodbye. > > Perhaps Ralph could help the anonymous remailer 'cause' by providing > remailer operators with a list of the 'bad' people who should not > be allowed to use remailers to promote their 'wrong' views. > Maybe Mr. Hotmail could also provide a list of 'bad' words and You're a dangerous person, TruthMonger -- you make people THINK. It's interesting that he mentioned the "Critical Mass" list, since one of the arrestees in last summer's Critical Mass civil disobedience blockade of San Francisco streets was none other than anti-remailer gadfly Gary L. Burnore of the fabled "DataBasix gang". I don't know whether he's a subscriber to that list or not. But according to Jeff Burchell's account of last summer's attack on the Huge Cajones Remailer by Burnore et al, someone from DataBasix did request that posts mentioning DataBasix and/or Gary Burnore should be blocked by the remailer net. Chutzpah! BTW, Burnore just made a post to alt.privacy.anon-server yesterday that looked like an attempt to suck up to the remailer user community. Unlike his recent practice of butting into TECHNICAL threads about the how-to of header pasting via PI, etc. to accuse the poster of wanting the information in order to "forge" posts in his name and "UCE bait" him, he actually gave the appearance of being helpful. Of course, in threads posted in other NGs, he's still fuming about "cowards" and "anonymous assholes" who "hide behind the skirts of a remailer". He's also indicated that he'll have databasix.com back on-line RSN. His hasty move from San Francisco to Raleigh-Durham, NC took DataBasix off of the air for awhile. Heads up! -- From declan at well.com Thu Dec 4 07:38:01 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:38:01 +0800 Subject: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971203090005.007d2340@206.40.207.40> Message-ID: At 12:56 -0700 12/3/97, Tim May wrote: >This is a wedge to demolish free speech, this "accuracy in labelling" >business. Religions could be forced to "accurately label" their messages. >Speech could be shut down while courts debate whether "misrepresentation" >occurred. As the saying goes, "What is truth?" [BTW, I recommend "Rationales and Rationalizations: Regulating the Electronic Media," which Bob edited. --Declan] =========== Subject: RE: FC: Mandatory vs. Voluntary Ratings, Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 7:24:07 -0500 From: "Robert L. Corn-Revere" To: declan at well.com Excerpted from Robert Corn-Revere, Television Violence and the Limits of Voluntarism, 12 Yale Journal on Regulation 187 (Winter 1995): What if the government decided that the practice of religion was in some way contrary to the national interest? Suppose it concluded that religion is the opiate of the masses, that the "seventh day of rest" is a drag on the national economy, that TV evangelists bilk the uneducated of their meager earnings or that sectarian disputes contribute to social unrest and violence. An unlikely scenario, certainly, but what if it happened? Government officials could give speeches setting out these positions, to be sure, but could they do more? Would it be permissible, for example, for key lawmakers to threaten punitive legislation if the National Council of Churches did not announce plans to close up shop? Could top Administration officials stage back-room meetings with church leaders to jawbone for change that would be consistent with the new policy? And, at the end of all this, could the President appear in a Rose Garden ceremony with the heads of the major denominations and minor sects to announce that -- for the good of the nation -- the parties had voluntarily agreed to phase out religion in America? Of course this could never happen. Americans would never tolerate such a frontal assault on cherished First Amendment freedoms. But what of the third and fourth clauses of the First Amendment, which command that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?" From Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] Thu Dec 4 07:53:43 1997 From: Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:53:43 +0800 Subject: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed In-Reply-To: <347f9d78.193389066@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <8a79c36c23626791ed29d293cab5cfa8@anonymous.poster> gburnore at netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > :This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you > :have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against > :UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect. > > > Sure it does in your mind and I'm sure in the mind of the anon-asshole. Call someone an "asshole" all you like, but when you have to qualify that and call him a "black asshole", "gay asshole", "Jewish asshole", or "anon asshole", it only demonstrates your personal prejudice and bigotry. Your arguments are so weak that you must resort to ad hominem argumentation to divert attention from the facts. Repeating your unproven accusations over and over does not make them true. > All of that aside, the point is it has stopped since the remailers blocked the > address. Note btw, that the anon asshole is still claiming databasix does > this and databasix does that and yet databasix hasn't been connected to the > net since august. Are you claiming that all the DataBasix personnel no longer have access to the Internet simply because the databasix.com domain is down? Considering how lax Netcom is with their servers, any abuse you might allege could easily have come from someone with a Netcom account. You might as well reconnect databasix.com to the net because having it down is not a credible alibi -- not when most of the players involved have Netcom accounts, and a few even have shell accounts from which they could have run Perl scripts. > The issue now is as it was then. An asshole, posting anonymously, apparently > in an attempt to cause troubles for remailers at my expense is still at it. > > He OBVIOUSLY wants remailers shut down. I obviously don't. Your cute little conspiracy theory does not exactly square with the account of one of the remailer operators that you along with fellow DataBasix staffers Belinda Bryan and William J. McClatchie (aka "Wotan") harassed. Reread his message exposing your anti-remailer activities: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html > End of story as far as I am concerned. Not as long as you want to keep it alive by claiming that you are a "victim" of some grand forgery, "UCE-baiting", "cyber stalking" scheme. Sam is right in doubting your claims that most of the things you allege happened to you even occurred. He pointed out that the one flimsy piece of evidence you've been able to produce more recently than February of 1997 originated from YOUR OWN DOMAIN! -- From CallNow at 1-800-493-2328Ext116771 Fri Dec 5 00:07:09 1997 From: CallNow at 1-800-493-2328Ext116771 (CallNow at 1-800-493-2328Ext116771) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 00:07:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: - FREE Vitamins & Business - Message-ID: <32610508_10699447> AMAZING INCOME: UNLIMITED! New Weight Loss Capsules! ALL NATURAL! New Pyruvate, Guarana, Ginseng, Chromium--All in One! * Only $12.25/90 Count! (+S/H) * Quantity Discounts Available! * Free 90 Count Daily Multi with First Order: ASK! * Automatic MLM Distributorship Enrollment w/o obligation * NO sign up fees-NO monthly purchase required * NO ORDER TAKING yet unlimited commissions PLUS * Full Vitamin Line at "Wholesale Club" prices WHY PAY MORE? HURRY! CALL: (M-F 9-5) Nutrition World 1-800-493-2328 Ext. 116771 From declan at well.com Thu Dec 4 08:13:48 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 00:13:48 +0800 Subject: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware Message-ID: Check out the last paragraph of Andrew's op-ed: it's Larry Lessig's argument, though conveniently unattributed. It's also a dangerous one, and a favorite of leftists, claiming that "accountable" government regulations are somehow better than "unaccountable" private classification schemes. Of course Andrew neglects to say that the CDA was not just civil regulation like many FCC rules: it, and its successor, are criminal laws with serious jail time and up to quarter-million dollar fines if you violate them. He also neglects to say that the reason PICS was created is pressure from the Feds. Try as hard as they may, not even RSACi can throw you in jail -- unless Congress passes Murray's bill, which means it's no longer private-sector action. If the market VOLUNTARILY comes up with a rating system, I don't know how you can say that's worse than government censorship and possible jail time. (Read Solveig's op-ed on this, which I posted earlier this week.) Arguing that private selection is "worse" than government censorship is simply incoherent. If government is coercing industry to adopt a scheme, which is the direction we're heading now, then it's time to make the argument that the government pressure amounts to state action. Then eventually challenge it in court. I'm not sure if Andrew is going here or not, but some leftists (or "liberals," if you like) oppose rating systems and censorware because they think children have a general right to access information. Even if their parents buy the computers. I think this is another incoherent argument that we should be careful not to buy into. It may be a bad idea for parents to install such programs -- as it may be a bad idea to feed Junior poptarts instead of bran cereal -- but children do not have a of Constitutional right to have censorware-free computers. -Declan ============== Opinion: The Danger of Private Cybercops By ANDREW L. SHAPIRO At a conference this week on protecting children from the perils of the Internet, consensus emerged on a strategy to keep minors away from cyberporn: let the private sector handle it. Rather than relying on Government regulation, Vice President Al Gore said, parents should look to industry for tools that will let them filter Internet content. Civil libertarians are largely responsible for the success of this approach. Indeed, they convinced the Supreme Court that it would do less harm to free speech than the Communications Decency Act, the law criminalizing on-line indecency, which the Court struck down in June. Yet those advocates may now regret what they wished for, because some of their schemes seem to imperil free speech more than the act did. For example, software that users install to block out certain Internet content often excludes material that isn't indecent. One such program, Cybersitter, prevents users from visiting the site of the National Organization for Women. And the makers of these programs often won't even tell adults what sites have been blacklisted. Still worse is a protocol known as PICS that changes the Internet's architecture to make it easy to rate and filter content. PICS is theoretically neutral because it allows different groups to apply their own labels, but could hurt the Internet's diversity by requiring everything to be rated. Small, unrated sites would be lost. Moreover, these technologies enable what might be called total filtering, where objectionable speech of any type can be screened out effortlessly. Benign as this may seem, such filtering might be used not just by individuals but by employers, Internet service providers and foreign governments seeking to restrict information that others receive. The ground rules for an open society could also be undermined. When total filtering meets information overload, individuals can (and will) screen out undesired interactions, including those crucial to a vibrant political culture -- the on-line equivalents of a civil rights protest or a petition for a reform candidate. In such a filtered society, civil discourse and common understanding will suffer. This should lead us to think long and hard about the way that technology can be an even more cunning censor than law. That's not to say that Government solutions are problem-free or desirable. But at least when the state goes overboard, speech defenders have the safety valve of a First Amendment lawsuit. This legal recourse is not an option when politicians simply persuade industry and consumers to use speech-inhibiting tools. Who knows, free-speech advocates may find themselves nostalgic for public regulation after all. Andrew L. Shapiro is a fellow at Harvard Law School's Center for no the Internet and Society and at the Twentieth Century Fund. From declan at well.com Thu Dec 4 08:22:10 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 00:22:10 +0800 Subject: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 11:02 -0500 12/4/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Check out the last paragraph of Andrew's op-ed: it's Larry >Lessig's argument, though conveniently unattributed. Let me retract this particular statement. I'm told that Lessig was properly cited then edited out late last night. -Declan From CallNow at 1-940-383-1233 Fri Dec 5 01:05:19 1997 From: CallNow at 1-940-383-1233 (CallNow at 1-940-383-1233) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:05:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: - POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER - Message-ID: <80418673_61901004> **************************** THE MOST POWERFUL HOME BASED MONEY MAKER IN THE WORLD! *$10,000 Plus Per Month Possible With Little Or No Effort! *The Only True Money Back Guarantee! *Complete Turnkey System Does All Of �The Work For You! *Phenomenal Product! *Anyone Can Succeed Immediately! *Powerful Monthly Residual! *No Selling - No Recruiting *No talking To Anyone *No Presentation To Learn *No Meetings To Attend *No People To Manage *No Product Inventory *No Response HeadAches Never Worry About Money Again!!! Takes 2 Minutes To Find Out How!!! Call Now!!! TOLL FREE 1-888-248-1794 or (888) 693-5490 FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 Please have a pen handy when making this call FOD 703-736-1600 Document 825 NEW: Customer Service Department (To Answer All of Your Questions!) (940) 383-1233 Hours - 9am to 9pm "CST" Monday thru Friday - Sat - 9am to 5pm �-- Sun-- 12pm to 6pm "CST" P.S.hold on to this email. You'll need this control number. GI0927EM control number Dear Friend for the past 2 years, I've put countless hours into numerous business ventures and MLM. Yet I have never achieved true success. Then I found a program, where anyone can succeed immed- iately and put profit in their pocket almost overnight! This gets better and better every day! During my short tenure with this company, I received a profit check of $4579.83 after my second month. I didn't have to worry about the headaches of sponsoring of people. I signed the application and immediatedly, the company went to work for me. Prosperous regards, Leon S. Gillis CONTROL NUMBER: GI0927EM From tm at dev.null Thu Dec 4 09:05:54 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:05:54 +0800 Subject: The Revolution is NOW ! / Free Bill Gates ! / Philly 'White Shoes' Zimmermann In-Reply-To: <199712022156.NAA24800@netcom13.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3486DF32.12FF@dev.null> Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > there's a simple solution to anyone who doesn't > like the so-called "mandatory voluntary" rating systems. > > START YOUR OWN!! BladderMirror is right in suggesting that there is a genuine perceived need/market for censorware, and that those upset with the prospect of having an m-v rating system shoved down their throat could probably pick up some serious cash by writing a technologically beneficial and usable censorware product. Doing so might well delay the steady Forced Electronic March To Battan, by providing proponenets of censorship less ammo for their show-and-tell horror shows to people who already agree with them, but who need to be worked into a proper frenzy in order to feel justified forcing fascist legislation on their friends and neighbors. The danger, of course, in descending into the Belly of the Beast in order to grab a few of the gold coins from the government and corporate feeding troughs, is that there always seems to increasing numbers of coins just a little further down the decreasingly lighted passageway. As well, one finds oneself being accompanied by more and more fellow travellers who are trying to convince themself that there is both physical and moral safety in numbers, until they end up freefalling in the bottomless pit, convinced that they have the Great Beast on the run. > anyone is free to create software that filters whatever > sites they deem appropriate, to use whatever algorithms > they think are legitimate. I heard two shots I'm So Vlad, but only one seems to have hit the target. Is the other bullet in your foot? Anyone pointing out our 'freedom' to "use" whatever we "deem appropriate" for our purpose should probably avoid using the word "algorithms" in the same sentence, lest they encounter return fire aimed toward the EAR. > there is a legitimate market for filtering software, and > it is growing. who is to say what software can be run on > someone else's computer? who is to tell parents they shouldn't > use a filtering package for their own children? > > filtering software can be as simple or complex > as we wish. ultimately end users are voting with their money. I'm Vlad I'm Vlad I'm Vlad may well be the World's Most Dangerous CypherPunk. The question is, "A danger to who?" There is a legitimate market for "Hit Man" instruction manuals, and it is growing. Who is to say what words can be printed on someone else's paper? Who is to tell people they shouldn't use a 'filtering package' on their enemies? The sticky point is that the majority of 'freedom advocates' are only advocating a 'one-way' freedom--Freedom To Believe As I Do! End users are only allowed to use their money to vote for available and/or approved products, and their 'vote' is often no more meaningful than those of the people in South America who elected a 'foot powder' to office because of a political-spoof billboard advertising campaign for the product. > the froth over the rating systems seems to me mostly > overblown. I do agree however that they should not be > made mandatory based on the law. > > the free market is solving the problem. we have ratings > agencies and people (such as GLAAD) who rate the rating > agencies. I don't see anything worth hyperventilating about. Vladder You Than Me is invariably right in most of what he has to say. The problem is that those taking a polar-opposite view are also usually right about what _they_ say. The Lake of Life is indeed turning over at a faster and faster rate, and the lines between 'random acts of violence' and 'random acts of kindness' are becoming increasingly blurred. The same seems to be increasingly true for 'random acts of logic' and 'random acts of lunacy.' After spending several seconds engaged in deep thought about the fact that 'It's All Done With Mirrors' and 'Everything You Know Is Wrong', I have reached the conclusion that 'It Is What It Is' and that, regardless of what role we have taken upon ourselves to play upon this mortal plane, 'It's The Only Dance There Is.' (Hey! Maybe _I'm_ John Young!) I woke up this morning contemplating whether or not it is now true that Phil Zimmermann is the Enemy (TM) and Bad BillyG is now my Best Friend In The Whole World (TM). The bottom line, as far as I am concerned (although I have a deep- rooted fear of sounding like our recent "Why can't we just all get along?" Anonymous Goody-Two-Shoes), is that I hope that both Billy and Philly remember that "We're here for a good time, not a long time. So have a good time...the sun doesn't shine every day." I carry on my person, at all times, a list of whom I think the world would be better off without, in case I happen to get a chance to put a bullet between their eyes, or slowly strangle them to death until the life force has been drained from their sorry carcass and they are now in the proper mood for sex. I do, however, try to keep in mind that whatever the Psychic Mind Controllers tell us is good to eat will eventually be relabelled as poisonous, and vice versa. Thus I prefer not to carry heavy artillery with me at all times, knowing that the more lengthy process of strangulation will give me time to sift through my mind to separate dreams from reality, giving me a chance to reevaluate my actions and quite possibly leave the target of my insanity with merely a stern reminder that a certain percentage of the people one pisses off in life will be psychotic sociopaths. After taking a quick peek at the Subject: header of this missive, I assume that the point of this rambling soliloquy is that it has been true, throughout history, that "The Revolution is NOW!" That has long been the title of the Lists that I compose, using the 'old' Crayola colors, as Mr. Chainsaw spins eternally in the background, whispering to me that I may be all that stands between the mass of humanity and the Great Evil that seeks to destroy us. And (admit it...) the same is true of yourself. The revolution is *always* NOW, for each and every one of us. If today's one-and-only choice is between BillyG and LouieFreeh, then, risking the wrath of Attila T. Hun, I must declare that Bad BillyG is, indeed, my Best Friend In The Whole World (TM). Why? Because I believe that Linux versus WinDolt gives us better odds in the coming battles than Guns versus Nukes. And I believe that I have a better chance of survival to fight another day if I am firing warning shots over Micro$haft's head rather than over the heads of the the Great Beast whose lair is in DC. I try to judge BillyG and PhillyZ with the same standards that I use to make my personal judgements regarding Declan. I consider Declan to be a tried and true ally who has made it his mission in life to descend into the Belly of the Beast and report back to us where the 'soft targets' are, and warn us of the 'fools gold' that is being used to lure us all down a road that leads to the bottomless trough. I would be sad to have to put an end to his life if he someday returns from his descent with glazed eyes, blathering, "GAK is Good!" Bad BillyG has managed to become the richest and one of the most powerful people in the world while committing only minor atrocities while providing vast, if futurally questionable, benefits for humanity. I have no fondness for BillyG for knocking some of my computer industry friends on their ass while going for the big score, but neither do I have a fondness for my hockey opponents when they knock my teamates on their butt while I am watching from the players bench. Good PhillyZ, after having done an enormous amount of good in the arena of privacy and encryption, is now in a position of having to peek into the mouth of the Great Beast, in order to spread strong crypto into the area where the great mass of humanity resides. If he deems it useful or necessary to descend into the Belly of the Beast in order to work toward the spread of strong, privacy-enabling encryption, I do not plan to abandon him too readily and begin viewing him as the Enemy. At the same time, I reserve the right to make my own personal decision as to when it becomes necessary to put my friends or enemies out of 'my' misery, because the Revolution is NOW! Heaven and Earth are impartial; They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs. The wise are impartial; They see the people as straw dogs. It is too late in the game to waste time defending old definitions which no longer apply. The future is in motion, and there will be a great cost associated with not moving with it. Caesars throughout history have shown us that there is a thin line which separates allies, strange bedfellow, and enemies--and the line is constantly moving. We are fast approaching Instant Karma. The future is now. The Revolution is NOW! TruthMonger From ashapiro at interport.net Thu Dec 4 09:07:07 1997 From: ashapiro at interport.net (Andrew Shapiro) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:07:07 +0800 Subject: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19971204120003.2ff7b144@pop.interport.net> Hold your horses, folks. At 11:02 AM 12/4/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Check out the last paragraph of Andrew's op-ed: it's Larry >Lessig's argument, though conveniently unattributed. For space reasons, the Times cut my attribution to Larry (as he knows and will tell you). The piece was 700 words at 7:00 pm yesterday, 425 words at 7:15. Believe me, I was sorry not to be able to credit my friend, colleague, and former teacher. And incidentally, it was the third-to-last graph, not the last (is this kind of looseness with the facts a coincidence?). >Of course Andrew neglects to say that the CDA was not just >civil regulation like many FCC rules: it, and its >successor, are criminal laws Hello? in graph 2: "Communications Decency Act, the law *criminalizing* on-line indecency..." >He also neglects to say that the reason PICS was created is >pressure from the Feds. You're wrong or overstating the case. PICS began as an effort -- rightly enough -- to *respond to* and/or *stave off* laws like the CDA. But did the Feds "pressure" anyone to come up with PICS? No. I just double-checked with someone linked to PICS's founding, who told me: "Nobody in the federal government ever came to the 3WC and told them to create PICS." And even if the Feds had "pressured" someone to do so, that wouldn't in anyway justify its speech-inhibiting design features. Now, as to whether politicians are pressuring industry to *use* PICS and other total filtering schemes, that's another question. >Try as hard as they may, not even RSACi can throw you in >jail That's irrelevant, Declan. Day-to-day, speech can be inhibited as much by technology as by law. In fact, you're the one who's shown us that so well with your countless posts about the dangers of censorware. >If the market VOLUNTARILY comes up with a rating system, I >don't know how you can say that's worse than government >censorship and possible jail time. That's not what I said. I'm not in favor of censorship and I oppose any attempt to *criminalize* 'indecent' speech. But criminalize does not = regulate. >children do >not have a of Constitutional right to have >censorware-free computers. Really! I seem to recall *you* making the argument that kids have first amendment rights to access any information, particularly in public facilities like libraries. The 17 1/2 year old college freshman perhaps? Did you change you mind? -- Andrew >============== > >Opinion: The Danger of Private Cybercops > >By ANDREW L. SHAPIRO > > >At a conference this week on protecting children from the >perils of the Internet, consensus emerged on a strategy to >keep minors away from cyberporn: let the private sector >handle it. Rather than relying on Government regulation, >Vice President Al Gore said, parents should look to >industry for tools that will let them filter Internet >content. > >Civil libertarians are largely responsible for the success >of this approach. Indeed, they convinced the Supreme Court >that it would do less harm to free speech than the >Communications Decency Act, the law criminalizing on-line >indecency, which the Court struck down in June. > >Yet those advocates may now regret what they wished for, >because some of their schemes seem to imperil free speech >more than the act did. > >For example, software that users install to block out >certain Internet content often excludes material that isn't >indecent. One such program, Cybersitter, prevents users >from visiting the site of the National Organization for >Women. And the makers of these programs often won't even >tell adults what sites have been blacklisted. > >Still worse is a protocol known as PICS that changes the >Internet's architecture to make it easy to rate and filter >content. PICS is theoretically neutral because it allows >different groups to apply their own labels, but could hurt >the Internet's diversity by requiring everything to be >rated. Small, unrated sites would be lost. > >Moreover, these technologies enable what might be called >total filtering, where objectionable speech of any type can >be screened out effortlessly. Benign as this may seem, such >filtering might be used not just by individuals but by >employers, Internet service providers and foreign >governments seeking to restrict information that others >receive. > >The ground rules for an open society could also be >undermined. When total filtering meets information >overload, individuals can (and will) screen out undesired >interactions, including those crucial to a vibrant >political culture -- the on-line equivalents of a civil >rights protest or a petition for a reform candidate. In >such a filtered society, civil discourse and common >understanding will suffer. > >This should lead us to think long and hard about the way >that technology can be an even more cunning censor than >law. That's not to say that Government solutions are >problem-free or desirable. But at least when the state goes >overboard, speech defenders have the safety valve of a >First Amendment lawsuit. This legal recourse is not an >option when politicians simply persuade industry and >consumers to use speech-inhibiting tools. Who knows, >free-speech advocates may find themselves nostalgic for >public regulation after all. > >Andrew L. Shapiro is a fellow at Harvard Law School's >Center for the Internet and Society and at the Twentieth >Century Fund. > > > > From tm at dev.null Thu Dec 4 09:50:42 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:50:42 +0800 Subject: Kudos to 'my other brother' BillyG / Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712040507.AAA26160@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: <3486E376.67FB@dev.null> Killer post! We are all in constant danger of convincing ourself that 'we' are a "kindler, gentler Nazi." Personally, I have always been of the opinion that the Pacifist movement would be more effective if they owned more weapons. TruthMonger William H. Geiger III wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > In <3486262E.C70FF40 at cptech.org>, on 12/03/97 > at 10:40 PM, James Love said: > > >Now, if one sees the burning issue of the day the fight to rid the world > >of government as we know it, maybe right left labels make sense. By > >defining both the left and the right as groups who advocate increasing > >government control over private actions, you describe what seems most > >important to you. I found this characterization of "leftists" as shallow > >as Declan's, however. > > There is no difference between the "left" and the "right" in Amerika > politics other than which tit on the federal sow they wish to suck on and > which "buzz" words they use in their FUD campaigns to hurd the sheeple in > support of their cause celebre. > > The one unifying principle of these "leaders" is the acquisition of power > and the using of the Federal Government to get it. It doesn't matter if > it's a Tree Hugging Communist like Ralf Naider or a Religious Nut like Pat > Robertson. Their agendas are the same, their modus operandi are the same, > and their results are the same: They get more power, the feds get more > power, and the "people" get fucked once again. > > - -- > - --------------------------------------------------------------- > William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii > Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 > > Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice > PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. > OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html > - --------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 > Charset: cp850 > Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 > > iQCVAwUBNIY6VY9Co1n+aLhhAQI+0QQAnTzvENP9MvRSa3x1OZ3tFmlUeSO7VQtB > 1SBcXQ2ciOg2GLJqBI7zjSrpEiIHX4dLgZVavLin9JxHlclvV7QFNl+iTnrROV4C > cveCoBtL/EsaEI9wwuUYMMf7kkodhkaVdksILq8xF+Twgl541J8sXWoFMk4Jt6gc > ZzZexYD/R50= > =b0oD > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tm at dev.null Thu Dec 4 09:52:48 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:52:48 +0800 Subject: Man-in-the-Middle Chicken Attacks In-Reply-To: <199712040815.AAA15152@jimmy.djc.com> Message-ID: <3486E66B.5950@dev.null> sampler-request at lmboyd.com wrote: > ====================================================== > At night, if you want to see the chicken without the > chicken seeing you, use a red light. > ============================================== > LMBoyd Web Site / U. S. Newspapers / Start Email / Stop Email > http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm From declan at well.com Thu Dec 4 10:01:27 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:01:27 +0800 Subject: Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime? Message-ID: Friday Noon. MONEY LAUNDERING - The Cato Institute holds a policy forum, "Should Money Laundering Be a Crime," with Lawrence Lindsey, AEI and former governor, Federal Reserve; Stephen Kroll, Treasury Department, and Richard Rahn, president, Novecon Corp. Location: Cato Institute, F.A. Hayek Auditorium, 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW. Contact: RSVP, James Markels, 202-789-5256. From schear at lvdi.net Thu Dec 4 10:04:51 1997 From: schear at lvdi.net (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:04:51 +0800 Subject: Borders books, was Re: In-Reply-To: <199712040732.XAA14714@sirius.infonex.com> Message-ID: At 11:32 PM -0800 12/3/1997, Mix wrote: >www.borders.com: "Borders is opening new stores almost >every week. If there's not one near you now, there will >be soon." > >This is depressing. Something has to be done about >"free"-market capitalism. It is as destructive as >government, and built on the same lies. Fortunately, this gives a significant price advantage to Web-based book stores, like Amazon.com, who can sell w/o adding state/local taxes. In fact Amazon has sued Barns & Nobel for, I believe, unfair competition claiming they were not adding these taxes to their on-line book orders. No doubt the major book sellers wishing to enter on-line sales will be looking for ways to avoid having to tax and the state attorneys general will be looking closely into enforcing their state sales and use taxes. --Steve From jim.burnes at ssds.com Thu Dec 4 10:05:47 1997 From: jim.burnes at ssds.com (Jim Burnes) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:05:47 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting testicle) In-Reply-To: <34861C6C.67C@dev.null> Message-ID: someone masquerading as truthmonger wrote: > > LISTEN UP!!! (I'LL TYPE SLOWLY...) > Faster horses, older whiskey, younger women, more money. > > Democracy is a political system designed to put Fascism in the > hands of the people. > Fascism is a political system designed to take Democracy out of > the hands of the people and into the hands of the Machine. etc > > NEWS FLASH!!! > Whether you are forced to 'do right' or forced to 'do no wrong' > will depend on whether the 'leftists' or the 'rightists' have the > most money and guns. > > NEWS FLASH ADDENDUM!!! > Those seeking to 'save' you are likely to afflict as much damage > to your rights and freedoms as those seeking to 'oppress' you. > > NOTE TO BOY SCOUTS!!! > If an old lady doesn't want to cross the street, that is an act > of 'passive aggression' and you have a right to use as much force > as necessary to get her across the street. > > Is there a difference in the degree of 'dead' between a person > shot by a left-hander and one shot by a right-hander? > Do you have a preference for having an individual, a government > or a corporation as your dictator/oppressor? > Is it of great concern to you to be allowed to 'vote' as to > which person gives you an unneeded prostrate exam? > Truthmonger: you wouldn't happen to be a member of the subgenious would you? if so, say hi to rev. ivan stang.... jim From declan at well.com Thu Dec 4 10:06:04 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:06:04 +0800 Subject: Janet Reno warns of "lawlessness on the Internet" Message-ID: >From U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's weekly press conference, held this morning at the Department of Justice. She's speaking about an upcoming meeting of the G-7 nations and Russia: At this meeting we will be discussing ways in which our countries can work together to better identify and locate cybercriminals. Automation, computers, the Internet have now made boundaries, in many instances, meaningless. As I have said on a number of occasions at this table, a man can sit at a computer in Europe and steal from a bank in the United States. Someone in Germany can get a list of credit card numbers here and try to extort people for money on the threat of using these credit cards. I think it is imperative that we develop practices, procedures, and laws that will enable these countries - and indeed other countries throughout the world - to work together to focus on criminals who are exploiting the new technologies that so many of us are relying on. The solution is working together as nations. Our law enforcement agencies must learn to work together more closely on these issues and more quickly than ever before, since a split-second response can help catch a hacker while he is still online. The fight against lawlessness on the Internet will be one of the greatest law enforcement challenges of the next century. By working on agreements to help meet that challenge, we won't be left fighting 21st century threats with 20th century solutions. I think it is going to be incumbent upon us all to develop the expertise on the part of law enforcement, both at the federal and state level, to make sure that we know who our counterparts are around the world and that we come together on this issue. I guess this is the Department of Justice's response to "cryptoanarchy." -Declan From schear at lvdi.net Thu Dec 4 10:08:10 1997 From: schear at lvdi.net (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:08:10 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 5:16 AM +0100 12/4/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote: >> >> Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the >> digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a >> court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter >> how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently >> redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left >> decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. > >They have lost their mind. Since humans are notoriously bad at performing >decryptions in their head in real time, whatever is sent to the display >*must* be cleartext. Any competent programmer can grab it at that point. Undoubetedly there will be attempts to create display chips with built-in decryption and special display and/or raster/vectorizing approaches which are comfortably viewed but are difficult to snap shot using "screen shooters" or simple capture hardware. With the new USB and FireWire interface standards this isn't too far fetched. All, as you say probably doomed to failure. --Steve From GreatTunes2 at ar.net Fri Dec 5 02:08:18 1997 From: GreatTunes2 at ar.net (GreatTunes2 at ar.net) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:08:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: A great Christmas gift for less than $20. Message-ID: <19971205332VAA45009@post.211.3.7> (This is a one-time mailing. Removal request not necessary.) If you're looking for a really great gift for the holidays... we promise you'll like this! VelvetVista Recordings is proud to announce the new album from top L.A. piano-man: Jim Wilson with guest performances by over a dozen of L.A.'s and London's top session players and a world-renowned recording artist/ sax player. To check out the CD cover and get more info, visit our website: http://www.imagedepot.com/velvetvista Northern Seascape is a gorgeous collection of 11 piano-featured instrumentals that will take you on an emotional journey from the Irish shores of the North Atlantic to a swirling snowfall in the Sierras. Bittersweet, joyful, romantic, poignant -- this audiophile-quality CD fuses folk, Celtic, pop, and classical influences into a unique melodic style that you will lead you places you�ll want to revisit again and again. The response to this CD has been incredible. To help us get your copies to you in time for the holidays, please order today. We absolutely assure your satisfaction and offer a money-back, no-questions-asked guarantee. ******************************************************* TO ORDER: Mail order form information below along with check, money-order or credit card info to: VelvetVista Recordings 5152 Sepulveda Blvd, ste.123, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Please allow approximately 3 weeks for delivery. OR for faster service: Fax or e-mail order form information with credit card info to: Fax: (818) 789-1211 email: velvetvista at imagedepot.com (e-mail orders: please write "Northern Order" in subject box) ******************************************************************** ORDER FORM: The CD's list for $16.95, but for this special holiday offer, we are extending the following prices: ****CD'S*****$14.85 (for the first CD)__________________ $13.75 for subsequent CD's____________ ***CASSETTES***$11.85 for the first cassette___________ $9.85 for subsequent cassettes________________ Please include $2.95 shipping & handling________________ CA residents add 8.25% tax__________________________ TOTAL______________ Name:________________________________________ Address________________________________________ City___________________ State________ Zip______ Phone________________________________________ (Master Card, Visa, American Express or Discover Card) Card Number:___________________________________ Exp. Date:______________________________________ Cardholder's Name:______________________________ Cardholder's Signature:__________________________ *************************************************************** Thank you and Happy Holidays!! c From tm at dev.null Thu Dec 4 10:21:52 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:21:52 +0800 Subject: Blanc for Presidentess ! / Re: Transcript of Gore's remarks at "Censorware Summit" In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19971203205653.00699b08@cnw.com> Message-ID: <3486F195.281D@dev.null> Blanc wrote: > I just had an incorrect thought that I've decided to share with everyone: > > The reason Al Gore (and the others) are focusing on helping All the Little > Children, is that this is the only group they can offer assistance to in > the U.S. who would accept it. > > Everyone else is stocking up on guns & ammo, waiting for The Big One. > .. > Blanc Blanc is one of those rare creatures who has the ability to rock the boat with a small volume of words which nonetheless carry a great amount of weight. TotoMonger From declan at well.com Thu Dec 4 10:24:48 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:24:48 +0800 Subject: The Revolution is NOW ! / Free Bill Gates ! / Philly 'WhiteShoes' Zimmermann In-Reply-To: <199712022156.NAA24800@netcom13.netcom.com> Message-ID: Problem is, I work about three blocks from Ground Zero. All this talk of soft targets makes me nervous, you know. BTW, I'm going to check on the Secret Service Christmas tree ornaments and how much they cost. I'll post later on today if our office manager tells me they're still available. (The U.S.S.S. is on the top floor of my building and they give us a deal.) -Declan At 10:49 -0600 12/4/97, TruthMonger wrote: > I try to judge BillyG and PhillyZ with the same standards that >I use to make my personal judgements regarding Declan. > I consider Declan to be a tried and true ally who has made it >his mission in life to descend into the Belly of the Beast and >report back to us where the 'soft targets' are, and warn us of >the 'fools gold' that is being used to lure us all down a road >that leads to the bottomless trough. I would be sad to have to >put an end to his life if he someday returns from his descent >with glazed eyes, blathering, "GAK is Good!" From honig at otc.net Thu Dec 4 10:44:29 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:44:29 +0800 Subject: blowback Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971204101403.0083e790@206.40.207.40> The Fed made up UFO stories to cover military flights. Later on, morons who believe this end up breaking into Feds computers looking for evidence. Ah, irony. Blowback is what Intelligence calls it when, e.g., soldiers you trained and armed to repel your mutual enemy do so, then turn on you. >> > More Naked Gun than Top Gun >> > >> > THE THREE year long case of the world's most notorious >> > "information warfare" attack on US government computer systems >> > collapsed last Friday. On a grey morning in a south London >> > court, a 23-year-old computer programmer from Cardiff walked >> > free as crown prosecutors told the judge it wasn't worth the >> > cost of trying to hold his trial. They acknowledged that he had >> > posed no threat to security. >> > >> > But Matthew Bevan, who was obsessed with the X-Files and the >> > search for alien spacecraft, and his 16-year-old accomplice, >> > Richard Pryce, had achieved a notoriety out of all proportion >> > to their actions. They were "Kuji" and "Datastream Cowboy" - >> > hackers whose haphazard penetration of US Air Force and defense >> > contractors' computers have been portrayed since 1994 as the >> > work of foreign agents and the greatest electronic danger yet >> > to hit the US Air Force on its home turf. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From honig at otc.net Thu Dec 4 11:06:51 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:06:51 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712041305.IAA30177@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971204103846.0084a490@206.40.207.40> At 08:16 AM 12/4/97 -0500, tom wrote: >> >> Nothing inconsistent with being a Libertarian and anti Murder. Was this capital punishment or abortion or animal rights? Wish the left/right PR people would keep their damn terms separate... :-) ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From tm at dev.null Thu Dec 4 11:30:16 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:30:16 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting testicle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3486F4A0.3FFE@dev.null> Jim Burnes wrote: > Truthmonger: > > you wouldn't happen to be a member of the subgenious > would you? if so, say hi to rev. ivan stang.... jim, I am a high-priestess in the Church of the SubWoofer. TotoMonger From honig at otc.net Thu Dec 4 11:30:41 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:30:41 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712041316.IAA18769@Empire.Net> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971204105615.00853870@206.40.207.40> At 07:53 AM 12/4/97 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote: >Who knows maybe the pro-choice crowd *does* approve of a doctor taking a >big pair of pliers, crushing the skull then ripping the arms and legs off >a 6mo old then pulling out the shop vac to clean up the mess? Yes, if that's what the pros think is the appropriate method when a person decides to off their fetus. The sun supplies 1 Kwtt/m^2, peak. How many people can you feed on that before you get a war/famine/plague? Perhaps you prefer adult war to infanticide. A matter of taste. Cultures that really have to deal with this, unlike your own (for now), generally choose infanticide. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Dec 4 11:38:51 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:38:51 +0800 Subject: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971203091239.007e4410@206.40.207.40> Message-ID: David Honig writes: > At 07:53 AM 12/3/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >Bill Stewart writes: > > > >> The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel > >> at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, > >> and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people > >> keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, > >> and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers > >> first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... > > > >Yes, this is one of the problems. Earlier this year pedophile Chris Lewis > >from Northern Telecom forged a bunch of spam e-mail to look like it came > >from dm.com (my domain). I got about 500 obnoxious e-mails, which I > >semi-automatically responded to, and had a rather unpleasant conversation > >with the assholes at my upstrea (PSI): "If you prove that this e-mail didn't > >originate at your site, you will not be held responsible". > > If you could find a competant jury you would be able to show breach of > contract > had they done anything, because they should know better than to believe > forgeries. > Admittedly this is a major hassle you should not have to endure. I suspect that if the assholes at PSI pulled my plug and I sued them for breach of contract, the case would never get to the jury. A judge would toss it. You see, I'm an ISP. Most ISP's contracts with their backbones say explicitly that the backbone can pull the plug any time it wants to for no reason and with no warning. There are very few backbones and they all talk to each other and basically have a cartel. it's not like if you don't like PSI's standard ISP contract, you can go to Sprint and get a better one; they're a cartel with very little competition. Indeed, it's highly unusual even to have a language requiring the backbone to give a notice before pulling your plug. I might have a good cause of action against Chris Lewis, but the asshole is in Canada. (I found out the forger's home address. I hope someone blows his fucking brains out, for he surely deserves to die.) In what court would I sue him (for interfering with my contractual relations with PSI)? If you're an individual user and check your contract with your ISP, you'll likely see that the ISP too can pull your plug any time it feels like it for no reason, and doesn't even have to turn over to you your files, e-mail, etc. If a forger (like Chris Lewis) forges something objectionable in a user's name and the ISP has to spend a lot of time responding to the complaints, it's not unusual for the ISP to get rid of the controversial user even though the user hasn't posted the traffic that's causing the complaints. If there was more competition in the field, the ISP would have to demonstrate abuse by the user to pull the user's plug. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From rah at shipwright.com Thu Dec 4 11:39:16 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:39:16 +0800 Subject: Fear of a Random Planet... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 1:25 am -0500 on 12/4/97, Anonymous wrote: > Remember, 'Export a Cryptographer, Go to Jail!' Damn. There goes FC98. :-). Oh well, at least the Coyotes on the Mexican border won't have to deadhead the return trip... Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: From tm at dev.null Thu Dec 4 11:42:34 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:42:34 +0800 Subject: Janet Reno warns of "lawlessness on the Internet" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3486FEB4.596C@dev.null> Declan McCullagh wrote: > >From U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's weekly press conference, held this > morning at the Department of Justice. She's speaking about an upcoming > meeting of the G-7 nations and Russia: Summary: International Law Enforcement. New World Order. International Law Enforcement. New World Order. International Law Enforcement... > At this meeting we will be discussing ways in which our > countries can work together to better identify and locate > cybercriminals. ... > The > solution is working together as nations. Our law > enforcement agencies must learn to work together more > closely on these issues and more quickly than ever > before > I think it is going to be > incumbent upon us all to develop the expertise on the > part of law enforcement, both at the federal and state > level, to make sure that we know who our counterparts are > around the world and that we come together on this issue. Declan adds: > I guess this is the Department of Justice's response to "cryptoanarchy." How many people have recognized the Big Lie increasingly being spread by the self-proclaimed guardians of the future of all humanity? What happens if the InterNet disappears from the face of the earth, tomorrow? Not a whole helluva lot. It would be a loss, but in no way a major disaster for all mankind. The InterNet is the Falklands. There is really no need to mount a huge armed force to travel halfway around the world and 'put things straight' unless this-or-that perceived authority deems it to be necessary/in the national interest/a good idea/profitable/etc. Ask yourself this..."If the InterNet is such a highly important, as well as highly vulnerable, infrastructure--of momentous value to our military and economic well-being--then why on earth did our government announce that it was of major importance for every man, woman, and child, sane and insane, to have access to it?" "It is a matter of national urgency that every citizen should tour the Pentagon, as soon as possible. Of course, in the interests of national security, it will be necessary to give everyone who does so a digital implant." "We have adopted a policy of allowing your children to play in our missle silos, but we will have to imprison them if they play with the buttons." > Automation, computers, the Internet have now made > boundaries, in many instances, meaningless. Those in power recognize this, and they also recognize the need to recreate and/or redefine it as a valuable treasure in need of defending from the Great Enemy. This time around the Karmic Circle, however, the Great Enemy is everyone on the face of the earth. Isn't there a Chinese curse which says, "May you live in interesting times."? TruthMonger From nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 11:48:33 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:48:33 +0800 Subject: Anonymous Threads Message-ID: <199712041936.UAA02317@basement.replay.com> Something that I have found irritating about the posts by non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be repudiated, or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster. I compared this to sound bites. On second thought, however, there is an easy way to solve this. If the anonymous poster accepts the context of previous messages, the discussion can continue. There's no reason why the person behind the virtual thread has to be the same, but the context itself is important if we want to have interesting discussions. So, if you don't want to sign your messages, just acknowledge the message ID of the relevant previous messages whose context you wish to use. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Anonymous Threads To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 12:10:34 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 04:10:34 +0800 Subject: words have value, for good or ill Message-ID: <199712041959.UAA04934@basement.replay.com> Zooko Journeyman wrote: >Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of >thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that >the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. >Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the >cash token. :-) ) It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic. In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the discussion. Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works. Strictly speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is meant over here. (1) The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has been writing. To keep things simple, let's consider the statement "McVeigh did the right thing." It is not a contract. It is not a threat. It is not copyrighted. It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list. I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this thought. So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it immoral to express it? It's hard for me to see how. If the belief is correct, then other people certainly will benefit from hearing it. If the belief is not correct, then other people may be able to enlighten you. In either case, it is preferable that the belief be expressed. >> What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should >> refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world >> because they are immoral. > >I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the >meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it >should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks >discourse. I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. My dictionary defines "eradicate" in two ways: 1. to destroy utterly 2. to erase or remove I don't believe the meme should be "destroyed" and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the means that would be required to do this. Nor do I see it as desirable to erase or remove posts which have already been made, if it were even possible. If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't read their messages. If you don't want to see a particular idea, perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail queue that contain it. If you don't like other people hearing certain ideas, I recommend you get used to it. (1) It is interesting to consider a world in which these exceptions are not made. If there were no coercive enforcement mechanisms for contracts, then this exception would not have to exist. The idea of doing business solely on the basis of reputation is not only fascinating, but not very unlike much of the world today. There are two ways in which threats can be no ops. One is if the person being threatened is just a public key whose identity is simply unknown. A threat in that case is irrelevant. The second is if the person being threatened can adequately protect him or herself in which case the threat is dangerous to the threatener. And "intellectual property" is somewhat peculiar and implies a centralized enforcement mechanism. If we are to have "intellectual property" in a worldwide networked environment, it implies a de facto world government. The alternative may be preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 12:13:13 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 04:13:13 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199712041959.UAA04937@basement.replay.com> Does anyone know of any banks that provide full internet banking services outside of the USA's banking regulations? From jon at lasser.org Thu Dec 4 12:16:45 1997 From: jon at lasser.org (J. Lasser) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 04:16:45 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19971204150228.29343@gwyn.tux.org> In the wise words of William H. Geiger III: > As I stated in my previous post the Nolan chart is flawed. In it's > attempts to be "two-dimensional" it artificially separates interdependent > philosophies. Economic Freedom = Personal Freedom. You can not have one > without the other. The major failings of the socialist is their > unwillingness to accept this fact. A free society can not survive under a > socialist regime any more that a totalitarian society can survive under a > capitalist one. I think the Nolan chart is flawed because the questions are all worded in a leading manner, personally. And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly less free, too. The fact of the matter seems to me to be that most people are perfectly satisfied to be passive consumers. While they like to be free, that means free to make purchasing decisions. They also like to be safe, and if they have to lose civil liberties to be safe, then they're all for it. Just so long as they can buy what they want. That seems to me to describe the essence of the Singapore problem, and I'd bet it holds true for the U.S. (and many other places) as well. And, regardless of whether the two are actually separate, the Nolan chart is intended to measure peoples' _beliefs_ and _feelings_ about economic and political freedom. And those, as this discussion proves, are clearly separate. Jon -- Jon Lasser (410)383-7962 jon at lasser.org http://www.tux.org/~lasser/ PGP=2047/0x4CDD6451 "Flap your ears, Dumbo! The feather was only a trick!" From nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 12:18:07 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 04:18:07 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199712041946.UAA03571@basement.replay.com> Does anyone know of any banks that provide full internet banking services outside of the USA's banking regulations? From nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 12:55:47 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 04:55:47 +0800 Subject: Christmas Ornaments Message-ID: <199712042039.VAA10062@basement.replay.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: >BTW, I'm going to check on the Secret Service Christmas tree >ornaments and how much they cost. I'll post later on today if our >office manager tells me they're still available. (The U.S.S.S. is on >the top floor of my building and they give us a deal.) -----BEGIN CHEAP SHOT----- Hey, Declan, do they have any yellow stars? I understand we'll all be wearing them soon and I want to beat the rush. -----END CHEAP SHOT----- Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Christmas Ornaments To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom jim.burnes at ssds.com Thu Dec 4 13:20:52 1997 From: jim.burnes at ssds.com (Jim Burnes) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:20:52 +0800 Subject: Janet Reno warns of "lawlessness on the Internet" In-Reply-To: <3486FEB4.596C@dev.null> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, TruthMonger wrote: > > Ask yourself this..."If the InterNet is such a highly important, > as well as highly vulnerable, infrastructure--of momentous value > to our military and economic well-being--then why on earth did > our government announce that it was of major importance for every > man, woman, and child, sane and insane, to have access to it?" > Monger: Simply because everyone (ok..lots) on the planet are already using it. They belabor the obvious in order to build a constituincy. Replace internet with the word "air" and you have the same effect. "We must protect everyone from the abuse of the air you breath. Evil, profiteering businessman will ruin it. Terrorists and pedophiles will want to breath it too -- so you must let us evil, murdering government types dole out who breaths the air and what it will smell like." Be afraid. Be very afraid. (abbreviated BABVA (tm)) these true facts have been brought to you by: FUDmonger the letter 'F' and the number '666' From nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 13:35:37 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:35:37 +0800 Subject: A Question for Reporters Message-ID: <199712042112.WAA13533@basement.replay.com> Monty Cantsin wrote very sloppily: >Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Automation, computers, the Internet have now made boundaries, in many >>instances, meaningless. As I have said on a number of occasions at... That should have read: >Declan McCullagh quoted Janet Reno as saying: >>Automation, computers, the Internet have now made boundaries, in many >>instances, meaningless. As I have said on a number of occasions at... Sorry about that, Chief! Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: A Question for Reporters To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom pooh at efga.org Thu Dec 4 13:41:52 1997 From: pooh at efga.org (Robert A. Costner) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:41:52 +0800 Subject: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971203091239.007e4410@206.40.207.40> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971204161846.0391b08c@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> At 12:07 PM 12/4/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >I might have a good cause of action against Chris Lewis, but the asshole is >in Canada. (I found out the forger's home address. I hope someone blows his >fucking brains out, for he surely deserves to die.) In what court would I >sue him (for interfering with my contractual relations with PSI)? Just so you can quit whining... This topic was recently covered in a Spam seminar that was sponsored by EFGA. Based on the case of Jones vs. National Inquirer, you claim to have an action perpetrated against an individual (you) in your home state. You file in either federal or state court of your state. If, as in the recent Texas case brought by Flowers.com and TISPA against a spammer, the defendant does not show, there is a high likelihood that you will be awarded damages. There is a company in North Carolina that will collect the judgement out of Canada for you. In most matters where I have been involved with Chris Lewis, I have tended to side with Chris. Your question was such a simplistic one, that I though it deserved an answer. -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh at efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key From nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 13:46:37 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:46:37 +0800 Subject: A Question for Reporters Message-ID: <199712042128.WAA15498@basement.replay.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: >Automation, computers, the Internet have now made boundaries, in many >instances, meaningless. As I have said on a number of occasions at >this table, a man can sit at a computer in Europe and steal from a >bank in the United States. Someone in Germany can get a list of >credit card numbers here and try to extort people for money on the >threat of using these credit cards. > >I think it is imperative that we develop practices, procedures, and >laws that will enable these countries - and indeed other countries >throughout the world - to work together to focus on criminals who are >exploiting the new technologies that so many of us are relying >on. The solution is working together as nations. At the same time Janet Reno makes these proposals, the U.S. government, and this administration particularly, has done everything in its power to undermine the development and deployment of security enhancing technologies. Not only has the use of cryptography been greatly hampered, but TEMPEST equipment and knowledge is controlled, and there have even been proposals to control secure operating systems. Reno's statements and the administration's policies blatantly contradict each other. The very technologies which would solve the problem Reno raises are being discouraged at every opportunity by the administration she represents. My question is directed at Declan because he is handy, but any other reporters are invited to contribute. Why is this not reported accurately? Do you plan to write a story which explains to the American people how the administration is not telling the truth? If not, why not? Surely it is important for the American people to understand what their leaders say and do. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: A Question for Reporters To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom declan at well.com Thu Dec 4 13:48:09 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:48:09 +0800 Subject: Christmas Ornaments In-Reply-To: <199712042039.VAA10062@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: I should have ordered them last month with everyone else in the bureau; the order's been placed and the ornaments have been delivered already. *sigh* I might go up to the 10th floor myself and see if they have any left... -Declan At 21:39 +0100 12/4/97, Anonymous wrote: >Declan McCullagh wrote: >>BTW, I'm going to check on the Secret Service Christmas tree >>ornaments and how much they cost. I'll post later on today if our >>office manager tells me they're still available. (The U.S.S.S. is on >>the top floor of my building and they give us a deal.) > >-----BEGIN CHEAP SHOT----- > >Hey, Declan, do they have any yellow stars? I understand we'll all be >wearing them soon and I want to beat the rush. > From whgiii at invweb.net Thu Dec 4 13:54:04 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:54:04 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971204105615.00853870@206.40.207.40> Message-ID: <199712042134.QAA01917@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.5.32.19971204105615.00853870 at 206.40.207.40>, on 12/04/97 at 01:56 PM, David Honig said: >At 07:53 AM 12/4/97 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote: >>Who knows maybe the pro-choice crowd *does* approve of a doctor taking a >>big pair of pliers, crushing the skull then ripping the arms and legs off >>a 6mo old then pulling out the shop vac to clean up the mess? >Yes, if that's what the pros think is the appropriate method when a >person decides to off their fetus. >The sun supplies 1 Kwtt/m^2, peak. How many people can you feed on that >before >you get a war/famine/plague? Perhaps you prefer adult war to >infanticide. A matter of taste. >Cultures that really have to deal with this, unlike your own (for now), >generally choose infanticide. Only because the infants don't fight back. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIchv49Co1n+aLhhAQK/bAP9H+yxEXyuT359eW7rbHiJ0t/OZRc69HtC YUoxhDkjC3a8glWNHYicNkxkwF9HDmio9bPSt8NJ6BCxYP4IUadh+eqmZ9z1tKh5 a/qA1XEUBBvcKUGtsxLoZ6ngPNAv3GqYGJ9WjNYNnl0ZUX7YERCon6QiX8xU7L7A ZpTbZ/55HPU= =nwsh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lizard at dnai.com Thu Dec 4 14:04:19 1997 From: lizard at dnai.com (Lizard) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:04:19 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971204114530.006ef8dc@idt.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971204132216.03486294@dnai.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 06:38 AM 12/4/97 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote: >An intriguing selection of NewSpeak being used here. The forcible ending >of another humans life is wrong (add in the standard caveats for >self-defence). A fetus is not a human being. End of logic chain. Proof:The defining characteristic of humanity is our recursive self- awareness -- our ability to think and know we think. Consciousness, in other words. Consciousness exists as an emergent property of our immensely complex neural network. No neural network, no consciousness. No consciousness, no humanity. A single cell is not conscious. It cannot be. It has no senses to receive information, no mind to process the information received. It cannot be considered human. A newborn baby *is* conscious. Brainwaves from all parts of the brain register. It is human. Therefore:At some point between conception and birth, the developing fetus crosses a line fron non-human (and thus, removable without any ethical worries whatsoever) to human (and thus, only removable under the normal conditions when it is proper to kill, such as a threat to the life of the host). This line can be defined by the beginning of detectable brain waves from the higher parts of the brain, which usually occur around the sixth month or so. At this point, consciousness -- and thus humanity -- has begun. It is only at this point that the fetus has become a rights-possessing organism. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIcfBzKf8mIpTvjWEQIJvACeLfUKA21OH8qygFlZ3YWYDVgChHMAn29F FrapAwfMo2Gz/FUM9qOsZQuY =Pifn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From honig at otc.net Thu Dec 4 14:29:05 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:29:05 +0800 Subject: Janet Reno warns of "lawlessness on the Internet" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971204133542.00857d30@206.40.207.40> At 01:04 PM 12/4/97 -0600, TruthMonger wrote: > Isn't there a Chinese curse which says, "May you live in interesting >times."? > >TruthMonger > Yeah, its a corollary of Moore's law :-) ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From comsec at nym.alias.net Thu Dec 4 14:41:49 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:41:49 +0800 Subject: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From: Message-ID: <19971204222006.7793.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) wrote: > At 02:20 PM 12/03/1997 -0000, Charlie Comsec wrote: > >You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the > >content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, > >then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. > >That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control > >over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for > >material posted. > > If some victim of forged hatemail to Usenet requests that your remailer > block all email containing her name and address, is that legitimate? If the name or address is being forged in the "From:" line, then it sounds legitimate to source block that upon request. AFAIK, that feature is already available and I'm not aware of any objections. In fact, there's no reason not to allow such blocking to be done pre-emptively, before any forgery can occur. > Or if somebody's forging death threats with her name at the bottom? > I think yes, assuming the forgee is not a sufficiently public figure like > Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno that would lead to obvious disbelief. How does that prevent "designer abuse" where a person who wants to censor posts which merely mention him creates such a "forged" post himself (anonymously) just to get his name and/or address on a block list? Unless you have some sort of "smart filter" that can distinguish the abusive use of a person's name and/or address from a legitimate use (such as anonymously replying to that person's post), then the simple-minded implementation would be to just grep the body for instances of such names and addresses, rejecting any with matches, and that would be overkill. Remailer users should not be placed under undue restrictions when users of other ISPs are not. > (If Gary Burnore makes the same request, you've got a tradeoff between doing > the safe thing, and blocking, or doing what he deserves and also reposting > copies run through some jive filter. :-) How is that the "safe" thing? Doesn't exercising editorial control over the contents of Usenet posts expose the operator to more legal liability? Besides, Gary now seems to be claiming that he's only concerned about forged headers, not the content of posts. (That's different than what he told Jeff Burchell.) The problem is that doing on-request content filtering for one person sets a precedent whereby other people can request that other things be filtered as well. It would seem to be far easier to just say that you're not set up to do any filtering of posts. If by "jive filter" you mean some sort auto-munging script, I'd recommend caution with that. It can wreak havoc with PGP-signed messages. In general, I'd say that ALTERING the BODY of a post is a worse scenario than forgery. Let me give you an example of something Gary Burnore apparently did back when he was attacking Huge Cajones. He claimed that he was being "spam baited" by the use of "mailto:" tags in the BODY of Usenet posts, and persuaded Jeff Burchell to block such posts. Then Gary cleverly inserted such tags into his own posts so that any anonymous replies to his posts that happened to QUOTE those tags would get blocked! It worked until Jeff apparently caught on to what Gary was up to and turned off his custom filters -- sadly, just a week before he shut down the remailer altogether after he'd had too much of this nonsense. > I agree that blocking postings based on content that isn't specifically > targeting someone who's requested in advance is probably not a good idea. I would argue that it's not a good idea at all. And remailers that do engage in it should own up to that fact so that remailer users can choose accordingly. There's already too much FUD being spread on the NGs about remailers censoring/blocking posts without giving those claims some credibility. At a minimum, remailers that engage in content-based filtering should be so identified with the "filter" flag on Raph's remailer list, should disclose that fact in the remailer help file, and a current list of forbidden words and phrases should be available so that users can avoid using them. If blocking is a "Good Thing ", then remailer operators should be proud to inform people of this service they're providing. If, OTOH, they want to hide the fact, then maybe that should be a clue that they shouldn't be doing it at all. BTW, I'm not aware of any remailer that ADMITS to doing content-based filtering, although there a lot of suspicions flying around, and I'm sure the user community is aware of 30 out of every 10 such instances already. - --- Finger for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIbKdwbp0h8ZvosNAQEAMQf+PcuNWbGpS0VZmw4pkK25a8ehKiNWfZi6 z79MRVaq0fYWHQRDyAPWwxGrLAXjMeLzOhRDjJH6QiZneyfZv6OxV0hDKqMF2vI9 qCvoPa//tcsMDkpQrz1Vqx0Drs5GBlPGkf93ehaXFad4CaxQyPuONBk40FYFqVYZ Ah4v1n31e4rlaqWyP0OXdBPt536uCfpubJA4h3uLMCAbDawJ5Mj+WjNILL3rqvv5 ahNTpiXBRb6iNcOWVKHXRKOAC5nI93oDvevS5XvSgsZOTYlaeBE8NA8+Pz0UYcwJ 6lGJNthQRVZ1Inn6vrZMCtpnEC+Y28MvNgrBKZHq/W9+SbFgoYEobA== =X2vb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 4 15:13:36 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:13:36 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971204140118.007527dc@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 07:03 PM 12/03/1997 -0800, Brian W. Buchanan wrote: >Should be relatively trivial to break the encryption, since it can't be >over 40-bit (or 56-bit if the company joined the kiss-ass alliance). Ahem. Notice the dateline on the article. Calgary. Not a problem, eh? Plenty of Canadian content in that one, so they could even show it on TV if they wanted to. >Probably just as easy or easier to disassemble the software or do some >creative tweaking of Windows DLLs to intercept data. Sounds likely - they're not only planning to run it on machines without vaguely secure hardware, they're planning to run it on machines without operating systems - they'll probably use Win95. With NT, you'd at least need to look for bugs or design flaws or other ways to lie to the operating system, since there _is_ one :-) 95 may not be as fragile as Win3.1, but it's still no protection. On the other hand, if they can inhibit mass piracy, they're ahead of the game, probably far enough to rack up some sales. And even if their solution is a total technical crock, it's a crock a bunch of people are trying to develop, and it can be used as an argument to lawmakers that they don't need to introduce draconian new legislation to "solve" the copyright problems because we're doing it technically - though of course lawmakers have figured out that this gives them the choice between being visibly obsolete or writing clueless legislation to regulate the new technology as well as the old.... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From holovacs at idt.net Thu Dec 4 15:13:54 1997 From: holovacs at idt.net (jay holovacs) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:13:54 +0800 Subject: Compelled speech was: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention Message-ID: <199712042255.RAA27110@u1.farm.idt.net> ========================== >From: Tim May >To: David Honig ; Declan McCullagh >Cc: "Michael Sims" ; fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu;cypherpunks at toad.com >Subject: Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention >Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 2:56 PM >And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free >speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course >different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing, >publishing, and broadcasting.) > >(Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless >contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let >him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the >key to bad speech.) This sounds superficially equivalent, but FDA labelling requirements are quite different from web labelling. Firstly, unlike religion and politics, which are by nature subjective, effectiveness and safety of a drug can be reasonably determined by objective double blind testing. The room for error can come mainly from invalid protocols or fraud, both of which can be investigated by outside parties. Secondly, looking at a mislabelled web site cannot harm you. Taking a worthless drug can cost your health or your life. Unlike many consumer products, where the market can be allowed to rise or fall on reputation, it is not possible to determine the effectiveness or side effects of drugs from reputation. Only rigorous cohort selection and peer reviewed statistical analysis will suffice. Additionally requiring verifiably truthful statements on drugs really does qualify as a "narrowly tailored" action. OTOH I don't see any reason to prohibit people from taking "unapproved" drugs if they do so with full knowledge. Jay From ichudov at Algebra.COM Thu Dec 4 15:14:10 1997 From: ichudov at Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:14:10 +0800 Subject: Fidelity Fires Nine Employees For Violating Company Policy Message-ID: <199712042308.RAA02118@manifold.algebra.com> Fidelity Fires Nine Employees For Violating Company Policy By JAMES S. HIRSCH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Fidelity Investments has fired nine employees and disciplined 16 others for violating various company policies, including participating in on-site betting pools for football and basketball games. Fidelity, the nation's largest mutual-fund firm, said the employees also misused company e-mail and spent "excessive" amounts of time using the Internet for nonwork activities. The discoveries by Fidelity sent alarms through the Boston company, which has about $600 billion in assets under management and has relied on a reputation for integrity to attract and retain customers. On Tuesday, David Weinstein, Fidelity's senior vice president of administration, sent electronic memos to all employees that said the company wouldn't condone the use of company e-mail for sports pools, and reiterated many company policies, including prohibition of employees from gambling on company time. "I trust a word to the wise is sufficient," Mr. Weinstein wrote. Fidelity spokeswoman Anne Crowley said the company took action three weeks ago, and the employees who were either fired or disciplined didn't include any mutual-fund managers. She declined to identify the employee positions or their business units, but said the affected employees worked in more than one city. She said that no customer accounts or funds were involved. Fidelity has 24,300 employees. Like many companies, Fidelity regularly monitors employees' use of e-mail and Internet and Intranet services, and Fidelity notifies employees that they will be monitored. Ms. Crowley declined to describe how Fidelity learned about the sports betting pools or to specify how much money was involved. Employees also bet on baseball and golf games, she said, and the betting pools occurred over a number of months. "Small bets were typically found," Ms. Crowley said. She also declined to comment on what nonwork activities the employees were engaged in. But several insiders said the infractions had to have been very serious to merit dismissals instead of warnings. Ms. Crowley said the 16 employees who were disciplined didn't have to pay any fines, but said "corrective actions" could involve verbal or written warnings, suspensions or probations. --Karen Hube contributed to this article. From hallam at ai.mit.edu Thu Dec 4 15:37:36 1997 From: hallam at ai.mit.edu (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:37:36 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) Message-ID: <01bd010b$9ad28d80$06060606@russell> >And her partner, Andrea Dworkin, belies the oft-quoted notion that someone >so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin >is so far left she's just plain _left_. So being right wing means being libertarian? I don't think so, the most right wing person I know is one M. Thatcher D Litt (failed). She is also one of the most authoritarian. I've always wondered whether she thought 'the road to serfdom' was a guide to managment of serfs. All the young libertarian types running round Smith square in sharp suits looking like Declan got purged one night. Dworkin and MacKinnon were dredged up by the right to front an authoritarian agenda being pushed by Bush in the guise of the Meese commission. MacKinnon would never debate feminists like Nadine Strossen because this gave the lie to her claim that she represented the whole of the feminist movement which in turn supported her. If we turn to an analysis of agenda denial we can see that MacKinnon was persuing such an agenda within the feminist community, refusing to engage in debate. The right was meanwhile using her as a tool to promote their own agenda of social control allowing them to present it in the context of 'protecting women' which was a recognized agenda rather than 'reactionary bigottry' which wasn't. Phill From hedges at rigel.cyberpass.net Thu Dec 4 15:38:49 1997 From: hedges at rigel.cyberpass.net (Mark Hedges) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:38:49 +0800 Subject: Scientology war update Message-ID: <199712042328.PAA06816@rigel.cyberpass.net> An excellent, amazing movie called Schizopolis pokes fun at Scientology in ways L-RON never dreamed. It's perfect. Try to find it and watch. Mark Hedges JonWienk at ix.netcom.com wrote on Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:12:14 -0800: >At 12:50 AM 11/22/97 -0600, Eric Cordian wrote: >>There was a hilarious parody of Scientology on tonight's episode >>of "Millenium." A Cult named "Selfosophy," created by a really bad >>writer named Onan Goopta, with a propensity to sue everyone, was >>featured. It had a large celebrity membership, and helped people >>overcome negative thoughts with a device called an "Onan-o-Graph." > >Onan is commonly (albeit incorrectly) credited with the invention of >masturbation. (See Genesis 38:6-10 in the Bible) I wonder what sort of >thoughts the Onan-o-graph induces? [snicker, snicker] From dave at bureau42.ml.org Thu Dec 4 16:22:10 1997 From: dave at bureau42.ml.org (David E. Smith) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:22:10 +0800 Subject: Cycling For Freedom! Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Bureau 42 Remailer (remailer at bureau42.ml.org) is proud to announce "Cycling for Freedom." Basically, this is a chance to help crack RC5/64 and support the remailer system, and all the good it stands for. Get the RC5/64 client from www.distributed.net, and follow the easy instructions to configure it for your favorite computer. Crack a few blocks, send 'em back to the server so that your personal address shows up in the stats. On the stats page, you can ask the rc5 server to send you a password that will allow you to join a team. Get that, and then ask to join the team "rc5 at bureau42.ml.org" (it's listed as team number 1626). In the event this team finds the winning key, the money will be used for upgrades and maintenance on the computer housing the bureau42 remailer. (Specifically, a faster processor would be nice. After that, the rest of the money will be put away and used to buy/maintain a dedicated connection for that computer.) Thanks in advance for helping to support the remailer, and (more importantly) helping crack RC5/64. dave (bureau42 remailer administrator) - -- Today's pseudorandom quote: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" -- Thomas Paine David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 Keywords: SciFi bureau42 Wicca Pez Linux PGP single! ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIdE2a6m0j5YvamrEQLJHACg1LiCRZwFxPRDG0VPjOa08bVvOeoAoIla UVfwEiiTgsmPgNAco3KRGKp7 =2dpS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jim.burnes at ssds.com Thu Dec 4 16:46:37 1997 From: jim.burnes at ssds.com (Jim Burnes) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:46:37 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <19971204150228.29343@gwyn.tux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, J. Lasser wrote: > In the wise words of William H. Geiger III: > > > As I stated in my previous post the Nolan chart is flawed. In it's > > attempts to be "two-dimensional" it artificially separates interdependent > > philosophies. Economic Freedom = Personal Freedom. You can not have one > > without the other. The major failings of the socialist is their > > unwillingness to accept this fact. A free society can not survive under a > > socialist regime any more that a totalitarian society can survive under a > > capitalist one. > > I think the Nolan chart is flawed because the questions are all worded > in a leading manner, personally. > ok..whatever. the argument was not that the nolan chart is the ultimate basis for political discourse, but that its at least a magnitude of order better than the one dimensional left-right number line. there is also a certain nice symmetry to it. Left, right, authoritarian, libertarian are mapped out quite nicely in that space.. the point is that it *has* space. if you dont like the nolan chart create your own multidimensional chart. anything is better than what the media uses now. > And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist > society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely > capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly > less free, too. > hmmm.. no one says that singapore doesn't work anyomore than that they say that a team of horses under a whip doesn't work. the difference is that in singapore the policeman is inside. > The fact of the matter seems to me to be that most people are perfectly > satisfied to be passive consumers. While they like to be free, that > means free to make purchasing decisions. there is a fundamental flaw your case. economic freedom is really the same as social freedom. the major flaw in the nolan chart is that it can only ask questions based on political sensibilities as a function of the predominant (and flawed IMHO) paradigms of fascism and socialism. but then the function of the nolan chart is to find out where people are in those paradigms and why they might want to be somewhere else (libertarianism specifically). In either case, the act of buying and selling things is the ultimate expression of free association/assembly. I voluntarily associate with the guy who makes my pizza, builds my car, mows my law etc. The control of that freedom is probably a direct violation of the first amendment, but I have yet to write an actual proof of my case yet. It sure beats the hell out of barter. It sure beats the hell out of theft to attain property. Not that this doesn't go on. Everything else flows from this. I might mention, since this is the cypherpunk list, that crypto is *exactly* what big brother is afraid of because we might realize what *kind* of slaves we are and what kind of masters they are. Incidentally it might actually free us from this prison some day. The first step to escaping from your jail cell is understanding that you live in a jail cell and what kind of cell that is. Most new citizens units have a room reserved from birth. (slave: birth to grave) Freedom to make purchasing decisions is *the* major component of freedom in any advanced society. It is the medium by which we interact with society at large. Red Hat software doesn't know who the hell I am and they probably can't afford to care that much. What they do know is that if they configure a really decent version of Linux that I will give them $50. It allows me to do my thing and it puts food on their table. Economic freedom is what makes it possible for society to evolve into to something better. Lack of it eventually dooms the inhabitants to decide whether to become a hammer or an anvil -- a host or a parasite. If you don't think that the population is prevented from making purchasing decisions then you better get the sleep out of your eyes and take a good, hard look. They also like to be safe, and > if they have to lose civil liberties to be safe, then they're all for > it. Just so long as they can buy what they want. and thats a big "if". you forget the one of the major assets of any citizens life is the number of hours until their death. it seems to be the opinion of the nation state that those hours are at the disposal of the state. when you "work" you are exchanging the most valuable asset you own for ledger sheet credits. how much does an hour of your life cost? what do you sell it for? how much does it cost to buy it back? those are the purchasing decisions that determine true freedom. big brother steals hours of your life and no amount of "voting" will stop it. That seems to me to > describe the essence of the Singapore problem, and I'd bet it holds true > for the U.S. (and many other places) as well. so your saying that people don't mind being happy slaves. i'm not sure I would disagree. sometimes its time for even the kitchen slaves to leave the plantation. > > And, regardless of whether the two are actually separate, the Nolan > chart is intended to measure peoples' _beliefs_ and _feelings_ about > economic and political freedom. And those, as this discussion proves, > are clearly separate. > not sure that was a QED. jim From Stewart_William_C at bns.att.com Thu Dec 4 16:50:07 1997 From: Stewart_William_C at bns.att.com (Stewart_William_C at bns.att.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:50:07 +0800 Subject: Radio-Free Europe Message-ID: Fortunately, the net is harder to jam than radio. Esther Dyson's new book has a good line about how the Net is a breeding-ground for conspiracies, but television is better-suited for propaganda. ======================================================================= Copyright 1997 Times Mirror Company Los Angeles Times December 3, 1997, Wednesday, Home Edition Part A; Page 5; National Desk INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK; NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE; U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal JIM MANN WASHINGTON -- In foreign policy, sometimes the noblest of intentions leads to lousy ideas. That's certainly the case with the recent curious proposal for a special United Nations "jam squad"--a special U.N. team that could be hurriedly dispatched to crisis points around the world carrying equipment to jam, or block, harmful radio and TV broadcasts. Writing in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Jamie M. Metzl, a former United Nations human rights officer, proposes the creation of what would officially be called an "independent information intervention unit" at the U.N. Its goal, he writes, would be "countering dangerous messages that incite people to violence." A U.N. unit could monitor local news media to see where crises might erupt, air its own messages of peace and, where necessary, prevent other radio or TV broadcasts from being heard. The idea for the U.N. jam squad originated in the genocidal horrors of Rwanda. In 1994, the country's main radio station, the Radio-Television Libre des Milles Collines, then controlled by Hutu extremists, began broadcasting hate messages targeting members of the rival tribe, the Tutsis, and moderate Hutus. The Rwanda station even broadcast lists of enemies to be hunted down. "Take your spears, clubs, guns, swords, stones, everything, sharpen them, jack them, those enemies, those cockroaches," the station urged listeners. The result was one of the world's worst blood baths, in which more than 500,000 unarmed Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered. This was, certainly, as compelling a case for jamming as you can get. And Metzl has one cogent argument on behalf of his proposal: When there's an ethnic conflict in a place like Rwanda, sending in a United Nations jamming team would be considerably easier and less costly than sending in troops. "I think it's a worthy idea," says Rep. Edward R. Royce (R-Fullerton), chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. "I'm sure we would try to go out and jam in Rwanda if those circumstances came up again." Indeed, the United States and its allies are conducting a somewhat similar operation in Bosnia. Two months ago, NATO troops seized and effectively shut down a station run by hard-line Bosnian Serb forces after the station broadcast inflammatory attacks on NATO forces trying to keep the peace there. But it's a long step to go from these situations to the creation of a permanent, formal unit run by the United Nations and scouring the world in search of radio broadcasts to jam. Who would determine exactly what kinds of radio programs should be blocked and which programs could be aired? What would ensure that the jamming decisions were not motivated by politics? Wouldn't the creation of such a United Nations operation strengthen the hand of governments that want to jam radio transmissions for much less noble reasons? "This opens up a Pandora's box, really," says Richard Richter, the director of Radio Free Asia, the federally funded station that broadcasts into Asian countries with repressive governments. "You'd have China claiming that we American broadcasts should be jammed by the United Nations." Ultimately, a U.N. jamming squad would give official sanction to restrictions on the free flow of information. Metzl's article has a response to this problem, but it's a weak one. "During the Cold War, when the United States faced a Soviet adversary intent on jamming the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe . . . , it made sense for the United States to promote an absolute standard for the free flow of information," he wrote. "Now, a more nuanced view should be possible." But that's precisely backward: The free flow of information wasn't merely a temporary means to winning the Cold War, but one of the goals of the endeavor. Although the problem of hate-filled radio broadcasts is a serious one, there are ways of dealing with it that don't involve creating some huge, supranational censorship unit. One alternative is simply to provide other, competing radio broadcasts. In Rwanda, for example, the United Nations set up its own radio stations, both in the capital of Kigali and in radio camps. Royce's subcommittee has been exploring the possibility of creating a Radio Free Africa, similar to Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and Radio Marti, which broadcasts to Cuba. There are serious questions about whether such a new organization is necessary, when VOA, the official U.S. government station, already broadcasts intensively into Africa. But the underlying idea makes sense: to transmit better, more accurate information to Africa, rather than focusing on jamming or censorship. There are other ways of combating hate radio too. Those who directly incite violence over the airwaves can be brought to justice. At the moment, a war-crimes tribunal, set up under U.N. auspices, is prosecuting those responsible for the massacres in Rwanda. Among the suspects in custody are some of those responsible for the Milles Collines radio broadcasts. But a worldwide, U.N.-run jamming team? As a Hollywood script, maybe the idea has possibilities. As foreign policy, it's a loser. Jim Mann's column appears in this space every Wednesday. PHOTO: U.S. member of NATO peace force guards television transmitter in Udrigovo, Bosnia. PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press -- ======================================================================== = ************************************************** "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 ************************************************** Received: from speedy1.bns.att.com by casnfc01.bns.att.com with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/16.3) id AA273649564; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:52:44 -0800 Received: from attrh2.attrh.att.com (attrh2.attrh.att.com [135.38.12.15]) by speedy1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with SMTP id SAA01642 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2) id SAA21574 for Stewart_William_C at bns.att.com; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:29 -0500 Received: from kcig2.att.att.com by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2) id SAA21547 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:26 -0500 Received: (from nuucp at localhost) by kcig2.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id RAA25810 for att.com!billstewart; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:43:55 -0600 (CST) >Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec 4 17:38 CST 1997 Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec 4 17:38 CST 1997 Received: (qmail 850 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 818 invoked by uid 516); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:49 -0000 Delivered-To: ip-sub-1-outgoing at majordomo.pobox.com Message-Id: <199712042347.SAA23465 at home.seas.upenn.edu> X-Sender: farber at linc.cis.upenn.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Release Candidate 3 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:47:09 -0500 To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From hedges at rigel.cyberpass.net Thu Dec 4 16:58:42 1997 From: hedges at rigel.cyberpass.net (Mark Hedges) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:58:42 +0800 Subject: Heidegger on Cypherpunks -- give me a break Message-ID: <199712050043.QAA11517@rigel.cyberpass.net> In previous thread "FCPUNX:Tim plans to kill a federal judge", Neva Remailer wrote: > >James Donald wrote: >>At 06:10 PM 11/14/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >>> By the way, the same can be said about the work of Heidegger, a thinker who >>> has had some influence on me. Whenever I cite anything Heidegger ever said, >>> I can count on some numbskull to parrot the "Heidegger was a Nazi" shtick. >> >>Probably because Heidegger *was* a Nazi, who pranced around in full drag >>Nazi uniform and sent certain of his colleagues to the concentration camps. >> >>To very crudely oversimplify the relationship between Heideggers >>philosophy and Nazism, it goes like this. >> >>No objective, only the intersubjective, therefore the community >>defines reality, therefore truth is merely relative to the community. Introduction to Metaphysics and Sein und Zeit do concern the relationship between what is real (what exists) and subjective, perceptual reality, but Heidegger makes clear that although what we know is only perception, perception is not the essent of what is real and exists. Actions must rely on perception of reality, but he lends not absolute validity to the perceptions. Heidegger was on the right track, though quantum and cosmological physics and cognitive sciences reach beyond his philosophical circles of contra- diction and paradox inside a flawed and entirely limited language into an expanding and increasingly accurate scientific and mathematical system of discourse. His basic mistake was to admit that verbal and written language contains contradictions and then to draw what he supposed were valid conclusions -- from false premesis and a false universe of discourse. >(Although, if one were interested in Heideggar, his biography would >probably be interesting, too.) Yup. Mark Hedges Anonymizer, Inc. From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Dec 4 17:12:33 1997 From: jamesd at echeque.com (James A. Donald) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:12:33 +0800 Subject: Please Beta test my communications cryptography product. Message-ID: <199712050100.RAA04735@proxy4.ba.best.com> -- I have produced a program that, like PGP, provides digital signatures and communications encryption. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/Kong.htm This is the first beta. Please beta test this product. The important difference between it and other products that provide digital signatures and encryption is that it is not certificate based. Instead it is signature based. This eliminates the steep initial learning and management curves of existing products. The user does not need use and manage specialized certificates except for specialized purposes The big complexity and user hostility in existing products is creating and managing certificates. Perhaps more importantly, it also eliminates the threat we saw in England, the threat of the government giving itself a monopoly in certificate distribution, potentially creating the Number-Of-The-Beast system, where you need a government certificate to log on to dirty picture sites, to buy, to sell, to put up web pages. The key feature of the proposed product is that any digitally signed document can be stored in the database, and itself performs the functions of a certificate, just as a normal handwritten signature does. The user usually does not need to check a document against a certificate to see if it was signed by the "real" John Doe. Instead he normally checks one document against another to see if they were both signed by the same John Doe. And similarly when he encrypts a document, he does not need to use a certificate to encrypt a message to the one real John Doe, he merely encrypts a message to the same John Doe who signed the letter he is replying to. At present people have to deal with certificate management problems regardless of whether they really need certificates. For example the most common usage of PGP is to check that two signatures that purport to be by the same person are in fact by the same person. Unfortunately you cannot check one signature against another directly using PGP or any of the other existing products. Instead you have to check both signatures against a public key certificate, even if the authentication information in that certificate is irrelevant to your purpose, which it usually is, which means that you have to download the certificate from somewhere, and the person signing it had to upload it somewhere. As PGP always checks a document against the certificate, rather than against any other document the user happens to feel is relevant to the question, the person signing the document needs to get his certificate properly signed by some widely trusted third party, which is too much trouble or too complicated for many people. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG z8/j/L3kF7oCmOp/iF2oh/pwgP/mATjOTUdv1uGy DlPh9Op11Z1CtFuByebVsk8yJo4WuUMuFk4S/TMp --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ From kent at songbird.com Thu Dec 4 18:09:21 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:09:21 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <19971204150228.29343@gwyn.tux.org> Message-ID: <19971204174655.45349@songbird.com> On Thu, Dec 04, 1997 at 05:22:23PM -0700, Jim Burnes wrote: [...] > > And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist > > society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely > > capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly > > less free, too. > > > > hmmm.. no one says that singapore doesn't work anyomore than > that they say that a team of horses under a whip doesn't work. > the difference is that in singapore the policeman is inside. Nope. I have several friends who are from Singapore, and that is simply not the way they see it. They like their country, and they are proud of it. They know it isn't perfect, but they think it is pretty damn good. From their perspective your statement simply reflects the narrowness of your point of view. [...] > there is a fundamental flaw your case. economic freedom is really the > same as social freedom. This also represents a terribly narrow view of the world. Freedom is psychological state as much as it is a social or an economic one. > In either case, the act of buying and selling things is the ultimate > expression of free association/assembly. Nonsense. The ultimate expression of freedom is skinny dipping in a mountain lake. > I might mention, since this is the cypherpunk list, that crypto > is *exactly* what big brother is afraid of because we might realize > what *kind* of slaves we are and what kind of masters they are. > Incidentally it might actually free us from this prison some > day. The first step to escaping from your jail cell is understanding > that you live in a jail cell and what kind of cell that is. Most > new citizens units have a room reserved from birth. > (slave: birth to grave) > > Freedom to make purchasing decisions is *the* major component of freedom > in any advanced society. It is the medium by which we interact > with society at large. Red Hat software doesn't know who the hell > I am and they probably can't afford to care that much. What they > do know is that if they configure a really decent version of Linux > that I will give them $50. It allows me to do my thing and it puts > food on their table. > > Economic freedom is what makes it possible for society to evolve into > to something better. Lack of it eventually dooms the inhabitants > to decide whether to become a hammer or an anvil -- a host or > a parasite. > > If you don't think that the population is prevented from making > purchasing decisions then you better get the sleep out of your > eyes and take a good, hard look. > > Actually, it's dogma, not pedagogy. The notion of "freedom" to a libertarian is like the notion of "faith" to a Christian -- a self-reinforcing mental trap, a span of circular thinking that is just a little too large for them to notice and say "Haven't I been here before?" Like moths they flit around the bright emotional icons that blind them, define their world, and trap their thoughts in endless repetition. For all the brave words about reason and logic, and all the endless discussion about it, libertarians don't ever actually sit down and think "what does the word 'freedom' mean, anyway?". Instead, their thinking goes down to a point where they can repeat some mantra like "Freedom to make purchasing decisions is *the* major component of freedom in any advanced society", and they never realize the exact circularity involved. It might as well be "Freedom to worship the Lord is *the* major component of freedom in any advanced society." Or "Being a slave to purchasing decisions is *the* major component of slavery in any advanced society." Thinking in platitudes is not thinking. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html From frissell at panix.com Thu Dec 4 18:09:27 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (frissell at panix.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:09:27 +0800 Subject: Creative Destruction In-Reply-To: <199712040732.XAA14714@sirius.infonex.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971204210117.006c1188@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:32 PM 12/3/97 -0800, Mix wrote: >www.borders.com: "Borders is opening new stores almost >every week. If there's not one near you now, there will >be soon." > >This is depressing. Something has to be done about >"free"-market capitalism. It is as destructive as >government, and built on the same lies. Schumpeter's Creative Destruction. You end up with a lot more stuff when you finish the cycle than when you begin but some people don't like more "stuff." Mostly those who have plenty of "stuff" already and can easily feed their babies. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIdga4VO4r4sgSPhAQHZOgQA2NnHJs8uh1+Fu4rPgy7D38xphWwsF47/ RGvdMewl3SMLNPNvnQ51sCW9RQxiQXwvtPzcmjH90hfqy6409hOn0fkDVdLNHcjd iySGAhT4Thy4TDfveFkL+TjQJ0wXs6vMX95rd9o7ifzMS3f2n//d/fUSEq2bfkHe K/gPSMha8+Y= =ZwtI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From declan at pathfinder.com Thu Dec 4 18:19:54 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:19:54 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <19971204150228.29343@gwyn.tux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, J. Lasser wrote: > And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist > society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely > capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly > less free, too. http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,266,00.html In some ways, Singaporeans are more free than U.S. citizens. Income taxes and sales taxes are lower. Prostitution is legal. The government does not impose rules on whom private landlords can and can't rent to. Unlike some cities in the states, Singapore has no curfews. Being able to walk outside safely at night in any area of the city, even the poor excuse for the city's red light district, has its attractions. -Declan From frissell at panix.com Thu Dec 4 18:26:41 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (frissell at panix.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:26:41 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971204211025.006c1188@panix.com> At 10:50 PM 12/3/97 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: >Interesting. I was absolutely dead center. Why do I not find this surprising? >Centrist > >Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize >practical solutions to current problems. They >tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that >government serves as a check on excessive >liberty. Then there are those who feel that liberty is a check on excessive government. I have yet to see many examples of people damaged by too much political liberty. Perhaps Kent can fill us in. DCF From jya at pipeline.com Thu Dec 4 18:29:06 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:29:06 +0800 Subject: Mob Combat Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971205014027.00728108@pop.pipeline.com> The those with an interest in extraordinary descriptions of the bloody, vicious mayhem and carnage of urban warfare, The Philadelphia Inquirer has been running a series since late November describing in gory detail a disastrous battle between US Special Forces and Somalian mobs in 1993. With gunship video, maps and audio of US and Somalis participants. You won't forget it: http://www3.phillynews.com/packages/somalia/nov16/rang16.asp From jhutz+ at cmu.edu Thu Dec 4 19:00:50 1997 From: jhutz+ at cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:00:50 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712041305.IAA30177@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: > Do I really want to start this thread up .... No, you don't. The pro-choice/pro-life argument is off-topic for fight-censorship, and presumably also for cypherpunks (though I don't read that list, and wouldn't presume to speak for them). If people want to argue this point, please do it somewhere else. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA I don't speak for CMU. Thankfully, they don't speak for me either. Oh - and I'm not a lawyer, either... From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 4 19:11:00 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:11:00 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971204135214.00721fe4@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 12:55 AM 12/04/1997 -0600, "William H. Geiger III" wrote: >Evil Book Topic List >==================== > >Chemistry -- could be used by "Terrorist" >Physics -- could be used by "Terrorist" >Biology -- could be used by "Terrorist" >Mathematics -- could be used by "Terrorist" And you certainly wouldn't want to allow inflammatory anti-government books with precise technical information in them that could be used by terrorists, like "Fahrenheit 451".... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From schear at lvdi.net Thu Dec 4 19:20:57 1997 From: schear at lvdi.net (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:20:57 +0800 Subject: Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Friday Noon. MONEY LAUNDERING - The Cato Institute holds a policy forum, >"Should Money Laundering Be a Crime," with Lawrence Lindsey, AEI and >former governor, Federal Reserve; Stephen Kroll, Treasury Department, and >Richard Rahn, president, Novecon Corp. > Location: Cato Institute, F.A. Hayek Auditorium, 1000 >Massachusetts Ave. NW. > Contact: RSVP, James Markels, 202-789-5256. I wish I had found out about this earlier. Are you planning to attend? This topic, of course, is near the top of many libertarian e-commerce agendas. Almost every mainstream news article and regulatory report repeats the littany that Money Laundering, that is the movement of money to disguise it origin (even if there are no predicate offenses) must remain illegal because it damages or is a threat to the world banking and financial system (not just the tax take of governments), but I have yet to see any explanation of how and why. Anyone care to comment? --Steve PGP mail preferred, see http://www.pgp.com and http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html RSA fingerprint: FE90 1A95 9DEA 8D61 812E CCA9 A44A FBA9 RSA key: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x55C78B0D --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear (N7ZEZ) | Internet: schear at lvdi.net 7075 West Gowan Road | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 Suite 2148 | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Las Vegas, NV 89129 | economic and crypto dissident --------------------------------------------------------------------- The push by western governments for financial transparency and banning unrestricted use of cryptography is blatent politicial tyranny. Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell From declan at pathfinder.com Thu Dec 4 20:06:11 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:06:11 +0800 Subject: Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yep, I'll be there, at least briefly. The DoJ-MSFT hearing is at 1:30 down near the Mall so I can't stay for the entire thing. A shame; Cato has good lunches. -Declan On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Steve Schear wrote: > >Friday Noon. MONEY LAUNDERING - The Cato Institute holds a policy forum, > >"Should Money Laundering Be a Crime," with Lawrence Lindsey, AEI and > >former governor, Federal Reserve; Stephen Kroll, Treasury Department, and > >Richard Rahn, president, Novecon Corp. > > Location: Cato Institute, F.A. Hayek Auditorium, 1000 > >Massachusetts Ave. NW. > > Contact: RSVP, James Markels, 202-789-5256. > > I wish I had found out about this earlier. Are you planning to attend? > > This topic, of course, is near the top of many libertarian e-commerce agendas. Almost every mainstream news article and regulatory report repeats the littany that Money Laundering, that is the movement of money to disguise it origin (even if there are no predicate offenses) must remain illegal because it damages or is a threat to the world banking and financial system (not just the tax take of governments), but I have yet to see any explanation of how and why. Anyone care to comment? > > --Steve > > > PGP mail preferred, see http://www.pgp.com and > http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html > > RSA fingerprint: FE90 1A95 9DEA 8D61 812E CCA9 A44A FBA9 > RSA key: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x55C78B0D > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Steve Schear (N7ZEZ) | Internet: schear at lvdi.net > 7075 West Gowan Road | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 > Suite 2148 | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 > Las Vegas, NV 89129 | economic and crypto dissident > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The push by western governments for financial transparency and > banning unrestricted use of cryptography is blatent politicial > tyranny. > > Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell > > > From abdiel at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 4 20:25:44 1997 From: abdiel at worldnet.att.net (Alex Woolfson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:25:44 +0800 Subject: Security of Encrypted Magic Folders Message-ID: <001501bd0131$20c8d5a0$a1a0400c@default> Hello, all! Back reading the list after a long hiatus. Glad it's still as good as ever. Anyway, thought I'd appeal to the collective brain trust as this question is over my head. Please "cc" me directly since I'm on the filtered cypherpunk list. I just downloaded Encrypted Magic Folders--a program that hides Windows 95 folders and then encrypts them to prevent a disk utility from revealing their content. In their help file, they try to answer the question "How Secure is it?"--and, of course, they say *very*, but I can't tell if this is so or if they're just blowing smoke. Particularly, their claim that key size doesn't matter. (My mom taught me size always matters... ) If someone with a stronger cryptography background than me could take a look at this and let me know, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Alex * How Secure is it? EMF's encryption offers good protection and excellent speed. It hasn't been broken yet. It is, as far as we know, exportable. THERE IS NO BACKDOOR. Should you forget your password there is nothing we can do to decrypt your encrypted files. Quite a few people ask us how big EMF's key size is. They've learned from other encryption programs that the bigger the key the stronger the encryption. This really doesn't apply to EMF. We developed our own encryption instead of using a standard because we wanted EMF to be able to decrypt at the byte level. In this way we only need to decrypt/encrypt the data your programs require and not the entire file. In theory, because we decrypt at the byte level, the biggest key we could use would be 8 bits - which is a joke. So instead of decrypting every hunk of data using the same key, as most other encryption programs do, we developed an algorithm to vary the key based on the data's location within the file. In this way we get both high security and high speed. We are trying to patent EMF's encryption method. Having said all that, truth is, most encryption isn't "cracked" by breaking the algorithm, it's done by guessing the password. Brute guessing of passwords tends to level the playing field tremendously. We actually have an advantage because we aren't an established standard. Because we're small and relatively obscure chances are no one will take the effort to write a password guessing program (which incidentally would violate copyright and intellectual property laws.) Even if someone were to go thru all this effort we could easily change the encryption method for the next update. If we used an established encryption method like DES or Blowfish then your files would probably have to be fully decrypted when opened, would exist on disk as unencrypted while you're using them, and then would need to be encrypted when closed. This has multiple disadvantages. First, if your computer shuts down while you have "encrypted" files open, then those files would be unencrypted. This doesn't happen with EMF as your encrypted files are always encrypted as stored on disk. The second disadvantage is that it slows things down tremendously. As an example, let's say you retrieve your email and your email program needs to add today's message to the end of your 3MB email file. If we used a standard encryption method requiring the decryption of the file before use then the entire 3 MB file would have to be decrypted, your 300 byte message added to the end and then the entire file encrypted again. With EMF, no decryption would need to take place, and the only data needing encryption would be the 300 byte message. MUCH faster. Around 20,000 times faster in this example! If you still think you'd like to see us use a standard encryption method like DES or Blowfish, or have any other suggestions, let us know and we will consider your input in future updates From wendigo at ne-wendigo.jabberwock.org Thu Dec 4 21:03:24 1997 From: wendigo at ne-wendigo.jabberwock.org (Mark Rogaski) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:03:24 +0800 Subject: (Borders) In-Reply-To: <199712040732.XAA14714@sirius.infonex.com> Message-ID: <199712050444.XAA07924@deathstar.jabberwock.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An entity claiming to be Mix wrote: : : www.borders.com: "Borders is opening new stores almost : every week. If there's not one near you now, there will : be soon." : : This is depressing. Something has to be done about : "free"-market capitalism. It is as destructive as : government, and built on the same lies. : And what, exactly, would these lies be? Other than any claims that one of these "Mothership" chains will be healthy for the local economy. I used to live in Indiana, PA, where the unemployment rate was about 12%. A big ol' WalMart plopped down just outside of town in my last year there. Via the power of sheer bulk-buying, they undercut EVERY local business they competed with. Despite the overwhelming roar of money being sucked out of the region, I fail to see any underhandedness. They were honest androids. Mark - -- [] Mark Rogaski "That which does not kill me [] wendigo at pobox.com only makes me stranger." [] [] finger wendigo at deathstar.jabberwock.org for PGP key [] anti spambot: postmaster at localhost abuse at localhost uce at ftc.gov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIeGo3zbrFts6CmBAQFJ6ggAwbqwz+cS6bLoBSDn53ehoDUTjNmytB8B xXCQO1fCNkjmj6TJRbrhtT1wL+wXaOc8mFrxIv0+bQY4BETZXG8iOroVMJCMJClZ eAbGuCc53xHXpiK+hsYreriRCS0xjwvRDt+zC+hgr/uTaGhcad6chAeQzP0vMzjo pM4NKVos9/uYvibu3ddxQ5jeUh5x5VpLsDb8DuSqVIkZkaaqzW9IKNUKK2od6DFT YwB82OOldWhXp3Vi/pfX1H+vv6ADt6hieaoR8TBex0W9bMfosCRWsuLlzyBmycYG mHbYPVXog+LzKLkwsz/0lWkohJEWRyD5ic3Lko/MNcnhjrGM9YA7rA== =0sWd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stevet at myofb.org Thu Dec 4 21:05:43 1997 From: stevet at myofb.org (Steve Thompson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:05:43 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <881247576199712041419.JAA30815@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: <199712050444.XAA03304@bofh.internal.net> In local.lists.cypherpunks-moderated you write: >In <199712041316.IAA18769 at Empire.Net>, on 12/04/97 > at 08:16 AM, tom said: >>First define your terms. Then talk about murder. >Hmmmm well the safest answer to this is at the point of conception though >I would imagine that it is hard for most to consider a couple of cells >life. :=/ Abstinance is murder. Letting just _one_ egg miss fertilization denies that egg the chance to become a human being. I think that the felony charge should be manslaughter for this crime as it's not quite as bad as: Birth control Birth control is nothing more than premeditated murder, though I think that a plea-bargain in most cases should be offered: Drop the charge to manslaughter if the perp agrees to artificial insemination with the eggs of some woman who is unable to get pregnant due to some medical condition. However, I hope that medical research is improved to the point where the male can carry the child in such cases. Just think of all of the wonderful people who won't ever be born because some geek is wanking into a tissue, or some thirteen year old is kept from fucking by their prudish parents. Now _these_ people should be brought up on accessory charges... As for Gays and Lezbians, well, sorry but that's right out. Such unproductive behaviour cannot be tolerated. >William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Regards, -- Steve Thompson Misanthrope System Administrator Spam: bogus at myofb.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usenet II -- Because it's time for October. Who knows what the ostrich - Malcolm Ray in n.s.u. sees in the sand. Save the hermetic seals. - Samuel Beckett From frantz at netcom.com Thu Dec 4 22:06:46 1997 From: frantz at netcom.com (Bill Frantz) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:06:46 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 2:01 PM -0800 12/4/97, stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: >Sounds likely - they're not only planning to run it on machines >without vaguely secure hardware, they're planning to run it >on machines without operating systems - they'll probably use Win95. >With NT, you'd at least need to look for bugs or design flaws >or other ways to lie to the operating system, since there _is_ one :-) >95 may not be as fragile as Win3.1, but it's still no protection. Note that, if the person who has the authority to modify the code of the operating system wants to intercept the data, even a "real" OS can be easily modified. Since with personally owned systems, that person is the owner, there is very little protection the OS can give to these kinds of copyright enforcement systems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | One party wants to control | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | what you do in the bedroom,| 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz at netcom.com | the other in the boardroom.| Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA From declan at pathfinder.com Thu Dec 4 22:27:15 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:27:15 +0800 Subject: White House humiliates Louis Freeh in public Message-ID: --- http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/12/04/mccurry/ From nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Dec 4 23:18:17 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:18:17 +0800 Subject: No Subject In-Reply-To: <199712050100.RAA04735@proxy4.ba.best.com> Message-ID: <199712050707.IAA29156@basement.replay.com> James A Donald writes: > -- > I have produced a program that, like PGP, provides digital > signatures and communications encryption. > http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/Kong.htm > This is the first beta. Please beta test this product. _________________________________________________________________ System requirements Kong will only run under Windows 95 and Windows NT or later. Does the `or later' mean modern, safe software (like Linux), or what? From tcmay at got.net Fri Dec 5 00:15:38 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 16:15:38 +0800 Subject: Christmas Ornaments In-Reply-To: <199712042039.VAA10062@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: :: Request-Untraceable-Delivery-To: Declan McCullagh At 2:39 PM -0700 12/4/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I should have ordered them last month with everyone else in the bureau; the >order's been placed and the ornaments have been delivered already. *sigh* Declan, Received message re: "ornaments." Confirmed, "delivery has been made." Suggest you be out of target zone by 4 p.m. when "presents are opened." God is Great! Shazam Al-Raqbar From tcmay at got.net Fri Dec 5 01:12:04 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:12:04 +0800 Subject: words have value, for good or ill In-Reply-To: <199712041959.UAA04934@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: At 12:59 PM -0700 12/4/97, Monty Cantsin wrote: >It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic. > >In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are >usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the >discussion. Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not >mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works. Strictly >speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is >meant over here. (1) > >The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has >been writing. To keep things simple, let's consider the statement >"McVeigh did the right thing." It is not a contract. It is not a >threat. It is not copyrighted. > >It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list. >I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this >thought. So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it >immoral to express it? Indeed, my original point was not that others should support what I was saying for "free speech" reasons. Whether they agree with me or not is unimportant. I repudiated the notion that I should "apologize" or "withdraw" my statements. "Anonymous" had attempted to shame me into apologizing or withdrawing my statments, and I refused to. And whether Bryce agrees with Anonymous or not is of little concern to me. I simply _assume_ that many people will have many views on this list. I don't apologize because someone was bothered by my views. >If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't >read their messages. If you don't want to see a particular idea, >perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail >queue that contain it. If you don't like other people hearing certain >ideas, I recommend you get used to it. > Sounds good to me. Over the several years of this list, there has generally been very little of the "Joe should apologize and withdraw his remarks" kind of argumentation. For good reason. Most people are too smart to be affected by this lame sort of argument. Look around. How often do people change or alter their views because someone says "You should be ashamed of yourself"? Not often. To withdraw an opinion because Anonymous or Bryce thinks an opinion is wrong or immoral is a sign of cowardice and lack of confidence. To compound the debating style errors made by Anonymous and his supporter(s), Anonymous also misrepresented my views about McVeigh and OKC. In a series of posts a few months or so ago, I made my position clear: that I could "understand" McVeigh's actions, in the same way one can understand someone snapping under pressure. I also pooh-poohed the "human tragedy" aspects of the OKC story in the same way any warrior must pooh-pooh specific cases where innocents, alleged or real, die in battles. Finally, I was not involved in the bombing of the Murrah building, and had no causal link to it, and did not do it, and probably won't be bombing any buildings in the foreseeable future. So any attempt to somehow link me to this bombing, or to claim that my failure to declare McVeigh to be Satan Herself, etc.. consitutes complicity is magical thinking at its worst. This same kind of leap in logic occurred in the "I won't weep if D.C. is nuked" ---> "Tim is planning to nuke D.C." logical leap. Complete nonsense, compounded by the "If you don't plan to nuke D.C., then denounce your earlier views and apologize to the list" crap. Methinks Anonymous and Zooko are steeped in the "self-criticism" style of Maoist ideological purification. Personally, I hope to see D.C. purified in a 30 megaton burst of cleansing fusion. Think of how may problems it would solve. The leech state of burrowcrats and a million welfare addicts all wiped out. Imperial capitals need to be sacked for the subjugated serfs to breathe freely. (The museum stuff in D.C. is is mostly either not all that important or is already adequately preserved in other ways. We'll get by with the copies archived in Seattle and environs, in the "other" Washington, ironically enough.) So sue me. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From mj at creative.net Fri Dec 5 01:38:50 1997 From: mj at creative.net (mj at creative.net) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:38:50 +0800 Subject: Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, and Writing Code... Message-ID: >Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a >clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of >world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process >doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen >source of crypto tools. > Seems like a crypto module for Linux would be a good start, if there's not one already. As part of Linux, the source would stay public domain, so you could trust it. It also seems security built into the OS would be the hardest to circumvent. And finally, since Linux is free, there's no obstacle besides convenience for people on other platforms to acquire it (and it runs on several types of hardware). Thus, the crypto module could also help Linux, which is also good for keeping people in control of their computers. I'm getting to where I don't trust any program I can't see the source code of. From gnu at toad.com Fri Dec 5 01:48:42 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:48:42 +0800 Subject: Dec 8th SF C'punks meeting: export controls on appeal Message-ID: <199712050859.AAA15035@toad.com> We're having yet another "Cypherpunks Dress-Up Day" on Monday, December 8th. Meet at the Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco, at 7th and Mission Streets (new location!). The hearings will start at 9AM, but several cases will precede ours, so we're guessing we'll start about 10:30. Dress sharp: TV crews, your fellow cypherpunks, and three esteemed judges will all be checking out your duds. Park at the Fifth & Mission garage, or take transit to 7th & Market and walk a block. After the hearing, EFF will have a press conference down the block at the Best Western Motel, 121 7th Street. This will feature commentary from the EFF legal team and local First Ammendment scholars, explaining the significance of what happened in the hearings, and answering questions. Then we'll have a room reserved for lunch a few blocks away, at Annabelle's Bar & Bistro, 68 Fourth Street (between Market & Mission). We expect to get there by about 1:30 pm. It's a flat rate of $14 for lunch, and we can probably send splinter groups into the main restaurant if we overfill the room. The legal team will be there, as well as some of the EFF Board, and some potential donors to the case. (Want to be one?) The original Bernstein case is over. We won it. The government appealed that decision, and is asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Patel's rulings as erroneous. Judges Myron H. Bright, Betty B. Fletcher, and Thomas Nelson have been reading the government's appeal, our response, and the government's reply. They'll hear twenty minutes from each side, and ask whatever questions they like. Then (some days or weeks later) they'll publish their decision. The main issue before the Court is whether the export control laws and regulations violate the First Amendment. The Government is arguing that if their *intent* is to regulate something other than publication, they only need to show that the rules are "narrowly tailored" to serve a "substantial government interest." The government argues that if it meets that test, it does not have to worry about whether the regulations are a "prior restraint" on publication. Bernstein is arguing that what matters is whether the government *actually* regulates publication (no matter what its supposed "intent"), and that the government's export control regime is an unconstitutional prior restraint on Bernstein's speech. Check out the fancy new courtroom, which your taxes helped to build! Proceed with us up the judicial hierarchy! Shake hands with the intrepid lawyers working hard to protect our rights! Banter with NSA representatives specially flown in for the occasion! Talk with journalists who cover crypto! Be quoted talking about crypto freedom! As background, Dan Bernstein, ex-grad-student from UC Berkeley, sued the State Department, NSA, Commerce Department, Justice Department, and other agencies, with help from the EFF. These agencies restrained Dan's ability to publish a paper, as well as source code, for the crypto algorithm that he invented. The judge decided that their regulations are not only unconstitutional as applied to Dan, but in general. We're eating our way up the judicial food chain to see if the ruling is confirmed at each level of expertise. Full background and details on the case, including our legal papers (and many of the government's as well), are in the EFF Web archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case. Like Phil Karn's and Peter Junger's cases, this lawsuit really has the potential to outlaw the whole NSA/FBI crypto export scam. We intend to make your right to publish and export crypto software as well- protected by the courts as your right to publish and export books. We have won three times and we're getting closer, though it's likely to require Supreme Court review before the issue is finally settled. Please make a positive impression on the judges. Shine yer sandals and iron your t-shirts, if you can't borrow something from your banker. Break out that fedora, and those elegant but conservative dresses. Show the judges -- by showing up -- that this case matters to people like you -- more than just to a professor and some bureaucrats. Demonstrate that their decision will make a difference to your society and your profession. That the public and the press are watching, and really do care that how well they handle the issue. We'll have to be quiet and orderly while we're in the courthouse. There will be no questions from the audience (that's us), and no photography there (except by pre-arrangement with the court). You can take notes if you like. I haven't run the gauntlet of the guards there yet, but I expect similar suspicious activities (small innocuous metal objects checked before you can enter). The only thing standing between today and the end of the crypto export controls is us convincing about ten people that we're on the right track. Come help woo over three of them. John Gilmore From berezina at qed.net Fri Dec 5 02:50:48 1997 From: berezina at qed.net (Paul Spirito) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:50:48 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3487da07.565957@mail.qed.net> On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 19:14:21 -0500, James Love wrote: >But if you think you can really >explain what constitutes a leftist, in your view, I'm ready to read it. Canni try? Leftists believe in progress; Rightists believe in regress; I believe in egress. Ie: repurposing archaic terms not my applet of tea. Paul http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Tornado.jpg From frissell at panix.com Fri Dec 5 02:51:19 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (frissell at panix.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:51:19 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712041107.GAA29227@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971205053136.03832b08@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:02 PM 12/4/97 -0500, J. Lasser wrote: >And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist >society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely >capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly >less free, too. > >The fact of the matter seems to me to be that most people are perfectly >satisfied to be passive consumers. While they like to be free, that >means free to make purchasing decisions. They also like to be safe, and >if they have to lose civil liberties to be safe, then they're all for >it. Just so long as they can buy what they want. That seems to me to >describe the essence of the Singapore problem, and I'd bet it holds true >for the U.S. (and many other places) as well. Forty years ago Singapore was poor and at risk of being wiped out by Malays or Commies or both. (Maylays killed 1 Meg of their own Chinese in the '60s.) I'm sure that a few decades of being rich and safe will engender in that population a liking for social freedom. They are currently more economically free than we are. We rate 5th and they are 2nd or 3rd on the two indices of economic freedom. They have many personal freedoms as well. They have speech restrictions but are quite outspoken in any case. The gum and spitting and smoking restrictions are no different than the smoking bans and such we are coming to live under. We have one-party rule too. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIdmioVO4r4sgSPhAQGt+AQAuKrTJTWfuUjDSNZO7l0ZyKFJ1UViAU+v IsnmkcSoFSYok+1Etzo/x7t2z1wY9zVN5Smi2w2kzZRoymLS41LMZW7DvBEob7yw Ur18j2fLdYG2hIkcXiAkQaTY96SYfmLRnIESc107Xtmgt00OTVBfDyi3QUbwID0v 349sPDAohIs= =ceec -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Dec 5 05:21:50 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:21:50 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712050444.XAA03304@bofh.internal.net> Message-ID: Steve Thompson writes: > As for Gays and Lezbians, well, sorry but that's right out. Such unproductive > behaviour cannot be tolerated. Gas the perverts. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Dec 5 05:21:52 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:21:52 +0800 Subject: Dec 8th SF C'punks meeting: export controls on appeal In-Reply-To: <199712050859.AAA15035@toad.com> Message-ID: John Gilmore writes: > We're having yet another "Cypherpunks Dress-Up Day" on Monday, > December 8th. John Gilmore is a fascist cockcucker. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Dec 5 05:37:23 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:37:23 +0800 Subject: Chris Lewis kills babies after he molests them. In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971204161846.0391b08c@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: "Robert A. Costner" writes: > At 12:07 PM 12/4/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >I might have a good cause of action against Chris Lewis, but the asshole is > >in Canada. (I found out the forger's home address. I hope someone blows his > >fucking brains out, for he surely deserves to die.) [snip] > > In most matters where I have been involved with Chris Lewis, I have tended > to side with Chris. Therefore you're a censorous cocksucker and an asshole. Fuck you. C, P, & G. Lewis reside at: 483 Vances Side Road (Box 124), Dunrobin (a suburb of Ottawa), Ontario K0A 1T0, Canada, home tel: +1 613 832 0541, office tel: +1 613 763 2935 I hope some homicidal maniac makes use of this information. Chris Lewis uses the resources of his employer, Northern Telecom / Bell North Research, to forge his cancels. Complaints about Chris Lewis should be sent directly to Human Resources. That way they go directly into his personnel file for safekeeping and remain unadulterated by his chain of command. Nortel does not have a security officer in personnel (incredible as it seems, it's true), so use the director as follows: Jim Young, Director, Human Resources Tel: +1 905 863 4636 Fax: +1 905 863 8300 (one of three faxes, so call for the others if line is busy) E-mail: jamesy at bnr.ca Main Nortel switchboard is at +1 613 763 2935. Below is the chain of command for Chris Lewis, but beware of complaints to them as they try to cover up for each other: * David R. Niles, Assistant Vice-President Research and Development for Infrastructure Information Systems Tel: +1 613 763 8635 Fax: +1 613 765 3893 Home address: 624 Glenside Terrace, Orleans, Otario K4A 2B6, Canada Home tel: +1 613 834 2006 * Reginald I. "Reg" Foulkes, Director Messaging and Security Internet & Security Systems 8M80 Tel: +1 613 763 4131 E-mail: riskit at bnr.ca, v2ksys at bnr.ca Home address: RR 2 Stn main, Trenton, Ontario K8V 5P5, Canada Home tel: +1 613 392 5042 * Seema Goel, Manager 8M86 Tel: +1 613 763 9161 E-mail: secdevco at bnr.ca Note that this e-mail address is sometimes used by another woman named Marie L. Lewis. * Chris Lewis, 8M86 Tel: +1 613 763 2935 Home address as above. Also cc: all complaints to the following: * Marie L. Lewis Messaging and Security Infrastructure Tel: +1 613 763 3495 * Marcus Leech Tel: +1 613 763 9145 Fax: +1 613 765 1407 e-mail: mleech at bnr.ca Home: RR 3 Stn Main, Smiths Falls, Ontario K7A 4S4, Canada Home tel: +1 613 283 3711 From dformosa at st.nepean.uws.edu.au Fri Dec 5 06:06:26 1997 From: dformosa at st.nepean.uws.edu.au (? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:06:26 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712041107.GAA29227@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote: [...] > >For a somewhat better map at least check out the Nolan chart. > > >http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml > > As I stated in my previous post the Nolan chart is flawed. In it's > attempts to be "two-dimensional" it artificially separates interdependent > philosophies. Economic Freedom = Personal Freedom. However there are meany peaple that sepearate these things philosphicly. Any accruate mesurment of a persons polical views must also take this into account. I would argue that while the goverement has no right to stick its noise into who (or what) I am fucking in the priversy of my bedroom [1], I would consider its duity to force comperneys to tell me what (or who) that have put in the meat pie I eat afterwards. This would brake your assurtion that everybody beleaves that EF = PF. For anouther example there is a very powerfull group called the lyons forum, this group is very very pro free trade, however thay where behind the scrapping of both ethuenasia laws and other laws desined to increase personal liberty. So the devide exists out there and any fair measure of politial option should measure this. [1] Given the normal proviso of concenting adults. - -- Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves? --Terry Pratchett. I do not reply to munged addresses. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIfzLaQK0ynCmdStAQEwwQQA2/x69t8xuwpUm3iNCu39b7MY9ueRgS/1 t86SC4MP9ioQjyWYhzaPNHlg7L59FuyLVL98a5t3howYPnLeKMgXusdPFwLyXSe9 05dCVhXV+GRGdBc5eKH7mQD6vHDAfbUvLDoSPzx8Q1ALLlLTmrkakfemk6snqVgf OyIfzim3otU= =DJc5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From holovacs at idt.net Fri Dec 5 06:28:40 1997 From: holovacs at idt.net (jay holovacs) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:28:40 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) Message-ID: <199712051359.IAA10734@u1.farm.idt.net> This post has a strange deja vu to it. I can remember back in the '60s when revolutionary wannabes would talk of the glorious peoples paradise while living in their comfortable suburban homes. How the workers' education system was open to all, no one was unemployed... Now it has come full circle. Singapore is capitalist, so loss of freedoms can be glossed over. Many of us on this list would already be subject to the law for postings critical of government. People are in jail for looking at Penthouse on the net. Here we worry about filtering in libraries, they have whole country filtering. We worry about hate speech codes, they prohibit anything 'promoting racial or religious disharmony' (don't publish the Bell Curve there..), what good is being able to afford a printing press when you need the government's permission to publish. A few years back, at least, there were pictures in the airport of approved haircuts, you could not enter the country if your style did not conform. No first amandment, no fourth, no fifth, and don't even think about getting a gun permit. It is amazing that people who are so offended by *government action* would gloss over a government that intrudes itself into so many areas of private life. We are appalled by those who would sell their freedoms for perceived safety. Is it less foolish to sell *fundamental* freedoms for a few bucks more income? Jay ========================== >From: frissell at panix.com >To: "J. Lasser" >Cc: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks at toad.com >Subject: Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) >Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 5:31 AM > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >At 03:02 PM 12/4/97 -0500, J. Lasser wrote: > >>And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist >>society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely >>capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly >>less free, too. >> >>The fact of the matter seems to me to be that most people are perfectly >>satisfied to be passive consumers. While they like to be free, that >>means free to make purchasing decisions. They also like to be safe, and >>if they have to lose civil liberties to be safe, then they're all for >>it. Just so long as they can buy what they want. That seems to me to >>describe the essence of the Singapore problem, and I'd bet it holds true >>for the U.S. (and many other places) as well. > >Forty years ago Singapore was poor and at risk of being wiped out by Malays >or Commies or both. (Maylays killed 1 Meg of their own Chinese in the '60s.) > I'm sure that a few decades of being rich and safe will engender in that >population a liking for social freedom. They are currently more economically >free than we are. We rate 5th and they are 2nd or 3rd on the two indices of >economic freedom. They have many personal freedoms as well. They have >speech restrictions but are quite outspoken in any case. The gum and >spitting and smoking restrictions are no different than the smoking bans and >such we are coming to live under. We have one-party rule too. > >DCF >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 >Charset: noconv > >iQCVAwUBNIdmioVO4r4sgSPhAQGt+AQAuKrTJTWfuUjDSNZO7l0ZyKFJ1UViAU+v >IsnmkcSoFSYok+1Etzo/x7t2z1wY9zVN5Smi2w2kzZRoymLS41LMZW7DvBEob7yw >Ur18j2fLdYG2hIkcXiAkQaTY96SYfmLRnIESc107Xtmgt00OTVBfDyi3QUbwID0v >349sPDAohIs= >=ceec >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > From rpini at rpini.com Fri Dec 5 06:33:59 1997 From: rpini at rpini.com (Remo Pini) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:33:59 +0800 Subject: More microsoft monopoly::Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971203210753.00b32480@193.192.247.149> At 09:23 03.12.97 -0800, you wrote: > >>Another message claims VC++ requires IE as well -- can anyone confirm >>this? >> > >You must have IE (3+) installed in order to use MS's visual java, FYI. > You must have IE installed in order to use MS's Developer Network Resources CD and soon for all products using their "new" info-browser (IDE's of VC++, VJ++, whatever++...) ----------------------------------------------------- Fate favors the prepared mind. (from "Under Siege 3") ----------------------------------------------------- Remo Pini T: +41 1 350 28 88 Pini Computer Trading N: +41 79 216 15 51 http://www.rpini.com/ E: rp at rpini.com key: http://www.rpini.com/crypto/remopini.asc ----------------------------------------------------- From robin at abc-web.com Fri Dec 5 06:34:20 1997 From: robin at abc-web.com (Eureka!) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:34:20 +0800 Subject: FREE HITS+FREE FEEDS! Message-ID: <199712051417.OAA06560@links.hitbank.com> Dear Webmaster/Webmistress, * YOUR EMAIL WAS GIVEN TO ME AS AN ADULT WEBMASTER WHO MIGHT * BE INTERESTED IN FREE HITS, AND FREE VIDEO FEEDS. PLEASE * CLICK HERE TO BE INSTANTLY AND PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM * FUTURE WEBMASTER MAILINGS: MAILTO:REMOVE at WWW.HITBANK.COM INCREASE YOUR HITS FOR FREE! Build your site's traffic, with a tidal wave of hits - FREE from us. Please read to the end of this email to get 3 FREE hardcore feeds for your web site, our gift to you for taking the time to read this email. A QUICK COPY+PASTE EQUALS LOADS MORE HITS FOR YOU! We've got bucketloads of surfers looking to dive into a top sexy site, like yours - just as soon as we link to you. You then sit back, and watch your advertisers write you bigger, fatter checks. Over 400 top adult sites are using us alrea- dy, so you know it's a product that works! WHAT ARE WE GIVING AWAY? We publish Eureka! The daily adult newsletter, packed with FREE porn. Our subscriber base is growing incredibly fast. Why? Because we have 100s of FREE hardcore pix, links to FREE hardcore video channels, FREE competitions, and more. HOW CAN YOU GET YOUR SHARE OF THESE FREE HITS? Easy, just visit our site and signup totally FREE to be sent some html code you copy and paste onto your pages. When a surfer sees the code, they can click on a button to sign up to receive Eureka! FREE, in their email each day. When they click, nothing visible happens. They actually remain on your site where they continue surfing. This is totally unique in traffic generation programmes. HOW DO YOU BENEFIT? For every surfer that signs up you get one Eureka! credit. For each credit your advert will go out on one of our emails EVERY day from then onwards - day in day out. If you get 100 a day, for example, after a week you have 700 credits. Then, after a month 2,800, and after a year 36,500. That's a whop- ping 36,500 FREE impressions you will receive from us, every single day. And just think, what if you got 1,000 people to click the button every day? After a year that would net you 365,000 impressions a day from us! STILL NOT SURE? Remember, It's totally FREE. Just try it. If it doesn't work for you, bin it! But you'll still get daily impressions from those you've signed up for weeks/months, even years to come. SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? Get your piece of the action. Sign up now to be in right at the beginning and build up a head start against your compet- itors. Start earning your credits today. And tomorrow we'll be sending out emails with YOUR advertising on - FREE! ============================================================ CHECK OUT EUREKA! ............... http://eureka.abc-web.com/ ============================================================ YOUR FREE HARDCORE FEEDS Thankyou for taking the time to read this email. We hope to see you as a Eureka! partner site soon. As a thank you for taking the time, here are the FREE feeds we promised you. You are given complete permission to link to all these URLs from anywhere on any site. They contain a variety of mater- ial, from weird, to lesbian, pregnant, gay and much, much more and will be a great puller for your site. Thanks again! ============================================================ HARDCORE VIDEO FEED SET 1 ........... http://207.168.184.26/ HARDCORE VIDEO FEED SET 2 ............ http://204.244.215.7/ HARDCORE VIDEO FEED SET 3 .......... http://207.136.152.129/ ============================================================ - Robin. From berezina at qed.net Fri Dec 5 06:51:18 1997 From: berezina at qed.net (Paul Spirito) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:51:18 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <348c05e2.11794993@mail.qed.net> On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:22:23 -0700 (MST), Jim Burnes wrote: >In either case, the act of buying and selling things is the ultimate >expression of free association/assembly. I voluntarily associate >with the guy who makes my pizza, builds my car, mows my law etc. Really? I avoid associating with those who mow my laws. Ha ha. Seriously, I've never lived in Sweden or Singapore -- if I do, I'll get back to the list on which I prefer -- but I'm troubled by the tendency of Libertarians to err on the side of big business fetishism rather than civil liberties. Both are part of the Doctrine, of course*, but I often hear them argue that wild-west capitalism inevitably leads to political freedom -- so, not to worry -- but rarely that political freedom invariably leads to laissez-faire capitalism (so, not to worry). You might say that the latter is NOT TRUE. Well, right-o, but neither is the former. Economic progress under a fascist regime leads inevitably to political freedom? You guys actually make this argument. Paul *Yes, Libertarians criticize corporate welfare, but just because it corrupts the notion that a person's entire worth can be summarized in a stock portfolio. http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Tornado.jpg From works4me at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 5 23:15:13 1997 From: works4me at ix.netcom.com (works4me at ix.netcom.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:15:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Get Your FREE Web Page Now!! Message-ID: <> Join Now! Tony Little Starts His Informercial in Just A Few weeks! Email Me For Your Own Free Self-Replicating Web Page. No start up cost and pay nothing if your downline isn't sufficient in 30 days! Get Your FREE Page NOW! Simply hit REPLY! From works4me at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 5 23:15:13 1997 From: works4me at ix.netcom.com (works4me at ix.netcom.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:15:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Get Your FREE Web Page Now!! Message-ID: <> Join Now! Tony Little Starts His Informercial in Just A Few weeks! Email Me For Your Own Free Self-Replicating Web Page. No start up cost and pay nothing if your downline isn't sufficient in 30 days! Get Your FREE Page NOW! Simply hit REPLY! From Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] Fri Dec 5 07:27:39 1997 From: Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:27:39 +0800 Subject: Gary Burnore Caught in own Trap (Long) In-Reply-To: <6617oi$c0f@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: <75878341ed9bfcd7e352e4319bf91e47@anonymous.poster> Belinda Bryan wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > What those who are capable of looking at this with an open mind might > notice is that there is much more to this story than you and Mr. > Know-it-All Sam are telling. Excuse me while I rain on your parade and > repost some SERIOUS ANALYSIS from someone with a clue: What motive would Sam have for being part of the mythical "Spam baiting/ forgery/libel/teenager-abusing/cyber-stalking conspiracy" you've concocted? Could it be that Gary is now searching for another person to falsely accuse of doing all of these things, now that he and the first person he accused sem to have declared a de facto truce? Is Sam going to be your next victim? > > What seems to have happened here is that someone telnetted to the SMTP > > port of myriad.alias.net and forged E-mail from your address. If > > these are full headers, then this forgery did not involve remailers at > > all. The perpetrator has therefore run the risk of being traced. Which blows a huge hole in Gary's own theory that some evil "anon asshole" used a remailer to do it, thus justifying his anti-remailer witch hunt. And since you've chosen to quote that opinion, what were the results of that trace he mentioned? > Oh, my. Looks like that shoots yours and Sam's theories right straight > to hell, doesn't it? On to the next lie: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How many do you plan to tell? > In case you missed it, let me repeat: "looks like somebody sent you a > message with a Return-Receipt-To: header set to > alt.revenge at myriad.alias.net. To which the broken, mis-configured mail server at DataBasix autoresponded. Why would Gary have claimed he was going to fix it if it weren't broken? > >What would be the point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look > >like it came from "mmdf at databasix.com", anyway? > > You're the one with all the fricking "answers", why don't you tell us? You might start with asking yourself who stood to benefit from this happening. You and Gary are the ones who keep bringing it up, because it's the only "evidence" you have to support your grand conspiracy theory. Thus far, all of your alleged "evidence" has proven nothing because it's all (conveniently) had truncated path headers. > >Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly > >suspect. > > Methinks you are confusing your alleged villains. Usually Wotan gets > the blame for closing Mailmasher and Gary and I get the blame for > huge.cajones. While I have a lot of respect for Jeff Burchell (and I've > met him personally, can you say the same?), I disagree with the > allegations he made against Wotan re: the Mailmasher attack. Do try to > recall that even Jeff said he was *speculating* as to what happened with > MailMasher and the software piracy fiasco. And you've got a better explanation of what happened? Right after Billy McClatchie went on his campaign to get Mailmasher shut down, someone signs up for a Mailmasher account, puts out a fake post advertising some "warez", then dutifully turns himself into the SPA to get Mailmasher in trouble. Just a "coincidence", right? And just because you, Billy McClatchie (Wotan), and Gary Burnore are all staff members at DataBasix, and the two servers that you three attacked in sequence were both run by the same person, we're not supposed to make the conncection? As Gary himself once said "There are far too many coincidences". He was at least right about that. > And if you think Jeff closed huge.cajones because of Gary and me, you > obviously don't know the whole story. But what's new? What you don't > know, you just make up. I've read Jeff's account, and you, Gary, and Bill "Wotan" McClatchie are the only attackers he mentioned. > >First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently > >didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a > >web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer. > > I'll freely admit I don't really understand the difference between the > two. But I distinctly recall seeing dozens of messages with a from line > with *my* email address and a message ID of mailmasher.com. Like so: > > ------ > > Path: > ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!news1.mpcs.com!anon.lcs.mit.edu! > nym.alias.net!mail2news > Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:22:07 -0800 > Message-ID: <199702060622.WAA09539 at mailmasher.com> > From: eridani at ix.netcom.com (Mailbomb^me) > Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to > > Subject: Nuke Your Local Junk Mailer! > Newsgroups: misc.entrepreneurs,biz.mlm,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace, > alt.sex.erotica.marketplace,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace > X-No-Archive: yes > Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster at nym.alias.net > Organization: mail2news at nym.alias.net > Lines: 5 > > This message is not intended for humans to read. Other than a Message-ID and a Comments line (both forgeable), what indicates this came from Mailmasher? Why was Mailmasher not in the path header? You still haven't produced a single shred of evidence that this came from Mailmasher. You haven't even shown from any of the Mailmasher help files that Mailmasher even had this capability. In someone's haste to point the blame at the remailers' ability to paste From: headers, they chose the wrong target -- since Mailmasher was not a remailer and had no header pasting capability. Mail coming from Mailmasher accounts all contained a pseudonym followed by "@mailmasher.com". Access was via a web-based interface, and there was no place to specify a From: line. > You're an idiot and a liar. Engaging in ad hominem is an obvious attempt to divert attention from your lack of evidence. > First of all, Gary stubbornly didn't start > X-No-Archiving his headers until a couple of months ago. You should > know, Mr.Whining About Not Being Able to Track Gary Through Deja News > Anymore. Actually, in the beginning it was YOU, McClatchie, and the so-called "spam baiter" that used the No-Archive header. Gary didn't use it until later when he became worried that people could actually read his old posts and see how his story changed over time. Gary has apparently gone back and even had his old posts nuked from the archives, as well. Apparently Gary "I have nothing to hide" Burnore has reconsidered that stance. If someone wanted to forge a post to embarass you, would it make sense to hide it with a No-Archive header? Why limit the readership like that? > Secondly, it's not possible to forge message IDs with a piddly > Netcruiser GUI account. Netcruiser accounts can't telnet into an SMTP server, which is your theory of how the "forgery" was done? Also, you, Gary, and Wotan have shell accounts that are quite capable of doing many of the things you claim that your mythical "spam-baiting/forging/libelling/cyber-stalking/child-molesting" mega-villain is guilty of. You also once claimed that this person had spam baited "every known email address of DataBasix staff and customers". Who but a DataBasix insider would have access to that kind of information? > Lastly, it certainly is convenient that every single spam bait > posted--thousands between 4/97 and 11/97--contained the X-No-Archive: > yes header. Makes it really easy for someone with a vendetta to say, > 'oh no, they don't exist, because we can't verify them!' Conveniently similar to the posts of Wotan and yourself. And that quote is obviously the reason that you, Gary, and Wotan also utilize that same header, right? So that you can later claim that anything you post and later regret was "forged"? > That's an insane theory cooked up by someone with a very twisted mind. As are most of Gary's theories. > How many people posting anonymously have > been inadvertently denied an audience because of one IDIOT ruining it > for everyone? When have you EVER had a decent thing to say about anonymous posters? Can you cite even one instance? Are you suddenly trying to polish up DataBasix' image? Polish that turd all you want, and it still won't smell any better! > Have we "harassed" any > other remailers since then? Hhm? Why don't you _ask them_, mouth? Jeff didn't reveal your harassment of him until AFTER he had shut down his remailer and had no further retribution to fear. And we didn't learn of your attacks on Jeff's machines until Gary made a similar taunt back in June. > lies and distortions> Stop your pitiful whining about "selective snipping". Anyone who missed it the first time can read your epic whine-fest by following the reference headers. That's what they're there for. And if they're reading this thread via DejaNews and can't, well that was YOUR choice, not mine. My posts are archived for all to read. -- From info at planet-solutions.com Sat Dec 6 00:08:10 1997 From: info at planet-solutions.com (info at planet-solutions.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:08:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Household toxins Message-ID: <199712060808.AAA22584@toad.com> TOP "10" KILLER HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS AIR FRESHENERS: Most air fresheners interfere with your ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil film, or by releasing a nerve deadening agent. Known toxic chemicals found in an air freshener: Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Phenol: When phenol touches your skin it can cause it to swell, burn, peel, and break out in hives. Can cause cold sweats, convulsions, circulatory collapse, coma and even death!! AMMONIA: It is a very volatile chemical, it is very damaging to your eyes, respiratory tract and skin. BLEACH: It is a strong corrosive. It will irritate or burn the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema or vomiting and coma if ingested. WARNING: never mix bleach with ammonia it may cause fumes which can be DEADLY. CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY SHAMPOO: Most formulas are designed to over power the stain itself, they accomplish the task but not without using highly toxic substances. Some include: Perchlorethylene: Known carcinogen damages liver, kidney and nervous system damage. Ammonium Hydroxide: Corrosive, extremely irritable to eyes, skin and respiratory passages. DISHWASHER DETERGENTS: Most products contain chlorine in a dry form that is highly concentrated. # 1 cause of child poisonings, according to poison control centers. DRAIN CLEANER: Most drain cleaners contain lye, hydrochloric acid or trichloroethane. Lye: Caustic, burns skin and eyes, if ingested will damage esophagus and stomach. Hydrochloric acid: Corrosive, eye and skin irritant, damages kidneys, liver and digestive tract. Trichloroethane: Eye and skin irritant, nervous system depressant; damages liver and kidneys. FURNITURE POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Highly flammable, can cause skin and lung cancer. Phenol: (see Air fresheners, Phenol.) Nitrobenzene: Easily absorbed through the skin, extremely toxic. MOLD AND MILDEW CLEANERS: Chemicals contained are: Sodium hypochlorite: Corrosive, irritates or burns skin and eyes, causes fluid in the lungs which can lead to coma or death. Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Irritant to eyes, nose, throat, and skin. May cause nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, memory loss and shortness of breath. OVEN CLEANER: Sodium Hydroxide (Lye): Caustic, strong irritant, burns to both skin and eyes. Inhibits reflexes, will cause severe tissue damage if swallowed. ANTIBACTERIAL CLEANERS: may contain: Triclosan: Absorption through the skin can be tied to liver damage. LAUNDRY ROOM PRODUCTS: Sodium or calcium hypocrite: Highly corrosive, irritates or burns skin, eyes or respiratory tract. Linear alkylate sulfonate: Absorbed through the skin. Known liver damaging agent. Sodium Tripolyphosphate: Irritates skin and mucous membranes, causes vomiting. Easily absorbed through the skin from clothes. TOILET BOWL CLEANERS: Hydrochloric acid: Highly corrosive, irritant to both skin and eyes. Damages kidneys and liver. Hypochlorite Bleach: Corrosive, irritates or burns eyes, skin and respiratory tract. May cause pulmonary edema, vomiting or coma if ingested. Contact with other chemicals may cause chlorine fumes which may be fatal. OTHER NASTY THINGS THAT ARE AROUND YOUR HOME PESTICIDES: Most pesticides have ingredients that affect the nervous system of insects. Imagine what these extremely poisonous chemicals do to your body. or your baby's. Dimpylate: Better known as Diazinon, extremely toxic. Impairs the central nervous system. Chlorinate Hydrocarbons: Suspected carcinogen and mutantagen. Accumulates in food and in fatty tissue. Will attack the nervous system. Organophosphates: Toxic and poisonous. If you can smell it, your lungs are absorbing it. FLEA POWDERS: Why put toxins on "man's (or woman's) best friend." Carbaryl: Very toxic, causes skin, respiratory and cardiovascular system damage. Chlordane: Accumulates in the food chain, may damage eyes, lungs, liver, kidney and skin. Dichlorophene: Skin irritation: May damage liver, kidney, spleen and central nervous system. LICE SHAMPOO: Especially vulnerable are children. Lindane: Inhalation, ingestion, or ABSORPTION through the SKIN causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions and circulatory collapse. May cause liver damage, stillbirths, birth defects and cancer. CAR WASH AND POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Associated with skin and lung cancer, irritant to skin, eyes, nose and lungs. Entry into the lungs may cause fatal pulmonary edema, most marked Danger, Harmful or Fatal. TAR AND BUG REMOVER: Contains XYLENE and PETROLEUM DISTILLATES. As you become more aware, you will realize that YOU have to make the first step. YOU have a responsibility to tell your friends, neighbors, and relatives to stop using these dangerous chemicals that are both hazardous to your health and the environment. So come join the revolution to rid toxic chemicals from the planet. That's our MISSION at PLANET SOLUTIONS! Clear Choice(non-toxic cleaner) Buy3 get 1 free. If you want to learn more about out "solution to the toxic dilemma please reply with the subject "More Info" in the subject box.If you would like a free sample of Clear Choice (non toxic cleaner) please send your name ,address and phone number. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings. From sunder at brainlink.com Fri Dec 5 08:14:16 1997 From: sunder at brainlink.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:14:16 +0800 Subject: Security of Encrypted Magic Folders In-Reply-To: <001501bd0131$20c8d5a0$a1a0400c@default> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Alex Woolfson wrote: > EMF's encryption offers good protection and excellent speed. It > hasn't been broken yet. It is, as far as we know, exportable. THERE > IS NO BACKDOOR. Should you forget your password there is nothing we > can do to decrypt your encrypted files. If it is exportable, then it is weak encryption by definition. The question is how weak. Reading their marketting crap provides more insights in just how lame this is: > Quite a few people ask us how big EMF's key size is. They've learned > from other encryption programs that the bigger the key the stronger > the encryption. This really doesn't apply to EMF. > > We developed our own encryption instead of using a standard because > we wanted EMF to be able to decrypt at the byte level. In this way > we only need to decrypt/encrypt the data your programs require and > not the entire file. In other words: security through obscurity. Smells like snake oil, looks like snake oil, it even has bits of snake scales in it. Heck, if they say that the key size is not important, it's likely very tiny, or regardless of what key size you'd use (if you had any choice), it's such a weak cypher that it wouldn't get you anything. > In theory, because we decrypt at the byte level, the biggest key we > could use would be 8 bits - which is a joke. So instead of > decrypting every hunk of data using the same key, as most other > encryption programs do, we developed an algorithm to vary the key > based on the data's location within the file. In this way we get > both high security and high speed. We are trying to patent EMF's > encryption method. Whoop. so the key is the location of the data? At most, this means a 32 bit key on most file systems, 64 bits on newer file systems. This assumes that your file is long enough for that. But as a key, this is totally useless as the key is the location which is visible to all. Likely they would be wise to "mix" this location key with the passphrase. This offers little more than CBC would. The only difference is that CBC is based on the previous block, where this is based on the location of a byte in the file (which is known) whereas a CBC depedns on knowledge of the previous block. If they did it the right way, they'd use the passphrase to build a lookup table of large keys based on the byte location within a file, but because this depends on your passphrase, your security is still that of the passphrase at maximum. There may be ways to weaken this. > Having said all that, truth is, most encryption isn't "cracked" by > breaking the algorithm, it's done by guessing the password. Brute > guessing of passwords tends to level the playing field tremendously. > We actually have an advantage because we aren't an established > standard. Because we're small and relatively obscure chances are no > one will take the effort to write a password guessing program (which > incidentally would violate copyright and intellectual property laws.) > Even if someone were to go thru all this effort we could easily > change the encryption method for the next update. This is total bullshit. It's Grade A, government approved exportable snake oil. Just because they are small and obscure it doesn't guarantee you any extra safety. Just because nobody has bothered to write a brute forcer for their code doens't mean nobody can do so. And no, this would not violate any of their copyright if the author of the brute forcer proggie wrote it without copying their code. It might violate intellectual property laws if they had a patent on it, but they can't get one since they're going by security through obscurity. They claim to be applying for a patent, but if they do, their code is published and their weaknesses will be displayed. It might violate trade secret laws if someone who has the source or the algorithm shares it, but not if someone reverse engineers it (depending on reverse engineering laws of course.) Just because they could "rewrite" the code in the next update against cracking or brute force attacks does not buy you security. FYI: If you use this crap and someone steals a copy of the encrypted files off your hard drive, it doesn't matter what new updates this company produces. The fact is you used the older breakable version, the attacker has your cyphertext and will decode it. > If we used an established encryption method like DES or Blowfish then > your files would probably have to be fully decrypted when opened, > would exist on disk as unencrypted while you're using them, and then > would need to be encrypted when closed. Translation: We don't use CBC, because that would be more work and slow down our crappy cypher. Deeper translation: break any portion of any encrypted file and you'll likely break the whole thing if not huge parts of it. "Established encryption methods (sic)" use CBC because it adds security. Their algorithms are well published and well known so people can find their weaknesses and publicise them. Whatever weaknesses there are in this thing are hidden from those who can't or won't reverse engineer it. But there are plenty of those who can and will, and have no qualms about releasing it anonymously, or worse: keeping the expolit to themselves so as to exploit those stupid enough to use this lame shit. It only takes one cracker with a good disassembler to reverse engineer their code and find all the holes, and they'll be out of business. If what protects your data is the cypher, and not the key, then breaking the cypher is all you need to do. Heck, I'd bet they use something really shitty like this: (since "key size is not important", and "depends on location".) char code(char *passphrase, char data, long location); { int i; char c; for (i=0; passphrase[i]>0; c^=passphrase[i++]); return (data ^ c ^ (char)(location & 0xff)); } Gee, I probably violated their "intellectual" property by guessing their code, heh. > This has multiple > disadvantages. First, if your computer shuts down while you have > "encrypted" files open, then those files would be unencrypted. This > doesn't happen with EMF as your encrypted files are always encrypted > as stored on disk. The second disadvantage is that it slows things > down tremendously. Not if you use an encrypted disk driver. then, all your data is encrypted all the time. (You get into other issues such as keeping the passphrase or key from falling into the pagefiles, etc...) [Meaningless babble deleted.] =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder at sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ========================== From ravage at ssz.com Fri Dec 5 08:49:01 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:49:01 +0800 Subject: ISDN is back!....yippeeee Message-ID: <199712051657.KAA16584@einstein.ssz.com> Hi, The ISDN just came back online...now if only the POTS will return... Anyway, SWBT Level 2 and their protocol analysis seems to have done the trick this time. As soon as I get my POTS back I'll lack the ISDN folks and find out what the problem was. Be advised that SWBT may still have their analyzer online which means they are doing a full capture of all the Internet related traffic. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage at ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| From rah at shipwright.com Fri Dec 5 08:49:26 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:49:26 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: hutchinson at click.ncri.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:41:30 -0500 To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu From: hutchinson at ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) Subject: Re: Superdistribution development/release Cc: brian at smarter.than.nu Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: hutchinson at ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> >> Here an incentive: if anyone breaks this, I'll write an article about it >> and another profiling the person who does. >> >> When you have this kind of "encryption" scheme running on untrusted >> hardware to which the user has access, it's doomed to fail. Even if it's >> custom hardware, it'll probably be broken, but it'll just take longer. To which Brian Buchanan replied: >Should be relatively trivial to break the encryption, since it can't be >over 40-bit (or 56-bit if the company joined the kiss-ass alliance). Uh, its a Canadian company. That John Candy movie about the U.S. invasion didn't really happen. ;-) - Art Art Hutchinson hutchinson at ncri.com Northeast Consulting Resources, Inc. phone: (617) 654-0635 One Liberty Square fax: (617) 654-0654 Boston, MA 02160 www.ncri.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Working at the intersection of business and IT strategy to help organizations embrace electronic commerce opportunities" For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request at ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: From ravage at ssz.com Fri Dec 5 08:49:42 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:49:42 +0800 Subject: 'Off' the parking pigs! (fwd) Message-ID: <199712040043.SAA15787@einstein.ssz.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:56:10 -0600 > From: TruthMonger > Subject: Re: 'Off' the parking pigs! > In the jury's humble opinion, the prosecution didn't prove its case. > This is no problem for the government. They have the deep pockets > required to prosecute as many times as needed to refine their attempts > to manipulate the minds of the jurors, or to get lucky and have a few > members of a split jury vote to convict because they don't want to > blow their trip to the Stones' concert. No the police only get one shot. If they try to prosecute the individual on the same charge *after* a jury has rendered a verdict then that is double jeopardy. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage at ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| From jya at pipeline.com Fri Dec 5 08:51:57 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 00:51:57 +0800 Subject: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971205164216.006f950c@pop.pipeline.com> Right to Privacy for Sale in Cyberspace; SynData Technologies Inc. Speaks Out Against Key Recovery Cedar Grove, N.J. -- SynData Technologies Inc., a provider of encryption software solutions, released a statement today condemning Network Associates Inc. for supporting the government's key recovery program. Network Associates recently purchased Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). PGP had historically been opposed to key recovery. "It is time to seriously consider the threat that Network Associates poses to the individual's constitutional right to privacy," said David Romanoff, CEO of SynData Technologies Inc. "While Network Associates claims to protect privacy in cyberspace, they have actually traded our right to privacy for a shot at increased revenues overseas by supporting the key recovery program. The slippery slope has begun right under our noses. It's time to challenge both the government and companies who support the government's key recovery program before it is too late." "The government's key recovery program is a complete violation of the individual's right to privacy and, in fact, compromises of the system are already taking place. This shows that key escrow is an untenable policy," said Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading authorities on encryption and author of the book "Applied Cryptography". "SynData is paving the way for other software developers by taking a stand in opposition to the government and companies like Network Associates." From rah at shipwright.com Fri Dec 5 09:05:40 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:05:40 +0800 Subject: Sabotage and Threats a sham. Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text From: "Blair Anderson" To: "dcsb at ai.mit.edu" Date: Fri, 05 Dec 97 18:14:26 +1300 Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Sabotage and Threats a sham. Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Blair Anderson" LONDON -- Accusations that criminals are using high-tech weapons to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from banks and stock exchanges are "pure imagination," according to Europe's largest defense electronics research agency. http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19971204S0008 Blair Anderson (Blair at technologist.com) International Consultant in Electronic Commerce, Encryption and Electronic Rights Management "Techno Junk and Grey Matter" (HTTP://WWW.NOW.CO.NZ [moving servers, currently inactive]) 50 Wainoni Road, Christchurch, New Zealand phone 64 3 3894065 fax 64 3 3894065 Member Digital Commerce Society of Boston ---------------------------- Caught in the Net for 25 years ---------------------------- For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request at ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: From geeman at best.com Fri Dec 5 09:41:16 1997 From: geeman at best.com (geeman at best.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:41:16 +0800 Subject: Security of Encrypted Magic Folders Message-ID: <3.0.32.19691231160000.007076c4@shell15.ba.best.com> Sounds like a crock. See the Snake-Oil FAQ. This (mis)information is so full of nonsense I wouldn't touch the product with rubber gloves. At 07:51 PM 12/4/97 -0800, Alex Woolfson wrote: > >Hello, all! Back reading the list after a long hiatus. Glad it's still as >good as ever. Anyway, thought I'd appeal to the collective brain trust as >this question is over my head. Please "cc" me directly since I'm on the >filtered cypherpunk list. > >I just downloaded Encrypted Magic Folders--a program that hides Windows 95 >folders and then encrypts them to prevent a disk utility from revealing >their content. In their help file, they try to answer the question "How >Secure is it?"--and, of course, they say *very*, but I can't tell if this is >so or if they're just blowing smoke. Particularly, their claim that key >size doesn't matter. (My mom taught me size always matters... ) If >someone with a stronger cryptography background than me could take a look at >this and let me know, I would greatly appreciate it. > >Thanks! > >Alex > > >* How Secure is it? > > EMF's encryption offers good protection and excellent speed. It > hasn't been broken yet. It is, as far as we know, exportable. THERE > IS NO BACKDOOR. Should you forget your password there is nothing we > can do to decrypt your encrypted files. > > Quite a few people ask us how big EMF's key size is. They've learned > from other encryption programs that the bigger the key the stronger > the encryption. This really doesn't apply to EMF. > > We developed our own encryption instead of using a standard because > we wanted EMF to be able to decrypt at the byte level. In this way > we only need to decrypt/encrypt the data your programs require and > not the entire file. > > In theory, because we decrypt at the byte level, the biggest key we > could use would be 8 bits - which is a joke. So instead of > decrypting every hunk of data using the same key, as most other > encryption programs do, we developed an algorithm to vary the key > based on the data's location within the file. In this way we get > both high security and high speed. We are trying to patent EMF's > encryption method. > > Having said all that, truth is, most encryption isn't "cracked" by > breaking the algorithm, it's done by guessing the password. Brute > guessing of passwords tends to level the playing field tremendously. > We actually have an advantage because we aren't an established > standard. Because we're small and relatively obscure chances are no > one will take the effort to write a password guessing program (which > incidentally would violate copyright and intellectual property laws.) > Even if someone were to go thru all this effort we could easily > change the encryption method for the next update. > > If we used an established encryption method like DES or Blowfish then > your files would probably have to be fully decrypted when opened, > would exist on disk as unencrypted while you're using them, and then > would need to be encrypted when closed. This has multiple > disadvantages. First, if your computer shuts down while you have > "encrypted" files open, then those files would be unencrypted. This > doesn't happen with EMF as your encrypted files are always encrypted > as stored on disk. The second disadvantage is that it slows things > down tremendously. As an example, let's say you retrieve your email > and your email program needs to add today's message to the end of > your 3MB email file. If we used a standard encryption method > requiring the decryption of the file before use then the entire 3 MB > file would have to be decrypted, your 300 byte message added to the > end and then the entire file encrypted again. With EMF, no > decryption would need to take place, and the only data needing > encryption would be the 300 byte message. MUCH faster. Around > 20,000 times faster in this example! > > If you still think you'd like to see us use a standard encryption > method like DES or Blowfish, or have any other suggestions, let us > know and we will consider your input in future updates > > > From nospam at synernet.com Fri Dec 5 09:44:07 1997 From: nospam at synernet.com (NoSpam) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:44:07 +0800 Subject: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971205122651.007cae60@fast.synernet.com> At 11:42 AM 12/5/97 -0500, you wrote: > Right to Privacy for Sale in Cyberspace; SynData Technologies Inc. > Speaks Out Against Key Recovery > > Cedar Grove, N.J. -- SynData Technologies Inc., a provider of encryption > software solutions, released a statement today condemning Network > Associates Inc. for supporting the government's key recovery program. > Network Associates recently purchased Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). > PGP had historically been opposed to key recovery. > "The government's key recovery program is a complete violation of the > individual's right to privacy and, in fact, compromises of the system are > already taking place. This shows that key escrow is an untenable policy," > said Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading authorities on encryption > and author of the book "Applied Cryptography". "SynData is paving the > way for other software developers by taking a stand in opposition to the > government and companies like Network Associates." By "companies like Network Associates", do you mean "companies who are members of the Key Recovery Alliance" (http://www.kra.org)? If so, here are the "companies like Network Associates", in that regard: [Note RSA is a Charter Member] America Online, Inc. Apple Computer, Inc. * American Express Corp. Atalla * Baltimore Technologies Boeing Candle Corporation CertCo Certicom Compaq Computer Corp. Cryptomathic CygnaCom Sulutions, Inc. Cylink Corp. DASCOM, Inc. Data Securities International, Inc. Digital Equipment Corporation * Digital Secured Networks Technology, Inc. Digital Signature Trust Company Entrust Technologies First Data Corp. Fort Knox Escrow Services, Inc. Frontier Technologies Corp. Fujitsu, Ltd. GemPlus Gradient Technologies, Inc. Groupe Bull * Hewlett-Packard * Hitachi IBM * ICL IRE Intel Corporation McAfee Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan Mitsubishi Electric America Motorola Mykotronx Mytec Technologies, Inc. nCipher Corp. NCC Escrow NCR Corporation * NEC Network Systems Group of Storage Tek Novell, Inc. Open Horizon, Inc. Portland Software PSA Price Waterhouse Racal Data Group Rainbow Technologies RedCreek Communications RPK RSA * SafeNet Trusted Services, Corp. Secure Computing Corporation Siemens AG Silicon Graphics, Inc. SourceFile Spyrus Sterling Commerce Sun Microsystems * Tandem Technical Communications Corp. The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Toshiba Trusted Information Systems, Inc. * Unisys UPS * Utimaco Mergent VPNet Technologies ------------------- estone at synernet-robin.com remove "-birdname" spam avoider ------------------- ---------------------------- Ed Stone estone at synernet-robin.com delete "-birdname" spam avoider ---------------------------- From honig at otc.net Fri Dec 5 09:51:22 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:51:22 +0800 Subject: encrypted home videos Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971205093918.008003f0@206.40.207.40> Recently a hollywood pair's home sex video was stolen, duped, and sold. This makes the mass market aware. You could sell video cameras that required a passphrase to play. This would be easier with pure digital recording cameras, which are the next generation of consumer vidcams. A fast stream cipher is easy in hardware, and there *will* be a market for it. You have no privacy if your bits are not encrypted when your space is violated, by feds or other criminals, but you want the convenience of a videocamera. (forward this idea to other lists/newsgroups as appropriate) ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From nobody at REPLAY.COM Fri Dec 5 09:55:40 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:55:40 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) Message-ID: <199712051725.SAA02954@basement.replay.com> >The cited examples were of restaurants and other businesses in town which >had rules against employees wearing nose rings, tongue studs, spiky hair, >mohawks, lip piercings, tatoos, scarification, and such things. And >"weight discrimination," as in the also-famous case of a Santa Cruz health >food store turning down the employment application of a "person of >poundage." (The grossly obese Toni Cassista, who sued the health food store >citing weight discrimination...I believe she eventually settled out of >court.) Tim, that's only because the city didn't want to remove the ceiling of the courtroom and hire a crane to lower her into the courtroom through the roof. And they were busy trying to file charges against her for something else entirely. See, she had chemicals within her body in a "quantity not warranted by any legitimate purpose" and "which, when mixed, could be used to produce nerve gas." They figured if she ever ate some beans those beans might act as an ignition charge and...well, no more Santa Cruz. It could have been worse (for her) though. They could have charged her with "possession of a gas discharge device with intent to break wind." From DaveL at classifiedcentral.com Sat Dec 6 02:24:34 1997 From: DaveL at classifiedcentral.com (Dave Legassi) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:24:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: FYI Message-ID: <19971205175924437.AWD271@classifiedcentral.com> Good afternoon, Just wanted to let you know about the Global Advertising Inter-Network. We are a classified ad network with over 650 member websites, each and every one of them promoting our site, promoting your ads! Check it out at: http://www.gainads.com Thanks! From honig at otc.net Fri Dec 5 10:30:29 1997 From: honig at otc.net (David Honig) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:30:29 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <199712050444.XAA03304@bofh.internal.net> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971205095149.00804630@206.40.207.40> At 07:17 AM 12/5/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >Steve Thompson writes: >> As for Gays and Lezbians, well, sorry but that's right out. Such unproductive >> behaviour cannot be tolerated. > >Gas the perverts. Gas is corrosive; we can harvest their organs for breeders who need lungs and corneas if we use a different method. Or we can use the organs to keep the suffering alive indefinately, since suicide is out. The goal, after all, is as much human biomass at whatever cost.... ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig at otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles. From goddesshera at juno.com Fri Dec 5 10:38:07 1997 From: goddesshera at juno.com (Anonymous Remailer) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:38:07 +0800 Subject: launch memes Message-ID: <19971204.083812.24303.40.goddesshera@juno.com> Zooko Journeyman propounded, >Terrorism and violent confrontation are the ultimate form of >politics. Uh, no. Terrorism and violent confrontation BY PROXY are examples of "politics." Terrorism and violent confrontation on one's own behalf is called "recreation." This message was automatically remailed. The sender is unknown, unlogged, and nonreplyable. Send complaints and blocking requests to . From hallam at ai.mit.edu Fri Dec 5 10:59:58 1997 From: hallam at ai.mit.edu (Hallam-Baker) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:59:58 +0800 Subject: Singapore In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971205134306.007187b0@panix.com> Message-ID: <199712051846.NAA02874@muesli.ai.mit.edu> From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 5 11:01:03 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:01:03 +0800 Subject: White House humiliates Louis Freeh in public In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971205103112.006e9f04@popd.ix.netcom.com> Isn't this great! I was listening to Leftie Radio the other day, and they were talking about how Janet Reno wasn't appointing an independent prosecutor to bust Clinton, and how Louis Freeh was pushing for it. (No, not Rush, Pacifica's Democracy Now...) Maybe this'll push Clinton into dumping Louis. Maybe it'll push Congress into dumping Janet. There are some downsides; it could help Freeh look like a more honest guy than he is, or help him get rehired when the Republicans take over in 2000, and he could pull off some wiretap busting Clinton, but mostly he just looks disloyal, which should annoy the Republicans. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From frissell at panix.com Fri Dec 5 11:05:16 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:05:16 +0800 Subject: Singapore In-Reply-To: <199712051359.IAA10734@u1.farm.idt.net> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971205134306.007187b0@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:44 AM 12/5/97 -0500, jay holovacs wrote: >This post has a strange deja vu to it. I can remember back in the '60s when revolutionary wannabes would talk of the glorious peoples paradise while living in their comfortable suburban homes. How the workers' education system was open to all, no one was unemployed... I don't think that Singapore is a fabulous place to live but its total freedom is probably greater than Germany or France. Our total freedom in the US is greater than Singapore's. It has just been getting attacked by those who accept the greater freedom violations of many other countries including many of those in the EU. Germans lack many speech and association rights. Germany has asked the US to arrest and extradite Americans for speech crimes. They have mandatory address registration with the government (as does Singapore). On the other hand, Germans have very restrictive labor and commerce laws, high taxes, and other laws that Singapore doesn't have. Germany has mandatory "certification" (licensing) for almost every job in the country. Singapore has some of these sorts of restrictions too but because of its other economic freedoms, it is freer than Germany. Germany steals 50% of GDP and blows it on cigareets and whiskey and wild, wild, women. Singapore steals only 20% of GDP (and requires an additional 20% mandatory personally-owned retirement savings from salaries). Singaporeans are thus freer to use their own money than Germans. Singapore is unfree in many ways but freer than many other countries not usually attacked as tyrranies. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIhLNoVO4r4sgSPhAQG/4QQApynCOtYCD/S6O1hXeBf6fLXTRJzPuplL ebyU12jz1Hfg8q92xAzxi74n2SGT8nNeGtFbroFLY9cP1wn8kN9mH25UpkiDq77Q pEGgpVD0pc855ZXhzbqPyvzolwL8Xq37xvRTS8b84lbv8O0YY1mkhEm8z//9ILY/ pT0RtwulpiY= =0j+/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tm at dev.null Fri Dec 5 11:26:04 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:26:04 +0800 Subject: Singapore In-Reply-To: <199712051846.NAA02874@muesli.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: <348852B0.1742@dev.null> Hallam-Baker wrote: Hallam-Baker obviously thinks that he can thwart my insightful, barbed diatribes against him by posting empty messages to the CypherPunks list, thereby giving me no grounds for my [last month's CypherPunk phrase of the month here] attacks on him. While this clever ruse may have worked if I was in my usual under- medicated psychotic state, it just so happens that I am currently in an over-medicated psychotic state, and able to leap tall logic with a single bound. Halam-Bakker is obviously following the orders of his Puppet Masters to take advantage of the old adage, "I don't care what they say about me, as long as they spell my name right." He thinks that he can raise his reputation capital by spelling his name right in empty messages which give no one an opportunity to point out the evil intentions which are subliminally lurking in his posts to the list. Well, I'm wise to your little game, H-B. I dare to 'say something' in your _next_ post. I double-dare you... TruthMonger From woodshed at stopgocal.com Fri Dec 5 11:35:34 1997 From: woodshed at stopgocal.com (woodshed at stopgocal.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:35:34 +0800 Subject: What has 4 legs and your childs name? Message-ID: ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Due to the Postal Strike we are trying direct email. If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please reply to this message with "remove" as the subject and you will not receive any more email from our server. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Beautifully handcrafted coat rack and stool with your childs name, please visit our web ad at: http://www.stopgocal.com/woodshed/index.html 12/5/97 From nobody at REPLAY.COM Fri Dec 5 11:47:42 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:47:42 +0800 Subject: McAfee on KRAP Message-ID: <199712051939.UAA20026@basement.replay.com> Old press release from McAfee boasting Key Recovery Alliance membership: MCAFEE JOINS KEY RECOVERY ALLIANCE; MULTI-VENDOR GROUP TO CREATE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR RECOVERY OF ENCRYPTION KEYS Key Recovery Alliance to Develop Solutions Which Balance the Needs of End- Users, Employers, and International Governments SANTA CLARA, CALIF. (December 12, 1996) -- McAfee (Nasdaq: MCAF), a leading vendor of network security and management software, today announced that it has joined the Key Recovery Alliance, a coalition of encryption software vendors who have joined together to promote international specifications for encrypted information. "As a member of the Alliance, McAfee will work to create an internationally recognized and widely available standard for trusted key recovery," said Dan Freedman, vice president of security products at McAfee. "Trusted key recovery enables the responsible deployment of encryption technologies worldwide, while addressing the valid interests and security requirements of end-users, employers, and government." McAfee recently extended its family of network security products with the introduction of three new encryption solutions. These solutions include PCCrypto for encryption of desktop computer files and electronic mail; WebCrypto for the encryption of Internet email; and NetCrypto for transparent encryption of all communications over TCP/IP networks such as corporate intranets and the Internet. The Key Recovery Alliance was formed in October, and is composed of approximately 40 different network security vendors who have joined to cooperate on the development and promotion of internationally-accepted standards for encryption key recovery. Encryption keys are the codes that unlock encrypted information. Encryption key recovery refers to the necessary ability to recover lost or damaged encryption keys. Common situations in which encryption key recovery would be needed include when the death or departure of an employee who maintained mission-critical encrypted information causes the encryption key to be lost; when an encryption key becomes damaged due to a hard disk crash; or when a court order warrants the decryption of computer-based evidence. Company Background Founded in 1989, McAfee is a leading worldwide vendor of Network Security and Management products for enterprise networks. The Company is also a leader in Internet and Web-based electronic software distribution. McAfee is adquartered in Santa Clara, California and can be reached by phone at (408) 988-3832 or by fax at (408) 970-9727. McAfee's Web address is http://www.mcafee.com. From tcmay at got.net Fri Dec 5 11:49:39 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:49:39 +0800 Subject: Locked Up and Barred From Net In-Reply-To: <666kg6$h6l$1@news.stealth.net> Message-ID: <199712051936.LAA00142@always.got.net> This article touches on several Cypherpunks themes and technologies, including: use of anonymous remailers, mandatory Web content filters, bans on encryption, and bomb-making instructions. True, the persons being affected here are prisoners and parolees, and prisoners obviously are lacking certain civil liberties. Parollees, too. (Whether those convicted of felonies or even lesser crimes should be denied civil liberties after their sentence has been completed is a troubling issue I won't get into right now.) But as more and more things are declared criminal, and as selective prosecution is becoming the norm, these increasing restrictions may affect a larger fraction of the population. And, I think, the attitude here toward paroled convicts gives us some hints about the application of the Four Horsemen arguments in general. --Tim May > From http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/8854.html > > Twice Removed: Locked Up and Barred from Net > by Steve Silberman > 4:57am��3.Dec.97.PST > > When US District Court Judge Sam Sparks sent Chris Lamprecht to the > Federal Correctional Institution in Bastrop, Texas, in 1995, the > 24-year-old hacker sobbed before the bench. A stint in the federal pen > was terrifying enough, but the judge had tacked an unusual condition onto > his 70-month sentence. Though Lamprecht was being sent to Bastrop for > money laundering - not the hacking that earned him the handle "Minor > Threat" - Judge Sparks stipulated that Lamprecht was forbidden to access > the Internet until 2003. > > "I told the judge computers were my life," Lamprecht recalled. > > Any case that involves computers and a boyish, fair-skinned defendant is > bound to get press, but things have changed since Swing magazine > (http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/swing.html) billed Lamprecht as "the > first person to be officially exiled from cyberspace." If the young > hacker was the first to be exiled from the online world by law, he now has > plenty of company, following the circulation of an internal memo at the > Federal Bureau of Prisons last year, which set in stone a federal policy > of keeping prisoners - and even many parolees - offline. > > According to the federal view, logging on is simply incompatible with > incarceration. As chief bureau spokesman Todd Craig states, in > bureaucratese, "Access to the Internet is not a necessary tool for the > correctional process" - which means that with more than 1.6 million > people locked up in the United States alone, and thousands of parolees > subject to similar restrictions even as they attempt to rejoin modern > life, a significant population is being left behind by the network > revolution. > > What's at stake? As more and more jobs are wired into the Net and the > Web, the possibility that former offenders will be able to find > employment after incarceration becomes more and more remote - which > undermines the very bedrock of the correctional process, asserts Jenni > Gainsborough, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union's > National Prison Project (http://www.npp.org). > > "The aim of our prisons should be to release people who are able to > reintegrate themselves into society," she explains. "But no politician > wants to appear soft on crime. Nobody thinks about what's actually useful > to reduce the recidivism rate." > > A poster boy for keeping prisons unwired > > Mention the words prisoner and Internet in a sentence, and the same > object-lesson will come up over and over again: the case of George > Chamberlain, a sex offender incarcerated at Lino Lakes state prison in > Minnesota, who used his position as manager of computer services for a > venture called Insight Inc. to download child pornography from the Net > while sitting in jail. > > Chamberlain was a poster boy for keeping prisoners as far away from a > modem as possible. He not only siphoned 287 erotic images off the Net and > encrypted them on an optical drive behind the pass phrase "They cannot > commit me," he also compiled lists of thousands of children's' names, and > chitchatted with other pornographers through an anonymous remailer. > > "The idea that a prisoner had this kind of access to the Internet and was > able to collect explicit child pornography and communicate with others on > how to hide it," US Attorney David Lillehaug declared last March, "is > almost unbelievable." > > The Chamberlain case seemed all too believable, however, given a > statement issued by the US Parole Commission just three months earlier. > The commission, "responding to increased criminal use of the Internet," > approved "discretionary use of special conditions of parole that would > impose tight restrictions on the use of computers by certain high-risk > parolees." > > A spokesperson for the Parole Commission declined to answer questions > about the number of parolees currently subject to restrictions on > computer use, which include a ban on encryption, screening of online > activity by monitoring or blocking software, compulsory daily logging of > all Web sites visited, and unannounced searches of drives and disks by > parole officers. > > Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesman Craig equates the ban on computer use > by inmates to restrictions on use of the telephone. "They can make > 15-minute calls to pre-approved numbers, like family and clergy," Craig > says. It would be impossible, he says, to pre-approve forays into the > online world in the same way. > > In its press release, the commission said it acted "after noting the > surge of 'how-to' information available on the Internet and other > computer online services relating to such offenses as child molestation, > hate crimes, and the illegal use of explosives." > > "That's complete BS," charges Stanton McCandlish, program director for the > Electronic Frontier Foundation. "There was no alarming increase in that > kind of 'how-to' information on the Net. There was an increase in > publicity about politicians like Dianne Feinstein > (http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/bombstmt.html), who used those fears as > justification to limit use of the Internet." > > McCandlish points out that last June's Reno v. ACLU decision > (http://www.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html) by the Supreme Court sent a > message that the court considers the Net as much subject to First > Amendment speech protections as the printed word. Comparing broad > prohibitions on the use of computers by prisoners and parolees to banning > the act of writing by those in prison, McCandlish predicts that "the issue > is going to heat up" in the coming year. The EFF is "waiting for a good, > solid legal challenge" to arise before getting involved in a case, > McCandlish says. > > The world's best-kept secrets > > A small California businessman named John Danes runs an outfit called > Inmate.com, charging prisoners US$70 to design and maintain a personal > homepage (http://inmate.com/inmates.htm) and an email address for three > months. Each week, Danes prints out the incoming mail, peruses it for > forbidden content like pornography or communication from minors, and > forwards it to the inmates via snail mail. At present, nearly 70 male > prisoners and three women have homepages at Inmate.com. The majority of > the inmates are black or Hispanic; several of the pages maintain the > author's innocence; many are an invitation to romance. > > Ironically, the ACLU's Gainsborough attributes some of the public's fear > about convicted criminals having a gateway to the Net to the publicity > given to Web sites like Inmate.com and Dead Man Talkin' > (http://monkey.hooked.net/moneky/m/hut/deadman/deadman.html) - sites that > are put up by friends of prisoners who do not themselves have access. > > "Serial-killer homepages and prisoner sites contribute to the public > perception that there's a huge use of the Net by these people to > advertise their evil ideas," Gainsborough says, while affirming her > support for the right of prisoners to express themselves. > > One page on the Inmate.com site asks, "Have you ever wondered what it's > like to live in another world right here on Earth? What would you do if > you suddenly fell from grace? Prisons hold some of the world's best-kept > secrets." Secrets are one thing, Gainsborough observes, that prisoners > are not allowed to keep. > > "In many prisons, even [typewriters with built-in memory] are forbidden," > she says. "There's always this fear of prisoners hiding this stuff away - > so the idea of computers where people could really keep stuff hidden is > very frightening." > > In July 1996, a promising computer-training program at the Washington > State Reformatory was terminated when it appeared that the prisoners were > learning too much about computers - that is, more than prison officials > knew. > > Mike Williams, associate superintendent at the reformatory, was head of > security for the program, which was a pilot for a statewide effort that > would have allowed prisoners to learn how to use business software like > Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, and Word. > > "The inmates learned a lot of good stuff," Williams acknowledges. "They > were able to learn a trade while in prison, so that they might have been > actually able to get a job in that area when they got out. This was like > real-world vocational training." > > So why was the innovative program scrapped, rather than ported to every > jailhouse in the state? > > "Our superintendent thought it was a manageable pilot program," Williams > recalls, "but the key figures who needed to approve it up in Olympia > decided to put an end to it. We had inmates learning more about computers > than we had staff time to keep an eye on them. We couldn't keep up with > them." > > The fear that prisoners would use encryption or other electronic means to > cloak escape plans was a chief concern. "It was a cat-and-mouse game. We > had to load the software for them, and there was no money allocated to > hire more officers to do that kind of thing," Williams says. Though at > least one inmate claims that graduates of the program had landed good > jobs upon release, state deputy director of prisons Jim Blodgett - one of > the "key figures" in the state capital who decided to shut the gate on > the pilot effort - told a reporter, "We couldn't see the value in keeping > it. We had staff not knowing what was going on." > > If the object of incarceration is to ensure that prisoners remain at > least as ignorant of current technologies as untrained prison staff, the > federal policy will be deemed a success. But as the Net touches every > area of our experience - from our most intimate relationships to our > responsibilities as participants in a democratic society - more and more > of those on the outside of the bars are coming to feel, with Lamprecht, > that "computers are our lives," or are inextricably linked with our > lives. > > And those on the inside are destined to be released into a life for which > they are even more unprepared than former offenders were in the past. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Minor Threat's Web Site http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/ > Official Kevin Mitnick Web Site http://www.kevinmitnick.com -- The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Dec 5 11:49:46 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:49:46 +0800 Subject: another mixmaster source branch Message-ID: <199712051943.TAA04959@server.test.net> Anyone with a export controlled web site in the US like to give home to Rich Salz's mixmaster re-write? Adam ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:28:32 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Salz To: coderpunks at toad.com Subject: Take my mixmaster source Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-coderpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk A long time ago, Lance graciously gave me a copy of his mixmaster source. I ended up doing a line-by-line rewrite, splitting it into different executables, FSF configure'ing it, etc. I'm not going to have time to finish it. There is one bug that I know of, an off-by-one error in decoding multi-hop messages. If you would like fame and fortune and a somewhat interesting debugging problem, and you're inside the US or Canada, please send me email. I would like to see this code get released, and used. Thanks. ------- End of forwarded message ------- From jim.burnes at ssds.com Fri Dec 5 11:54:35 1997 From: jim.burnes at ssds.com (Jim Burnes) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:54:35 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <19971204174655.45349@songbird.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 1997 at 05:22:23PM -0700, Jim Burnes wrote: > [...] > > > And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist > > > society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely > > > capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly > > > less free, too. > > > > > > > hmmm.. no one says that singapore doesn't work anyomore than > > that they say that a team of horses under a whip doesn't work. > > the difference is that in singapore the policeman is inside. > > Nope. I have several friends who are from Singapore, and that is > simply not the way they see it. They like their country, and they > are proud of it. They know it isn't perfect, but they think it is > pretty damn good. From their perspective your statement simply > reflects the narrowness of your point of view. > Nice try, Kent. This is to be expected by people who have the internal policeman. This is like a kitchen slave that says they like their kitchen. From a kitchen slave's point of view a wandering minstrel that doesn't eat as often or as well may not be as well off. That just means the kitchen slave is fatter not more free. Just wait until they try and leave the plantation. Indeed this is pretty much the viewpoint of every person in every country unless the authoritarians have really clamped down. My country good or bad with exceptions. > [...] > > > there is a fundamental flaw your case. economic freedom is really the > > same as social freedom. > > This also represents a terribly narrow view of the world. Freedom is > psychological state as much as it is a social or an economic one. > Only from someone who doesn't understand the basics of economics. I am differentiating between freedom and hapiness. I start from the premise, "as it harms no one, do as you please". How many nation states allow this? Freedom is the opposite of slavery. I don't want happiness. I don't want the nanny state. I want freedom. It is a real state, Kent. I want to do everything I'm personally capable of short of harming others...and that better be real and tangible harm. Lets think about this, Kent. I am showing you that it has real, tangible properties -- not some myth or religious belief. Take an example citizen unit "Sally". Sally want's to contract with a company to provide programming services. She doesn't want social security. She justs wants all the money she contracted for. Nothing more, nothing less. The amount she contracted for has real tangible benefits. Food she can buy, free time, better clothes, better education for her kids etc.... Mr Big Brother steps in and takes a big chunk of it without her permission. This decreases the net number of hours left in Sallys life. She must work longer hours now. If Sally is not the person who decides how the hours in her life should be spent she doesn't even own her own life. Who owns it? I'll give you one guess. I'll give you the fact that Sally is permitted (at least in most Nation States) to become a hermit and own herself again. But remember we're talking about the freedom of a society. I'll also give you the fact that she is limited by other things like environmental factors, acts of god, her own emotional decisions to support her parents or something. These are all voluntary decisions. > > In either case, the act of buying and selling things is the ultimate > > expression of free association/assembly. > > Nonsense. The ultimate expression of freedom is skinny dipping in a > mountain lake. I'm sorry Kent, but that is a NOP. Go back to the hermit argument. Besides, who now is talking about feelings. > > > I might mention, since this is the cypherpunk list, that crypto > > is *exactly* what big brother is afraid of because we might realize > > what *kind* of slaves we are and what kind of masters they are. > > Incidentally it might actually free us from this prison some > > day. The first step to escaping from your jail cell is understanding > > that you live in a jail cell and what kind of cell that is. Most > > new citizens units have a room reserved from birth. > > (slave: birth to grave) > > > > Freedom to make purchasing decisions is *the* major component of freedom > > in any advanced society. It is the medium by which we interact > > with society at large. Red Hat software doesn't know who the hell > > I am and they probably can't afford to care that much. What they > > do know is that if they configure a really decent version of Linux > > that I will give them $50. It allows me to do my thing and it puts > > food on their table. > > > > Economic freedom is what makes it possible for society to evolve into > > to something better. Lack of it eventually dooms the inhabitants > > to decide whether to become a hammer or an anvil -- a host or > > a parasite. > > > > If you don't think that the population is prevented from making > > purchasing decisions then you better get the sleep out of your > > eyes and take a good, hard look. > > > > > > Actually, it's dogma, not pedagogy. The notion of "freedom" to a > libertarian is like the notion of "faith" to a Christian -- a > self-reinforcing mental trap, a span of circular thinking that is just > a little too large for them to notice and say "Haven't I been here > before?" Allright, Kent. Lets play a little thought experiment. Sometimes its helpful to remove extraneous bullshit from an argument. Lets start with the most obvious cases of non-freedom and work outwards. (1) You are dead (2) You have been kidnapped, bound by duct tape into a chair - hand, foot and mouth. (3) You are a physical slave. Being unlucky enough to be born into a slave society or captured during warfare you grow up a slave. Your life is at the disposal of your owner. You are probably well aware of your condition, but have not the resources do alleviate it. ..tell me when to stop, Kent.... (4) You are a psychological slave. Having let someone else make your decisions for you, your mental and physical faculties are at the the disposal of the meme controllers. (5) You are an economic slave. Having the misfortune of your wealth being tied to the fiat of a nation-state, the value of your time and the stability of your day-to-day world are at the disposal of those who worship power. Each of these forms of servitude requires more and more information to detect. Many citizen units, like fish in a fishbowl, endlessly swim in circles, happy and content -- never seeing the fishbowl until they bump straight into it. The usual reaction is to say, "hmmm...thats strange" and then they go on swimming in circles again. Eventually the housecat comes by and eats the fish next to them. This is scary for the fish, but bound by the limitations of the fishbowl will simply assimilate it and chalk it up to an act of god. > Like moths they flit around the bright emotional icons that > blind them, define their world, and trap their thoughts in endless > repetition. Very pretty, Kent. You get an 'A' for prose, but an 'D' for reasoning. OK...I'm flitting about those bright emotional icons. Feeling pretty good. I don't like slavery, Kent. Why? I don't know. I'll admit it. Is it rational? I don't know. I am a human being with my own will. I don't like slavery and submission any more than I like a hot poker in the eye. If I am bothered by it and continue returning to contemplate it, please forgive me. Maybe that makes me human. I prefer to voluntarily serve my fellow citizens. If you prefer to serve in the kitchen, no matter how well stocked or lavish, then I pity you. Did this stuff bother me before I saw it? No. Did it affect me? Most definitely. But I've always had an extreme dislike for bullys. Maybe thats another emotional icon, Kent. > > For all the brave words about reason and logic, and all the endless > discussion about it, libertarians don't ever actually sit down and > think "what does the word 'freedom' mean, anyway?". OK. I think we took care of that. Freedom doesn't mean external factors. Freedom means living in an environment and having the ability to alter or manipulate that enviornment and expand beyond the environment. Obviously the jail cell is only free until you get to the bars or wish to be free from them. Maybe were getting somewhere here.... Freedom is relative to your desires much as wealth is. (desired actions - external-human-imposed-limitations) = slavery (desired wealth - actual wealth) = poverty If you are a totally integrated Zen monks who has achieved enlightenment maybe you could be very happy in a jail cell. If you play video games all day and eat pizza all night you are free. If you discover the limitation that have been imposed on you and think they are nonsensical, artificial and human imposed then you are a slave...unless you don't care to explore beyond those limitations. What kind of human do I want to be? I don't want to escape into the internal. I don't want to permanantly bury myself in hedonistic pleasure (but the thought has occurred to me) I don't wan't to immerse myself in 9-5 wage slavery. I wan't to explore the internal and the external. I wan't to become more than I am. I realize these things are available in this world. Its just that I don't want to subject myself to the psychological subjugation that it takes. Read that "kissing up". I've almost reached the point where individual effort can max out without massive kissing up. Perhaps that's my own self-imposed prison, but I'd prefer to advance by serving others in the free market. But don't worry, I'm still trying. > Instead, their thinking goes down to a point where they can repeat some mantra like > "Freedom to make purchasing decisions is *the* major component of > freedom in any advanced society", and they never realize the exact > circularity involved. Maybe you could explain it. I base my beliefs on the fact that any civilization beyond a few thousand people must interact via some type of money, or stagnate. If you don't understand mutual coincidence of wants, I could explain it to you. The society is then defined by the dynamics of that currency because it defines the nature of free association beyond the boundaries of the merely personal (ie: families, friends, jumping in mountain lakes). Who or what guarantees the integrity of that money(s) defines the nature of the civilization. Whether it grows or contracts, whether the people save their hard-earned cash or spend it, the nature of level of debt, waste, etc. Notice I'm not suggesting we all return to gold. But the above observations still hold. Who or what guarantees the moeny? Does the president guarantee it, the banks individually, the banks severally, the central bank, the head of the central bank, or emergent market forces? And people who believe that money is root of all evil are simply falling prey to psychological slavery. That meme must have been invented by people threatened by freedom. Money simply allows you the freedom to interact with the society at large. It allows you to do anything you would normally do - good or evil. It might as well be "Freedom to worship the > Lord is *the* major component of freedom in any advanced society." Or > "Being a slave to purchasing decisions is *the* major component of > slavery in any advanced society." > Thinking in platitudes is not thinking. > Well I suppose you could argue this, but its provably wrong. Proof by counterexample: There are places where you are free to worship the lord, the devil, the trees or the cracks in the sidewalk if you like. Without economic freedom, the freedom to sell or not to sell, to purchase or not to purchase we'd be living in little mud shacks without many of the modern advances of civilization. Money enables large sectors of the populace to interact without barter. These large sectors then specialize and the results of this specialization and advancement are the history of science. Personally I like those advances. Other than that I will agree to disagree with you, Kent. Have a better one, jim From tm at dev.null Fri Dec 5 12:05:47 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 04:05:47 +0800 Subject: Locked Up and Barred From Net In-Reply-To: <666kg6$h6l$1@news.stealth.net> Message-ID: <34885CAB.519B@dev.null> It has long been known that the artists, the lunatics and the criminal element in society are a harbinger of the future. What is less known is that the way society deals with them is also a harbinger of the future. Supporting Nazi Fascist Oppressors who campaign under slogans that share the underlying theme "Tough On the 'Other Guy'" can be a very tempting prospect. Waking up to find that *you* have been officially declared "The 'Other Guy'" is not uncommon, however. NEWS FLASH!!! When John Law enforces that "Tough on Crime" law that you supported, he is not going to risk his butt by going after armed felons such as Tim May, as you had intended. He is going to go after unarmed felons who supported the new laws, little realizing that they, themselves, were "Felons under an increasing number of laws." (Don't bother to check the archives. I said that first. Trust me.) TruthMonger Tim May wrote: > > This article touches on several Cypherpunks themes and technologies, > including: use of anonymous remailers, mandatory Web content filters, bans > on encryption, and bomb-making instructions. > > True, the persons being affected here are prisoners and parolees, and > prisoners obviously are lacking certain civil liberties. Parollees, too. > (Whether those convicted of felonies or even lesser crimes should be > denied civil liberties after their sentence has been completed is a > troubling issue I won't get into right now.) > > But as more and more things are declared criminal, and as selective > prosecution is becoming the norm, these increasing restrictions may affect > a larger fraction of the population. > > And, I think, the attitude here toward paroled convicts gives us some > hints about the application of the Four Horsemen arguments in general. > > --Tim May > > > From http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/8854.html > > > > Twice Removed: Locked Up and Barred from Net > > by Steve Silberman > > 4:57am 3.Dec.97.PST > > > > When US District Court Judge Sam Sparks sent Chris Lamprecht to the > > Federal Correctional Institution in Bastrop, Texas, in 1995, the > > 24-year-old hacker sobbed before the bench. A stint in the federal pen > > was terrifying enough, but the judge had tacked an unusual condition onto > > his 70-month sentence. Though Lamprecht was being sent to Bastrop for > > money laundering - not the hacking that earned him the handle "Minor > > Threat" - Judge Sparks stipulated that Lamprecht was forbidden to access > > the Internet until 2003. > > > > "I told the judge computers were my life," Lamprecht recalled. > > > > Any case that involves computers and a boyish, fair-skinned defendant is > > bound to get press, but things have changed since Swing magazine > > (http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/swing.html) billed Lamprecht as "the > > first person to be officially exiled from cyberspace." If the young > > hacker was the first to be exiled from the online world by law, he now has > > plenty of company, following the circulation of an internal memo at the > > Federal Bureau of Prisons last year, which set in stone a federal policy > > of keeping prisoners - and even many parolees - offline. > > > > According to the federal view, logging on is simply incompatible with > > incarceration. As chief bureau spokesman Todd Craig states, in > > bureaucratese, "Access to the Internet is not a necessary tool for the > > correctional process" - which means that with more than 1.6 million > > people locked up in the United States alone, and thousands of parolees > > subject to similar restrictions even as they attempt to rejoin modern > > life, a significant population is being left behind by the network > > revolution. > > > > What's at stake? As more and more jobs are wired into the Net and the > > Web, the possibility that former offenders will be able to find > > employment after incarceration becomes more and more remote - which > > undermines the very bedrock of the correctional process, asserts Jenni > > Gainsborough, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union's > > National Prison Project (http://www.npp.org). > > > > "The aim of our prisons should be to release people who are able to > > reintegrate themselves into society," she explains. "But no politician > > wants to appear soft on crime. Nobody thinks about what's actually useful > > to reduce the recidivism rate." > > > > A poster boy for keeping prisons unwired > > > > Mention the words prisoner and Internet in a sentence, and the same > > object-lesson will come up over and over again: the case of George > > Chamberlain, a sex offender incarcerated at Lino Lakes state prison in > > Minnesota, who used his position as manager of computer services for a > > venture called Insight Inc. to download child pornography from the Net > > while sitting in jail. > > > > Chamberlain was a poster boy for keeping prisoners as far away from a > > modem as possible. He not only siphoned 287 erotic images off the Net and > > encrypted them on an optical drive behind the pass phrase "They cannot > > commit me," he also compiled lists of thousands of children's' names, and > > chitchatted with other pornographers through an anonymous remailer. > > > > "The idea that a prisoner had this kind of access to the Internet and was > > able to collect explicit child pornography and communicate with others on > > how to hide it," US Attorney David Lillehaug declared last March, "is > > almost unbelievable." > > > > The Chamberlain case seemed all too believable, however, given a > > statement issued by the US Parole Commission just three months earlier. > > The commission, "responding to increased criminal use of the Internet," > > approved "discretionary use of special conditions of parole that would > > impose tight restrictions on the use of computers by certain high-risk > > parolees." > > > > A spokesperson for the Parole Commission declined to answer questions > > about the number of parolees currently subject to restrictions on > > computer use, which include a ban on encryption, screening of online > > activity by monitoring or blocking software, compulsory daily logging of > > all Web sites visited, and unannounced searches of drives and disks by > > parole officers. > > > > Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesman Craig equates the ban on computer use > > by inmates to restrictions on use of the telephone. "They can make > > 15-minute calls to pre-approved numbers, like family and clergy," Craig > > says. It would be impossible, he says, to pre-approve forays into the > > online world in the same way. > > > > In its press release, the commission said it acted "after noting the > > surge of 'how-to' information available on the Internet and other > > computer online services relating to such offenses as child molestation, > > hate crimes, and the illegal use of explosives." > > > > "That's complete BS," charges Stanton McCandlish, program director for the > > Electronic Frontier Foundation. "There was no alarming increase in that > > kind of 'how-to' information on the Net. There was an increase in > > publicity about politicians like Dianne Feinstein > > (http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/bombstmt.html), who used those fears as > > justification to limit use of the Internet." > > > > McCandlish points out that last June's Reno v. ACLU decision > > (http://www.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html) by the Supreme Court sent a > > message that the court considers the Net as much subject to First > > Amendment speech protections as the printed word. Comparing broad > > prohibitions on the use of computers by prisoners and parolees to banning > > the act of writing by those in prison, McCandlish predicts that "the issue > > is going to heat up" in the coming year. The EFF is "waiting for a good, > > solid legal challenge" to arise before getting involved in a case, > > McCandlish says. > > > > The world's best-kept secrets > > > > A small California businessman named John Danes runs an outfit called > > Inmate.com, charging prisoners US$70 to design and maintain a personal > > homepage (http://inmate.com/inmates.htm) and an email address for three > > months. Each week, Danes prints out the incoming mail, peruses it for > > forbidden content like pornography or communication from minors, and > > forwards it to the inmates via snail mail. At present, nearly 70 male > > prisoners and three women have homepages at Inmate.com. The majority of > > the inmates are black or Hispanic; several of the pages maintain the > > author's innocence; many are an invitation to romance. > > > > Ironically, the ACLU's Gainsborough attributes some of the public's fear > > about convicted criminals having a gateway to the Net to the publicity > > given to Web sites like Inmate.com and Dead Man Talkin' > > (http://monkey.hooked.net/moneky/m/hut/deadman/deadman.html) - sites that > > are put up by friends of prisoners who do not themselves have access. > > > > "Serial-killer homepages and prisoner sites contribute to the public > > perception that there's a huge use of the Net by these people to > > advertise their evil ideas," Gainsborough says, while affirming her > > support for the right of prisoners to express themselves. > > > > One page on the Inmate.com site asks, "Have you ever wondered what it's > > like to live in another world right here on Earth? What would you do if > > you suddenly fell from grace? Prisons hold some of the world's best-kept > > secrets." Secrets are one thing, Gainsborough observes, that prisoners > > are not allowed to keep. > > > > "In many prisons, even [typewriters with built-in memory] are forbidden," > > she says. "There's always this fear of prisoners hiding this stuff away - > > so the idea of computers where people could really keep stuff hidden is > > very frightening." > > > > In July 1996, a promising computer-training program at the Washington > > State Reformatory was terminated when it appeared that the prisoners were > > learning too much about computers - that is, more than prison officials > > knew. > > > > Mike Williams, associate superintendent at the reformatory, was head of > > security for the program, which was a pilot for a statewide effort that > > would have allowed prisoners to learn how to use business software like > > Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, and Word. > > > > "The inmates learned a lot of good stuff," Williams acknowledges. "They > > were able to learn a trade while in prison, so that they might have been > > actually able to get a job in that area when they got out. This was like > > real-world vocational training." > > > > So why was the innovative program scrapped, rather than ported to every > > jailhouse in the state? > > > > "Our superintendent thought it was a manageable pilot program," Williams > > recalls, "but the key figures who needed to approve it up in Olympia > > decided to put an end to it. We had inmates learning more about computers > > than we had staff time to keep an eye on them. We couldn't keep up with > > them." > > > > The fear that prisoners would use encryption or other electronic means to > > cloak escape plans was a chief concern. "It was a cat-and-mouse game. We > > had to load the software for them, and there was no money allocated to > > hire more officers to do that kind of thing," Williams says. Though at > > least one inmate claims that graduates of the program had landed good > > jobs upon release, state deputy director of prisons Jim Blodgett - one of > > the "key figures" in the state capital who decided to shut the gate on > > the pilot effort - told a reporter, "We couldn't see the value in keeping > > it. We had staff not knowing what was going on." > > > > If the object of incarceration is to ensure that prisoners remain at > > least as ignorant of current technologies as untrained prison staff, the > > federal policy will be deemed a success. But as the Net touches every > > area of our experience - from our most intimate relationships to our > > responsibilities as participants in a democratic society - more and more > > of those on the outside of the bars are coming to feel, with Lamprecht, > > that "computers are our lives," or are inextricably linked with our > > lives. > > > > And those on the inside are destined to be released into a life for which > > they are even more unprepared than former offenders were in the past. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Minor Threat's Web Site http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/ > > Official Kevin Mitnick Web Site http://www.kevinmitnick.com > > -- > The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From frissell at panix.com Fri Dec 5 12:40:51 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 04:40:51 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971205152745.036de494@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:42 PM 12/5/97 GMT, Paul Spirito wrote: >Seriously, I've never lived in Sweden or Singapore -- if I do, I'll get back >to the list on which I prefer -- but I'm troubled by the tendency of >Libertarians to err on the side of big business fetishism rather than civil >liberties. Both are part of the Doctrine, of course*, but I often hear them >argue that wild-west capitalism inevitably leads to political freedom -- so, >not to worry -- but rarely that political freedom invariably leads to >laissez-faire capitalism (so, not to worry). That's because it doesn't. And there is a difference between "political rights" and liberty. I care about the latter and not the former. Plenty of tyrannical democracies. I judge governments by how much they leave me alone not by their form. >You might say that the latter is NOT TRUE. Well, right-o, but neither is the >former. Economic progress under a fascist regime leads inevitably to >political freedom? You guys actually make this argument. Certainly today's economic and technological freedom gives individuals vast money and vast power. This increases their ability to tell their governments to go fuck themselves. Whether they will choose to exercise this power, they certainly have it. >*Yes, Libertarians criticize corporate welfare, but just because it corrupts >the notion that a person's entire worth can be summarized in a stock >portfolio. No they criticize it because they don't like to *pay* for it. They believe in lower taxes and smaller governments. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIhjvIVO4r4sgSPhAQHEbQP+IlPZPSHqvPyEs4V4pETd4x3OnDjlH1bG WTI2hpmQYaQizMKgHIqjSkyEwB02uGouMeBmW6wxu+upVvwCVBLxY43h5UjkDKQa IqUFdYJt84kxGQzEDYX5KRSjN09fwUAxT4iG7rBxXwIzxPwdeVC0k3sdRnT7PE5X mQJ+M3h9iLM= =cdbj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wgriffin at enslaved.student.umd.edu Fri Dec 5 13:11:03 1997 From: wgriffin at enslaved.student.umd.edu (Wesley Griffin) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 05:11:03 +0800 Subject: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971205122651.007cae60@fast.synernet.com> Message-ID: <199712052053.PAA14508@enslaved.student.umd.edu> > At 11:42 AM 12/5/97 -0500, you wrote: > > "The government's key recovery program is a complete violation of the > > individual's right to privacy and, in fact, compromises of the system are > > already taking place. This shows that key escrow is an untenable policy," > > said Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading authorities on encryption > > and author of the book "Applied Cryptography". "SynData is paving the > > way for other software developers by taking a stand in opposition to the > > government and companies like Network Associates." > > > By "companies like Network Associates", do you mean "companies who are > members of the Key Recovery Alliance" (http://www.kra.org)? If so, here are > the "companies like Network Associates", in that regard: [Note RSA is a > Charter Member] This statement is seriously confusing Key Recovery and Key Escrow. They are NOT the same thing. Everybody knows what Key *Escrow* is and that it sucks. Key Recovery is *very* different in that are no databases kept of private keys. The website you mentioned (http://www.kra.org) contains some very good info on how Key Recovery works. I would like to see the source of Schneier's quote also, because I can't believe he could get the two confused. Wes Griffin wgriffin at glue.umd.edu From nobody at bureau42.ml.org Fri Dec 5 13:45:12 1997 From: nobody at bureau42.ml.org (bureau42 Anonymous Remailer) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 05:45:12 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <1c5bE7t2VZDcs9ZD4AjFLQ==@bureau42.ml.org> > Something that I have found irritating about the posts by > non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a > meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be repudiated, > or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster. I compared this > to sound bites. And Tim do I know how you hate sound bites. Look at it this way: no identity is persistent, signed or not. All just varying degrees. Maybe all we *ever* had was sound bites, but the closer proximities and smaller networks of the past made them seem more dynamic than they really were. From ravage at ssz.com Fri Dec 5 14:17:15 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 06:17:15 +0800 Subject: Forwarded mail... Message-ID: <199712052222.QAA25026@einstein.ssz.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:59:08 +0100 (MET) > From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill > The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has > been writing. To keep things simple, let's consider the statement > "McVeigh did the right thing." It is not a contract. It is not a > threat. It is not copyrighted. Actualy it is copyrighted the moment he hits the keystrokes and they appear in the buffer. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage at ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| From smith at securecomputing.com Fri Dec 5 14:28:09 1997 From: smith at securecomputing.com (Rick Smith) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 06:28:09 +0800 Subject: Please Beta test my communications cryptography product. In-Reply-To: <199712050100.RAA04735@proxy4.ba.best.com> Message-ID: At 5:00 PM -0800 12/4/97, James A. Donald wrote: > -- >I have produced a program that, like PGP, provides digital >signatures and communications encryption. > http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/Kong.htm >This is the first beta. Please beta test this product. Actually, it's more fun to beta test the product concept than it is the product itself, especially since I don't use Windoze these days. First of all, the product Kong is not solving the same problem PGP was designed to solve: PGP follows the classic approach to e-mail encryption, with certificates to address MIM and personal authentication issues. Kong only concerns itself with individuals' cyberspace identity. But there's something appealing to this simplifying notion, and I'm interested in anything that makes crypto easier for people to understand and use. I admit I can't figure out what crypto mechanism Kong is really using since there's obfuscating talk of passphrases and secrets. But I can see how I'd do it with conventional public key mechanisms. The 123 byte (or whatever) string included in the message would incorporate a digital signature over the message plus the public key used to produce the signature. Thus, each message contains an internal integrity check. Recipients also would be able to compare the public keys used to sign two or more messages allegedly from the same recipient and verify that they were signed by the same entity. (technical nit: I'd prefer to put the PK in a special message header field and only stick the digital signature data in the message body, like PGP). Since Kong does not use certificates, it is vulnerable to the Man in the Middle (MIM) attack and indeed to forgery. However, I also suspect that the behavior of a long lived cyberspace identity would make a MIM attack detectable and/or impractical in the long run. If John Doe consistently includes a public key in his web site, messages, and postings, then recipients have a relatively independent way to validate the key being used in a message allegedly from him. The public key is literally associated with the cyberspace identity and its "reputation capital." Since no third party is attesting to the identity, you could argue that it's exclusively established by the holder's cyberspace reputation. This is an interesting property. Key revocation remains a problem, as with any PK system. The key holder essentially starts over associating reputation capital with the new key. This could be weird (but the topic of an interesting tale) if the revoked key was actually disclosed to an adversary and actively used in forgeries. As mentioned above, I haven't used the produt itself. But the underlying concept may represent a practical subset of classic e-mail security. Rick. smith at securecomputing.com Secure Computing Corporation "Internet Cryptography" at http://www.visi.com/crypto/ and bookstores From berezina at qed.net Fri Dec 5 14:34:18 1997 From: berezina at qed.net (Paul Spirito) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 06:34:18 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <348d673c.36720307@mail.qed.net> On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 15:27:45 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: > And there is a difference between "political >rights" and liberty. I care about the latter and not the former. Plenty of >tyrannical democracies. I judge governments by how much they leave me alone >not by their form. Don't lecture me. I said "political freedom" by which I mean the liberty to speak, assemble, &c. I thought that was clear from the contextual reference to "civil liberties". By the way, do you want the government to leave others alone as well? To murder you, for example? Libertarians want a government capable of, & focused on, protecting their interests -- just like everyone else*. The question is: what *is* in my interest: long-term, thought-through, really? >Certainly today's economic and technological freedom gives individuals vast >money and vast power. This increases their ability to tell their governments >to go fuck themselves. Whether they will choose to exercise this power, they >certainly have it. Many of those vastly empowered individuals *are* the government. Recall that I wrote in opposition to the rosy scenario whereby economic progress inevitably leads to political liberty. Here are a couple of other scenarios: 1) The progress collapses in the face of massive corruption. See Malaysia. I'd be curious to know if you think this is more or less likely in a fascist state. 2) The government uses it's newfound technological & industrial capacity, & taxbase, for nefarious purposes. See fascist Italy, Germany, Japan. Once again, more or less likely in a fascist state? I'm no opponent of economic or technological progress, that would be silly. It engenders greater practical, not just theoretic, freedom (e.g. the ability to speak globally), goodies are fun, & even basic liberty is much more difficult to preserve when people are hungry. We can certainly agree on that. I also oppose large portions of the U.S. government, its criminal & regulatory structure. I'd like to see it move in the *direction* of Libertopia. True, I wouldn't want to see it get there, but we can agree on most short-term & mid-term issues. But once again, articles like Declan's "hey, Singapore may be 'Disneyland with the death penalty' but the trains sure run on time" piss me off. The implied valuation miscalculates my interest, & Declan's also, in my opinion, to the point of "brain rot," as Seth used to say**. Is a tax cut worth the enormous increase in arbitrariness in an authoritarian state? Apparently, the Joos are responsible for the crisis in Malaysia. Or so the Grand High Mystical Wizard who heads the country has suddenly decided. Wanna live there? As Libertarians point out, there's a huge difference between economic pressure (e.g. to purchase Windows) & being shot in the head. Abstract it out a bit -- it applies to comparisons between governments as well. >No they criticize [corporate welfare] because they don't like to *pay* for it. >They believe in lower taxes and smaller governments. Non-sequiter. You confuse net with gross. Paul *An anarchist believes the most capable, focused government *is* herself. **Yes, I support Declan's right to make up his own mind on such matters, but: 1) I believe he may be wrong. 2) I'm not the apologist for authoritarianism. http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Tornado.jpg From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Dec 5 15:13:56 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 07:13:56 +0800 Subject: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates In-Reply-To: <199712052053.PAA14508@enslaved.student.umd.edu> Message-ID: <199712052301.XAA01334@server.test.net> [you are posting to cypherpunks at toad.com... see: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/cp.html for where you should be posting -- hint: the address you are posting to is out of date] Wesley Griffin writes: > > By "companies like Network Associates", do you mean "companies who are > > members of the Key Recovery Alliance" (http://www.kra.org)? If so, here are > > the "companies like Network Associates", in that regard: [Note RSA is a > > Charter Member] > > This statement is seriously confusing Key Recovery and Key Escrow. > They are NOT the same thing. Everybody knows what Key *Escrow* is > and that it sucks. You need to understand Newspeak to understand any crypto documents written by the government, or government toadies. To them the key recovery, key escrow are just different PR terms to try to con people into going along with goverment backdoors in crypto software. The key recovery alliance program (KRAP) is a government program to bribe companies into building government backdoors into their crypto programs. The KRAP program requires it's participants to agree to fast track installation of GAK (Government Access to Keys -- master government backdoor stuff) into their software. In exchange for doing this the companies get permission to export ridiculously weak 56 bit crypto instead of even more ridiculously weak 40 bit crypto. They have a 2 year time frame in which to install government master backdoors into their crypto software. And there are reviews of progress made every 6 months -- failure to meet deadlines results in loss of 56 bit export permission. > Key Recovery is *very* different in that are no databases kept of > private keys. The website you mentioned (http://www.kra.org) > contains some very good info on how Key Recovery works. I would > like to see the source of Schneier's quote also, because I can't > believe he could get the two confused. I fully expect Schneier spoke out against KRAP -- the companies involved are government sell outs. This is why people are upset that PGP Inc was just bought out by a KRAP company McAfee (which recently renamed itself to Network Associates). Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Wes, below's the full article and source. You can reach Bruce via http://www.counterpane.com. 4 December 1997, PRNewswire: Right to Privacy for Sale in Cyberspace; SynData Technologies Inc. Speaks Out Against Key Recovery Cedar Grove, N.J. -- SynData Technologies Inc., a provider of encryption software solutions, released a statement today condemning Network Associates Inc., the market leader for virus protection software products, for supporting the government's key recovery program. Network Associates Inc., formerly known as McAfee Associates Inc., recently purchased Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) for $36 million, an encryption software provider. PGP had historically been opposed to key recovery. "It is time to seriously consider the threat that Network Associates poses to the individual's constitutional right to privacy," said David Romanoff, CEO of SynData Technologies Inc. "While Network Associates claims to protect privacy in cyberspace, they have actually traded our right to privacy for a shot at increased revenues overseas by supporting the key recovery program. The slippery slope has begun right under our noses. It's time to challenge both the government and companies who support the government's key recovery program before it is too late." The United States Commerce Department does not allow US encryption software makers to export strong encryption without a key recovery program. Companies who do not believe in the government's key recovery program are forced to develop both export and domestic versions of their software, each with a different strength. "The government's key recovery program is a complete violation of the individual's right to privacy and, in fact, compromises of the system are already taking place. This shows that key escrow is an untenable policy," said Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading authorities on encryption and author of the book "Applied Cryptography". "SynData is paving the way for other software developers by taking a stand in opposition to the government and companies like Network Associates." SynData Technologies does not believe in key recovery or other government involvement in the regulation of the encryption software industry. The company also believes that the current export curbs on encryption put the entire industry at a competitive disadvantage. Additionally, these policies undermine the security of the global marketplace and put the individual's right to privacy at risk. SynData Technologies Inc., based in Cedar Grove, New Jersey, unveiled their flagship encryption software product, SynCrypt, in September of this year. SynCrypt is available directly from SynData Technologies, 800-499-1469, and through downloads from the company's Website: www.syncrypt.com. ----- From declan at well.com Fri Dec 5 15:50:50 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 07:50:50 +0800 Subject: Microsoft and DoJ attorneys battle in Federal court today Message-ID: ************ http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/afternoon/0,1012,1616,00.html Microsoft vs. DOJ Update Microsoft finally had its day (or at least two hours) in court this afternoon. Its team of lawyers tried to fend off accusations that Microsoft unfairly used its operating system's popularity to force-feed Internet Explorer to computer makers. Federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson zeroed in on whether or not the browser is, in fact, part of Windows 95. "Are you not selling Windows 95 and Internet Explorer separately?" he asked. Not to computer manufacturers, carefully replied Microsoft's attorney, who said that the evidence proves the two products "obviously are" integrated. (For the judge to rule that Microsoft is violating a 1995 agreement, Justice Department lawyers first have to convince him that Internet Explorer and Windows 95 are two seperate products, which they tried to do today by waving around a shrinkwrapped copy of Internet Explorer 4.0.) The hearing in Washington, D.C., federal district court highlighted two wildly different views: Microsoft claims the Justice Department is picking a fight where none really should exist. But the government's antitrust lawyers said today they're fighting to stop the world's largest software company from "misusing its Windows power" to squash its competitors. Both sides are going to have to wait a while: Judge Jackson left the courtroom today without ruling on the case. --By Declan McCullagh/Washington From nobody at REPLAY.COM Fri Dec 5 15:52:31 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 07:52:31 +0800 Subject: Singapore & Freedom Message-ID: <199712052343.AAA20937@basement.replay.com> >On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, J. Lasser wrote: >And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian >capitalist society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that >Singapore's not entirely capitalist, but it's more capitalist >than this country and certainly less free, too. > http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,266,00.html >In some ways, Singaporeans are more free than U.S. citizens. >Income taxes and sales taxes are lower. Prostitution is legal. >The government does not impose rules on whom private landlords >can and can't rent to. Unlike some cities in the states, >Singapore has no curfews. Being able to walk outside safely at >night in any area of the city, even the poor excuse for the >city's red light district, has its attractions. > -Declan I lived and worked in Singapore for 8 years. Singapore is not what I call a free society. Their system has many advantages, you are pretty much free to make money providing you are doing so in an area where the government has no interest. The Singapore government runs many enterprises and if you happen to be their competition they will tear you apart to get rid of the competition. The Singaporean government tends to cater to the multinational corporations, who were their earlier ticket to economic prosperity, and don't do a lot to encourage local grown business other than to provide a suitable environment for business, which is good enough on its own. Singapore is a great place to do business, yours costs are predictable, something you can not say about the surrounding countries where corruption makes costs unpredictable. Singapore labor is reasonably priced, well-educated, reasonably trained, and well-disciplined - or at least they don't talk back or complain unless you try something really stupid. Singapore management is expensive, well-educated, but not quite as versatile as westerners. Singapore is a social experiment, a group (read PAP) has gained control and decided to mold the society into something different than it was. This is probably a good thing as in the 50s Singapore was a cesspool, in many ways. The story goes that you could smell Singapore 200 miles out, in an airplane. Everything that Singapore is today is what it was not in the 50s. The educational system has been engineered to produce the maximum number of worker units. Being a small country with limited resources (with labor being the main exportable resource) they could not afford to have an educational system which allowed some potential worker units to drop-out. Compare this against the American system where you are free to succeed, or free to fail, the choice is basically given to the citizen. In Singapore this is not how it works, the blinders are installed early, you are not permitted to fail to become a good productive member of the society. In Singapore you are free, as long as you are a good productive member of the society. Try talking back and complaining about the system and see where that gets you? I think they call it Woodbridge. This social engineering may be a good thing. Look at the benefits obtained by Singapore. In the current economic meltdown in SE Asia Singapore is only threatened with lower growth. The people are happy and they love their country and government, to the average Singaporean the government can do no wrong. Most Western governments would love to be in the same position. There are costs associated with an engineered society of this type. Elder Statesman Lee, he went by Harry Lee before he learned Mandarin, is always ranting about all the good genetics being wasted as there is a large number of educated women who have not married and therefore are not able to reproduce. Harry has been ranting about this for more than 10 years. In a nutshell certain segments of the population have lost their ability to mate. The Singapore government has initiated a program to help educated Singaporeans find mates. Great system, economic prosperity, but what am I supposed to do with this thing... Don't forget the other good points, no guns or bullets, color copiers are (were?) restricted, all media controlled by the government (even Time magazine was banned), mandatory savings program (CPF), National Service, and the government attitude of those that are not with us are against us. Also, don't forget that the Singaporean government has brought the Big Brother concept to reality. SingMonger From declan at well.com Fri Dec 5 16:07:26 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:07:26 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971205152745.036de494@panix.com> Message-ID: At 22:18 +0000 12/5/97, Paul Spirito wrote: >But once again, articles like Declan's "hey, Singapore may be 'Disneyland >with the death penalty' but the trains sure run on time" piss me off. You should read the complete article (I provided the URL, after all) before complaining that I'm somehow not critical enough of Singapore. -Declan PS: I value economic freedom quite highly. Besides, it's part of other freedoms. Can I publish a political newspaper as easily if my business is heavily regulated by EEOC and other bureaucrats, and I'm taxed heavily by still others? What about the economic regulations (like those on banks) that are used to intrude on our civil liberties? Final point: democracy isn't all that wonderful by itself. Singapore is a democracy, no? Forget fetishizing "democracy," already, and give me freedom! From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Dec 5 16:14:23 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:14:23 +0800 Subject: WoT discussions, Trust for Nyms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199712060006.AAA01508@server.test.net> Rick Smith writes: > I admit I can't figure out what crypto mechanism Kong is really > using since there's obfuscating talk of passphrases and secrets. What James describes on the page is that he is storing the private EC key in a file. The file is optionally encrypted with a passphrase. He also describes how the key file can be stored on floppy. The term he uses for the private key file is "secrets file". This much is fairly standard. The novel feature is that he includes the PK with the signature. I consider this useful, in that if you ever receive a communication, or read a post you wish to reply to you have all the information required to reply without going to a keyserver. You are vulnerable to MITM, but including a reasonable subset of the WoT with a post is not an option due to size. Another interesting option with EC is to derive the key from the passphrase, then there is no private key file. > Since Kong does not use certificates, it is vulnerable to the Man in the > Middle (MIM) attack and indeed to forgery. Most uses of PGP are subject to the same attack, because people do not have enough web of trust connectivity. PGP certificates give you the tools to avoid MITM attacks when you knew someone before hand. A widely deployed WoT generally makes MITM harder even when you converse with people only electronically, because somebody knows them in person, and this may be reflected in the WoT. The fact that it is easy to fabricate a whole community of fictitious people who know each other is interesting also. One method you could use to restrict this somewhat is to add a cost function to creating identities. A certificate proving certain monies have been paid for the identity, or a hash collision over a certain size. > However, I also suspect that the behavior of a long lived cyberspace > identity would make a MIM attack detectable and/or impractical in > the long run. If John Doe consistently includes a public key in his > web site, messages, and postings, then recipients have a relatively > independent way to validate the key being used in a message > allegedly from him. This is similar to including fingerprints at the bottom of posts. In some senses John Doe's web site, messages and postings define who he is in cyberspace. > As mentioned above, I haven't used the produt itself. But the > underlying concept may represent a practical subset of classic > e-mail security. I strongly suspect it entails a high percentage of the use of PGP. Very few people have WoT connections. And there is the question of what a WoT link means. The only people I have direct WoT links to are people who I first met electronically. I wouldn't know them from Adam. How do I know the person I met is the real Ian Goldberg, or whoever. Also an inherent problem is that just because I met Ian Goldberg once does not mean that all the people he signs keys of are who he thinks they are. The problem of preventing MITM can be viewed as the task of making the MITM's job difficult, and making it difficult for the MITM to perform many MITMs at once. One way to go about this is to distribute your belief of other peoples keys. The potentially helps to strengthen the WoT because you may work your way around the MITM by a link he does not control. For example you could download the list of email addresses from a keyserver and spam them all with the set of fingerprints of all the public key ring that you use (or all of the keys on the keyserver). Not that they would thank you for it, spamwise, but if there are in existance any MITM's it could conceivably flush some out. Another lower bandwidth method of making the MITM's job harder is to sign and/or publish hashes of public key databases -- download the keys, or some useful easily definable subset of keys on keyservers, and publish the hash of them in as many media as possible (web, finger, news, mail, newspapers, etc.) For example if the operator of a public key database published a hash of all the keys in his database in a widely available newspaper, the MITM now has to make sure that John Doe doesn't see this newspaper, or that the newspaper John sees has been reprinted espescially for him. If John Doe is suspicious he will stop a random person in the street and ask to see the key hash section breifly. In general John Doe's strategy to avoid being the subject of a MITM attack should be to be unpredictable in the channels he uses for authentication and communication. Let's say John buys a book on cryptography, and the author included his fingerprint. Then John could use this person to authenticate a key with Alice. He could write to the author, including a nonce with the plaintext, and ask the author to check that the key he thought belonged to Alice really did belong to her. Interlock protocols are another method of complicating the MITM's task. If Joe develops the habit of posting the hash of messages he is about to post a day in advance, the MITM must think of something to say also, and publish the hash, so that it can publish something a day later. As the MITM's messages now don't match with what Joe said, the MITM has to lie some more to keep up the game. We would like to overload the MITM so that his task of lying becomes computationally infeasible. Adam From declan at well.com Fri Dec 5 16:29:01 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:29:01 +0800 Subject: Get out of town Freeh! Message-ID: A cute cartoon from my friends down the hall: http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/12/05/mitchell/ From berezina at qed.net Fri Dec 5 17:04:00 1997 From: berezina at qed.net (Paul Spirito) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:04:00 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971205152745.036de494@panix.com> Message-ID: <34899afc.7121903@mail.qed.net> On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:50:16 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >You should read the complete article (I provided the URL, after all) before >complaining that I'm somehow not critical enough of Singapore. I've read the complete article twice, & I still somehow don't think you're critical enough of Singapore. Oh well, maybe I'm turning into a pissy, rabid, anti-authoritarian ideologue in my late youth. It's possible -- besides, I hate Christmas. I'd kiss your P.S. under the mistletoe ["I value economic freedom quite highly. Besides, it's part of other freedoms....Forget fetishizing "democracy," already, and give me freedom!"], though we might tussle over the exact shape of the Tax Rate vs. Economic Freedom curve. But that's for another week, & perhaps another mailing list. Time to get drunk & stumble out into the cold... Season's greetings, Paul http://www.nihidyll.com/gallery/Tornado.jpg From ravage at ssz.com Fri Dec 5 17:07:18 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:07:18 +0800 Subject: Forwarded mail... Message-ID: <199712060112.TAA25835@einstein.ssz.com> Forwarded message: >From INFO-RUSS-request at smarty.ece.jhu.edu Fri Dec 5 18:35:23 1997 From: INFO-RUSS-request at smarty.ece.jhu.edu Date: Fri, 5 Dec 97 14:33:28 -0500 Message-Id: <9712051933.AA02486 at smarty.ece.jhu.edu> To: info-russ at smarty.ece.jhu.edu >From INFO-RUSS-request at smarty.ece.jhu.edu Fri Dec 5 14:04:00 EST 1997 Errors-To: INFO-RUSS-request at smarty.ece.jhu.edu Sender: INFO-RUSS-request at smarty.ece.jhu.edu Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, Dec 5 97 14:15:59 EST From: info-russ at smarty.ece.jhu.edu To: info-russ at smarty.ece.jhu.edu Subject: INFO-RUSS: Chem-to schelkal, v chem byl spryatan infrakrasnyi ob'ektiv... --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is INFO-RUSS broadcast (1200+ subscribers). Home page, information, and archives: http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/inforuss.html To post, subscribe, or unsubscribe mail to info-russ at smarty.ece.jhu.edu ======================================================================== Folks, this is to follow up our previous story on arrested "spy" in Rostov, Russia. Looks like the old Sov-Russ-paranoia about spies is back. BTW, note a correction to the previous info: Mr. Bliss is not New Zealander, he is our fellow American who works for a New Zealand company. Alex Kaplan, info-russ owner/coordinator sasha at super.ece.jhu.edu http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan ======================================================================== Reuters, Friday December 5 9:06 AM EST American Charged In Rare Russian Spy Case By Adam Tanner MOSCOW (Reuters) - A 29-year-old U.S. telephone technician was charged with espionage against Russia Friday in what officials say is the first such case involving an American since the end of the Cold War. A spokesman for the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) said Richard Bliss, who was arrested in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don Nov. 25, had been formally charged with spying. The text of the criminal charges was to be read to Bliss in English translation as he does not speak Russian, Russian television reported. But the exact wording of the charges was not made public as it was a state security matter, the report said. Bliss had been in Rostov for two months working to install a wireless telephone system when he was detained. He worked for San Diego-based telecommunications company Qualcomm. The U.S. Embassy has said Bliss was not a spy and Qualcomm also denied he was involved in espionage, saying he was performing routine tests to help install a wireless telephone system. U.S. officials earlier said they were continuing to press for his release and expected Vice-President Al Gore to telephone Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin later in the day to appeal for his release. "At the highest levels of government exchanges of information are flowing back and forth quite rapidly," said Qualcomm's head of government relations, Bill Bold. The FSB earlier said Bliss had carried out long-distance topographical surveys with what it called illegally-imported satellite receivers and obtained secret information about unspecified "restricted" buildings in the Rostov area. Dan Pegg, a Qualcomm senior vice-president, said Bliss was using global positioning system (GPS) equipment to measure the strength of radio signals from a central communications transmitter. Asked if Bliss could have worked as a spy without Qualcomm's knowledge, Pegg said: "They say never say never, but I'd say absolutely not." A resident of San Diego, Bliss had been in Russia about two months when he was detained, Pegg said. A high-school graduate who never went to college, Bliss worked for several communications companies before Qualcomm hired him six months ago to help install telephone systems worldwide. REUTERS@ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From blancw at cnw.com Fri Dec 5 17:15:08 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (Blanc) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:15:08 +0800 Subject: Singapore & Freedom Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971205170800.006c3470@cnw.com> SingMonger wrote: >Don't forget the other good points, no guns or bullets, color >copiers are (were?) restricted, all media controlled by the >government (even Time magazine was banned), mandatory savings >program (CPF), National Service, and the government attitude of >those that are not with us are against us. Also, don't forget >that the Singaporean government has brought the Big Brother >concept to reality. .............................................................. Sounds like the kind of place suitable for people who don't have a Mind of Their Own, nor a personal vision of, or mission in, life (besides maintaining an active DNA pool). .. Blanc From pethern at inet.uni2.dk Fri Dec 5 17:25:15 1997 From: pethern at inet.uni2.dk (Peter Herngaard) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:25:15 +0800 Subject: Singapore In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971205134306.007187b0@panix.com> Message-ID: Reply to Duncan Frissell: Mr. Frissell asserts that Germany lacks rights such as freedom of speech and association. This is not true. The German Basic Law provides for everyone the right to freedom of speech, religion and association. However, Germany prohibits hate speech i.e. National Socialism and incitement to racial, religious and national hatred. The reason for this exception is the German history. While I do strongly disagree with the German goverment on free speech, to lie about the holocaust and to promote hatred, I understand why they have this law. It should be noted that the ban on National Socialism was first imposed by the allied nations, including The United States, after World War Two. The democratically elected parliament of the new republic chooses to continue this policy known as Radikalenerlass. From nobody at REPLAY.COM Fri Dec 5 17:33:31 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:33:31 +0800 Subject: words have value, for good or ill Message-ID: <199712060125.CAA04113@basement.replay.com> Tim May writes: > To compound the debating style errors made by Anonymous and his > supporter(s), Anonymous also misrepresented my views about McVeigh and OKC. > In a series of posts a few months or so ago, I made my position clear: that > I could "understand" McVeigh's actions, in the same way one can understand > someone snapping under pressure. I also pooh-poohed the "human tragedy" > aspects of the OKC story in the same way any warrior must pooh-pooh > specific cases where innocents, alleged or real, die in battles. What Tim May actually wrote on May 9, 1997, was: > Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right thing. > Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that. This is not a matter of "understanding" McVeigh's actions. This is a matter of agreeing with them, of becoming convinced that he did the right thing. It is a totally different position. Consider: anyone might legitimately say they could understand why the government opposes access to cryptography. It represents a threat to their monopoly power. But if someone said they were becoming convinced that restrictions on access to crypto were a good thing, we'd be attacking them in an instant. These are two completely different issues. One is a matter of understanding evil motivations, which we can all benefit by. The other is a matter of advocacy of evil. That must be opposed, and in fact this list has been a strong force for such opposition. When Tim May was explicitly offered an opportunity to repudiate his earlier statement, he refused. He wrote, in response to that offer: > I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Get used to it. Or leave, even better. So there it is in black and white. Tim May refuses to withdraw his earlier comments about becoming convinced that McVeigh did the right thing. He means what he says and he says what he means. Yet he attempts to characterize them in other messages as a matter of "understanding" McVeigh's actions. He is trying to have it both ways: powerful rhetoric followed by mealy-mouthed temporizing. Perhaps the answer is simply that May does not agree with his earlier comments, but is too much of a coward to admit that he was wrong. These mis-characterizations of his views are his attempt to amend and correct them without having to concede that he, the great Tim May, made a mistake. This would not reflect very well on him, but it may be consistent with his character. Has May ever admitted to a mistake on any non-trivial matter? Perhaps not. The problem this raises is that it is difficult to know where May stands on any issue. He makes contradictory statements, refuses to reconcile them, even refuses to admit that they are contradictory. Which is his true view? No doubt, whichever one turns out to be most convenient in the end. What a weak and childish individual this is, this man who is said to be the most respected of the cypherpunks. From tcmay at got.net Fri Dec 5 17:40:12 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:40:12 +0800 Subject: PGP, Network Associates, KRAP, and Dead Rebels In-Reply-To: <199712052053.PAA14508@enslaved.student.umd.edu> Message-ID: At 4:01 PM -0700 12/5/97, Adam Back wrote: >Wesley Griffin writes: >> > By "companies like Network Associates", do you mean "companies who are >> > members of the Key Recovery Alliance" (http://www.kra.org)? If so, >>here are >> > the "companies like Network Associates", in that regard: [Note RSA is a >> > Charter Member] >> >> This statement is seriously confusing Key Recovery and Key Escrow. >> They are NOT the same thing. Everybody knows what Key *Escrow* is >> and that it sucks. > >You need to understand Newspeak to understand any crypto documents >written by the government, or government toadies. > >To them the key recovery, key escrow are just different PR terms to >try to con people into going along with goverment backdoors in crypto >software. Yep. KRAP is just a variant of GAK. The talk about "court orders" shows the equivalence. There are subtle differences between various GAK schemes, ranging from the extreme of encrypting all communications and writings to a government key (an obvious non-starter) to the complicated LEAF stuff of Clipper to the more recent key escrow and KRAP schemes. Including that being pushed by PGP, Inc., er, "Network Associates." When the Key Recovery Alliance speaks of "legal court orders" for gaining access to KRAPped communications, one assumes this means the official government of Myanmar (Burma) will be using "legal court orders" to gain access to rebel communications. Next time Phil Z. speaks about the great usefullness of PGP in supporting freedom fighters in Myanmar, I hope he remembers to mention that Network Associates is committed to giving governments access to such communications. Provided the right legal orders are given, of course. It might be a nice gesture for Phil to fly to Rangoon to attend the funerals of the freedom fighters rounded up after their KRAP-compliant communications are decrypted by the Ministry of Social Harmony (with the right court orders, of course...wouldn't want KRAP to let unauthorized decryptions occur, would we?). The whole _point_ of encryption is to stop this kind of snooping. This is why we provided PGP to the freedom fighters working to expel the Zionists into the sea (though the Amerikan government calls these freedom fighters "terrorists," of course). And why White Aryan Resistance now uses PGP. (The point of crypto is that you can't pick who gets to use it and who doesn't.) With its 5.5 version, and especially with its absorbtion into Big Brotherish Network Associates, PGP has taken a major step toward irrelevance, and even perniciousness. This won't endear myself to Phil and my other colleagues at PGP, Inc. But I have to call it as I see it. Would they want me to pull my punches? The Phil Zimmermann I met several years ago surely would've spoken out against such things. In fact, he did. As recently as a year ago, in articles condemning ViaCrypt for its key recovery/escrow system. And, ironically, some of the things he blasted RSADSI for, such as charging for its crypto products, and not releasing a toolkit usable by all (RSAREF was for hobbyist uses only, much like the freeware versions of PGP), have close parallels with PGP, Inc.'s current views about charging for products, development toolkits, and so on. And, worse, PGP is "building in Big Brother," and when Network Associates finishes absorbing them.... Oh well. Earlier versions of PGP, and monkeywrenched versions of later versions of PGP, may be our best hope. (I can't say this will do a lot for sales of commericial versions, as we urge folks to widely deploy older, non-KRAP versions.) --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From lizard at dnai.com Fri Dec 5 17:52:08 1997 From: lizard at dnai.com (Lizard) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:52:08 +0800 Subject: Hate speech in Germany... In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971205134306.007187b0@panix.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971205172926.03498058@dnai.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 02:09 AM 12/6/97 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote: >Reply to Duncan Frissell: > >If the German people desired to abolish the Radikalenerlass they could >do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as U.S. citizens could >abolish use of capital punishment against minors. >Is there any difference? There is a difference, in that calling for the abolition of laws banning 'hate speech' can easily be labelled as 'hate speech' in themselves. Further, since it is never popular speech which needs government protection, the odds are good that the majority of those who would call for the abolition of such laws are those who wished to engage in such speech -- and thus, by calling attention to themselves, they could risk jail. The reason such laws do not exist in the US is NOT because 'the people' do not want them -- I daresay a popular vote would install them in a heartbeat -- but because the government is NOT a democracy, and the 'will of the people' runs up against the Bill of Rights, which serves to protect people from the government, and from each other. While I'm sure there are at least some ideaological free speech absolutists in Germany, I'm betting they're a smaller group than they are even in the US -- Germany has no real history of free speech, compared to the US, and Europe in general has a history of placing the collective good ahead of individual liberty. While a US 'leftist' will, for the most part, cede the right of even his enemies to speak (this is changing lately, but it used to be true, and there's still a few old lefties about), my exposure to German and other European leftists indicates that they approve strongly of laws banning 'racist' or 'hateful' speech -- while the American left has its roots in the anarchists of the 19th century, the European left has grown from the totalitarians of the 20th century. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIiqdjKf8mIpTvjWEQI24ACfX33Yo1UFlM5CyHW/lQqqzjbBUvgAoObC W9x8sXsD1LHjgH7vk2n76OcH =3Apc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From annapi at cts.com Sat Dec 6 10:35:20 1997 From: annapi at cts.com (William Reichenbach) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:35:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: IP: U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal In-Reply-To: <199712031735.LAA27232@telepath.com> Message-ID: <34899ACB.E4B1A76A@cts.com> Notice the Double Speak in the LA Times article below? What is taking place in Bosnia is Exactly the same thing (Censorship) as the writer of the article is expressing concern about. It is exactly the same conduct that the two NWO Stooges Metzl and Rep Royce so enthusiastically endorse. It is only a question of whose ox is being gored. William "Indeed, the United States and its allies are conducting a somewhat similar operation in Bosnia. Two months ago, NATO troops seized and effectively shut down a station run by hard-line Bosnian Serb forces after the station broadcast inflammatory attacks on NATO forces trying to keep the peace there. But it's a long step to go from these situations to the creation of a permanent, formal unit run by the United Nations and scouring the world in search of radio broadcasts to jam. " believer at telepath.com wrote: > >From the Los Angeles Times: > > Wednesday, December 3, 1997 > > INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK > U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal > By JIM MANN > > WASHINGTON--In foreign policy, sometimes the noblest of intentions > leads to > lousy ideas. > > That's certainly the case with the recent curious proposal for a > special > United Nations "jam squad"--a special U.N. team that could be > hurriedly > dispatched to crisis points around the world carrying equipment to > jam, or > block, harmful radio and TV broadcasts. > > Writing in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Jamie M. > Metzl, > a former United Nations human rights officer, proposes the creation of > what > would officially be called an "independent information intervention > unit" at > the U.N. > > Its goal, he writes, would be "countering dangerous messages that > incite > people to violence." A U.N. unit could monitor local news media to see > where > crises might erupt, air its own messages of peace and, where > necessary, > prevent other radio or TV broadcasts from being heard. > > The idea for the U.N. jam squad originated in the genocidal horrors of > > Rwanda. In 1994, the country's main radio station, the > Radio-Television > Libre des Milles Collines, then controlled by Hutu extremists, began > broadcasting hate messages targeting members of the rival tribe, the > Tutsis, > and moderate Hutus. > > The Rwanda station even broadcast lists of enemies to be hunted down. > "Take > your spears, clubs, guns, swords, stones, everything, sharpen them, > jack > them, those enemies, those cockroaches," the station urged listeners. > The > result was one of the world's worst blood baths, in which more than > 500,000 > unarmed Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered. > > This was, certainly, as compelling a case for jamming as you can get. > And > Metzl has one cogent argument on behalf of his proposal: When there's > an > ethnic conflict in a place like Rwanda, sending in a United Nations > jamming > team would be considerably easier and less costly than sending in > troops. > > "I think it's a worthy idea," says Rep. Edward R. Royce (R-Fullerton), > > chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. > "I'm > sure we would try to go out and jam [in Rwanda] if those circumstances > came > up again." > > Indeed, the United States and its allies are conducting a somewhat > similar > operation in Bosnia. Two months ago, NATO troops seized and > effectively shut > down a station run by hard-line Bosnian Serb forces after the station > broadcast inflammatory attacks on NATO forces trying to keep the peace > there. > > But it's a long step to go from these situations to the creation of a > permanent, formal unit run by the United Nations and scouring the > world in > search of radio broadcasts to jam. > > Who would determine exactly what kinds of radio programs should be > blocked > and which programs could be aired? What would ensure that the jamming > decisions were not motivated by politics? Wouldn't the creation of > such a > United Nations operation strengthen the hand of governments that want > to jam > radio transmissions for much less noble reasons? > > "This opens up a Pandora's box, really," says Richard Richter, the > director > of Radio Free Asia, the federally funded station that broadcasts into > Asian > countries with repressive governments. "You'd have China claiming that > we > [American broadcasts] should be jammed by the United Nations." > > Ultimately, a U.N. jamming squad would give official sanction to > restrictions on the free flow of information. Metzl's article has a > response > to this problem, but it's a weak one. > > "During the Cold War, when the United States faced a Soviet adversary > intent > on jamming the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe . . . , it made > sense > for the United States to promote an absolute standard for the free > flow of > information," he wrote. "Now, a more nuanced view should be possible." > > But that's precisely backward: The free flow of information wasn't > merely a > temporary means to winning the Cold War, but one of the goals of the > endeavor. > > Although the problem of hate-filled radio broadcasts is a serious one, > there > are ways of dealing with it that don't involve creating some huge, > supranational censorship unit. > > One alternative is simply to provide other, competing radio > broadcasts. In > Rwanda, for example, the United Nations set up its own radio stations, > both > in the capital of Kigali and in radio camps. > > Royce's subcommittee has been exploring the possibility of creating a > Radio > Free Africa, similar to Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and Radio > Marti, > which broadcasts to Cuba. > > There are serious questions about whether such a new organization is > necessary, when VOA, the official U.S. government station, already > broadcasts intensively into Africa. But the underlying idea makes > sense: to > transmit better, more accurate information to Africa, rather than > focusing > on jamming or censorship. > > There are other ways of combating hate radio too. Those who directly > incite > violence over the airwaves can be brought to justice. At the moment, a > > war-crimes tribunal, set up under U.N. auspices, is prosecuting those > responsible for the massacres in Rwanda. Among the suspects in custody > are > some of those responsible for the Milles Collines radio broadcasts. > > But a worldwide, U.N.-run jamming team? As a Hollywood script, maybe > the > idea has possibilities. As foreign policy, it's a loser. > > Jim Mann's column appears in this space every Wednesday. > > Copyright Los Angeles Times > > > > ********************************************** > To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: > majordomo at majordomo.pobox.com > with the message: > subscribe ignition-point email at address > or > unsubscribe ignition-point email at address > ********************************************** > http://www.telepath.com/believer > ********************************************** From pethern at inet.uni2.dk Fri Dec 5 18:56:54 1997 From: pethern at inet.uni2.dk (Peter Herngaard) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:56:54 +0800 Subject: Hate speech in Germany... In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971205172926.03498058@dnai.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Lizard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 02:09 AM 12/6/97 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote: > >Reply to Duncan Frissell: > > > >If the German people desired to abolish the Radikalenerlass they > could > >do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as U.S. citizens > could > >abolish use of capital punishment against minors. > >Is there any difference? > > There is a difference, in that calling for the abolition of laws > banning 'hate speech' can easily be labelled as 'hate speech' in > themselves. I think it's true for banana republics. However, as far I know itsn't illegal in Germany to call for the abolition of all hate laws. But calling for the abolition of human rights is certainly against the law. Changing or amending the Basic Law is not impossible. The distinction is very narrow since those who call for abolition of the hate laws, at least in Germany, at the same time advocate expulsion of non-whites or the establishment of a dictatorship. > > Further, since it is never popular speech which needs > government protection, the odds are good that the majority of those > who would call for the abolition of such laws are those who wished to > engage in such speech -- and thus, by calling attention to > themselves, they could risk jail. Yes. But taken another European country such as Denmark this is not illegal. In fact, I and surely other free speech advocates would prefer abolition of the criminal statute against hate speech. > > The reason such laws do not exist in the US is NOT because 'the > people' do not want them -- I daresay a popular vote would install > them in a heartbeat -- but because the government is NOT a democracy, > and the 'will of the people' runs up against the Bill of Rights, > which serves to protect people from the government, and from each > other. Yes. But if the majority of the voting population *really* wanted to install a hate speech censorship regime, they coould elect a House and a Senate being able to change or amend the Bill of Rights. It seems that criminalization of "flag desecration" to many is what hate speech is in Europe. > While I'm sure there are at least some ideaological free speech > absolutists in Germany, I'm betting they're a smaller group than they > are even in the US -- Germany has no real history of free speech, > compared to the US, and Europe in general has a history of placing > the collective good ahead of individual liberty. I agree, and I am more in favour of the First Amendment than the European Convention of the Protection of Human Rights. As I pointed out in another thread the European approach to freedom of speech is majoritarian not libetarian. The backtracker nations are France and Ireland who have no excuse for censorship neither of hate speech nor pornography. I do not know much about German free speech activists. But I subscribe to the view that there are less free speech absolutists there than in the U.S. But to be fair to Germany, they do not censor pornography as heavily as Ireland where X-rated movies are illegal along with blasphemous and seditious libel. France, the country of "liberty, equality and brotherhood" is in fact more censorious than Germany in regard to imported publications. For example, the Interior Minister can order the seisure of any "foreign" publication, without a prior court order, if it is in the national interest. This censorship law is very old but is still used. Scandinavia and Netherlands are the most liberal countries in Europe both in regard to hate speech and pornography. For instance, Denmark allows the Rudolf Hess march and the broadcasting of Mein Kampf on local radio that woould not be allowed in other European countries. Denmark is also a haven for distribution of NSDAP/ao literature to Germany, Great Britain and the rest of the world. I suppose the White Power enthuasiast can get everything he/she desires in Denmark without having to order it by mail from Hilsboro West Virginia (The National Unemployance) or Lincoln Nebraska (Gary Lauck's NSDAP/ao). Fortunately I am not a White Power enthusiast-) But I know from reliable sources tht The International Jew by Henry Ford, The Turner Diaries by William L. Pierce and WHITE POWER by George Lincoln Rockwell all are fairly legal, though not widely available, to every racist loser. In addition, we do not prohibit pornography, and obscenity is a non-existent legal category. Although I can live without hardcore pornography and White Power, I don't think my country is much oppressive compared to funny France and Ireland. > While a US 'leftist' > will, for the most part, cede the right of even his enemies to speak > (this is changing lately, but it used to be true, and there's still a > few old lefties about), my exposure to German and other European > leftists indicates that they approve strongly of laws banning > 'racist' or 'hateful' speech -- while the American left has its roots > in the anarchists of the 19th century, the European left has grown > from the totalitarians of the 20th century. This is entirely true. However, there are few left-wingers in Europe who oppose censorship, including myself, who oppope any censorship even of hate speech and tobaco advertising. However, also the traditional right-wing "liberals" and "conservatives" endorse strict censorship of hate speech. The reason why I do not support any anti-racst organization, except Nizkor, is that most such "human rights" advocacy groups in Europe are in favour of censorship. In Denmark, The People's Movement against Nazism (Folkebevaegelsen mod Nazisme) is represented by amongst others people who honour Joseph Stalin and who support censorship of any even peaceful advocacy of racial superiority. Ironically, they justify their demand for censorship with the Convention of The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and The Convention on Civil and Political Rights. The United Nations is a threat to freedom of speech in particular in Europe where we have no gaurantee of freedom of speech with similar strength as that the First Amendment provides. It was shocking to observe that states such as China, Nigeria, Pakistan can influence freedom of speech from within the U.N. under cover of "elimination of all forms of racial discrimination." From whgiii at invweb.net Fri Dec 5 19:03:32 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:03:32 +0800 Subject: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates In-Reply-To: <199712052053.PAA14508@enslaved.student.umd.edu> Message-ID: <199712060253.VAA17377@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199712052053.PAA14508 at enslaved.student.umd.edu>, on 12/05/97 at 03:53 PM, Wesley Griffin said: >> At 11:42 AM 12/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >> > "The government's key recovery program is a complete violation of the >> > individual's right to privacy and, in fact, compromises of the system are >> > already taking place. This shows that key escrow is an untenable policy," >> > said Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading authorities on encryption >> > and author of the book "Applied Cryptography". "SynData is paving the >> > way for other software developers by taking a stand in opposition to the >> > government and companies like Network Associates." >> >> >> By "companies like Network Associates", do you mean "companies who are >> members of the Key Recovery Alliance" (http://www.kra.org)? If so, here are >> the "companies like Network Associates", in that regard: [Note RSA is a >> Charter Member] >This statement is seriously confusing Key Recovery and Key Escrow. They >are NOT the same thing. Everybody knows what Key *Escrow* is and that >it sucks. Key Recovery is *very* different in that are no databases >kept of private keys. The website you mentioned (http://www.kra.org) >contains some very good info on how Key Recovery works. I would like to >see the source of Schneier's quote also, because I can't believe he >could get the two confused. There is no confusion here. KRAP supports GAK plain and simple. They want the government to be able to get into everyone's nickers and are actively working on making this possible (of course with the promise of nice government contracts and easing of export restrictions). Key Recovery= Key Escrow = GAK it's all the same thing. Unauthorized 3rd parties gaining access to your data without your consent and more than likely without you knowledge. I think that most on this list would agree that this is a BadThing(TM). - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIi95I9Co1n+aLhhAQLXogQAnbwCtBzlLC3/NvsHI0YDziJ1a6pyYWp1 QF1j4G5Oy50QZv36E+BagETsGOH2cNw6p0LTCinc//TKuY9TXS94EWftIvROvJHp x3eeWZMeqtzKn0k/8ABdT6cCXGJ6itoT6DjiDUsU5gZQ/uRCxlEsrxzFgExIkP2t npwvKpneqLE= =QqK1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Fri Dec 5 19:03:38 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:03:38 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <348d673c.36720307@mail.qed.net> Message-ID: At 4:50 PM -0700 12/5/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At 22:18 +0000 12/5/97, Paul Spirito wrote: >>But once again, articles like Declan's "hey, Singapore may be 'Disneyland >>with the death penalty' but the trains sure run on time" piss me off. > >You should read the complete article (I provided the URL, after all) before >complaining that I'm somehow not critical enough of Singapore. And, though most of you already surely know this, the phrase "Disneyland with the death penalty" is not Declan's. Not that Declan is claiming authorship, but the record still ought to be clarified. This nice turn of phrase appeared several years ago in an article of William Gibson's (or maybe Bruce Sterling's, but I 97% certain it was Gibson's) in "Wired." However, our own(Cypherpunk list) Sandy Sandfort coined it, when he was working with Gibson on the article, from all that I have heard. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From JonWienk at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 5 19:38:38 1997 From: JonWienk at ix.netcom.com (Jonathan Wienke) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:38:38 +0800 Subject: Ron Brown Died From A .45 In The Head Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971205191303.006b36a0@popd.netcruiser> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I heard an interview with Chris Ruddy (of Vincent Foster fame) on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco. In the interview, Chris disclosed that an Army pathologist, LtCol Steve Cogswell, was one of the doctors who processed the bodies from the plane crash which supposedly killed fromer Commerce secretary Ron Brown. LtCol Cogswell took an X-ray of Ron Brown's skull, and found a circular hole .45 inches in diameter in the skull, as well as some metal fragments inside the cranial cavity, consistent with a gunshot wound. The original X-rays were destroyed, and no autopsy was performed to determine the cause of death; but a photographer took some pictures of the x-rays while they were on display, and these pictures were NOT destroyed. LtCol Cogswell provided copies of the photos of the x-rays to Ruddy, and they were printed in a newspaper out east somewhere (I missed a few minutes of the interview). Today, I heard that LtCol Cogswell has been placed under a gag order and his his house was searched by MP's. Something is rotten in Denmark... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 iQA/AwUBNIjCvcJF0kXqpw3MEQIaWwCglmjV6vIPR8w/lnwdgxRRdbzskVoAn0eE cQ3mGJYckbJ06DXqF1dmNozJ =VbVp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Jonathan Wienke PGP Key Fingerprints: 7484 2FB7 7588 ACD1 3A8F 778A 7407 2928 3312 6597 8258 9A9E D9FA 4878 C245 D245 EAA7 0DCC "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams "Stupidity is the one arena of of human achievement where most people fulfill their potential." -- Jonathan Wienke Never sign a contract that contains the phrase "first-born child." RSA export-o-matic: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199712060334.WAA17775@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.32.19971205170800.006c3470 at cnw.com>, on 12/05/97 at 05:10 PM, Blanc said: >SingMonger wrote: >>Don't forget the other good points, no guns or bullets, color >>copiers are (were?) restricted, all media controlled by the >>government (even Time magazine was banned), mandatory savings >>program (CPF), National Service, and the government attitude of >>those that are not with us are against us. Also, don't forget >>that the Singaporean government has brought the Big Brother >>concept to reality. >............................................................... >Sounds like the kind of place suitable for people who don't have a Mind >of Their Own, nor a personal vision of, or mission in, life (besides >maintaining an active DNA pool). Sounds like slavery to me. Just because one has a gental slavemaster does not make one any less a slave. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIjHcI9Co1n+aLhhAQKGtAP/U7aDlg01McDplJpT7zH1T5Z77IW+HoLH c4LAmulqOdBhOT3mY1wlcJil+hZ2IPiX0Ni7gutAdJLCtk2Mkxmv8A7fr18gGwzR cdVRJ7+7WJePz/qP3wUukR3+pZXBRyXJf4KWEMEUXbQXoHF8mYYGjc5V0CeQMSC+ a+WQsh3zTpM= =Stb1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Stewart_William_C at bns.att.com Fri Dec 5 19:50:38 1997 From: Stewart_William_C at bns.att.com (Stewart_William_C at bns.att.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:50:38 +0800 Subject: FW: GSM hack -- operator flunks the challenge Message-ID: Forwarded from RISKS ______________________ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:36:36 +0000 From: Ross Anderson Subject: GSM hack -- operator flunks the challenge On Friday 13th September 1996, I read in comp.risks that: > MobilCom, a subsidiary of German TeleKom (since 100 years monopolist on > telephone communication in Germany, with its monopoly ending in 1998) > publicly offers 100,000 DM to a telephone hacker who is able to communicate > at the expense of the (national) number 0171-3289966. The related chipcard > is said to be safely stored in lawyer`s office. In an attempt to paint this > dubious offer somewhat "politically correct", the successful hacker will > have to donate his earnings to a social institution of his(her) choice. This caught our attention - Cambridge University, being a registered charity, surely qualifies as a `social institution', and 100,000 DM would buy us a state-of-the-art triple-wavelength laser microprobe workstation for chipcard breaking. So we had a look at GSM and found a way to hack it. We worked out what equipment we'd need and where we could borrow it, assembled the team, checked that the attack would work in principle, and then started trying to find the right person in Deutsche Telekom to speak to. We needed to know the IMSI (international mobile subscriber identification) and get written confirmation of the challenge; otherwise the attack might have been interpreted as an offence under Britain's Wireless Telegraphy Act. After some chasing around, unanswered e-mails and so on, we went to a mobile phone fraud conference in June and made contacts there which suggested some names, leading to further unanswered correspondence, and finally a faxed reply. Here is a translation of the original German, online at <http://www.cl.cam. ac. uk/ftp/users/rja14/roesner.gif>: Dear Dr Anderson Many thanks for your fax of the 6th October 1997. Please excuse the late reply to your fax. The matter that you mentioned did not originate from T-Mobil but from one of our service providers, the firm Mobilcom in Schleswig. We understand that the offer has since also been withdrawn by them. Yours etc. How does our attack work? Well, when a GSM phone is turned on, its identity (the IMSI) is relayed to the authentication centre of the company that issued it, and this centre sends back to the base station a set of five `triples'. Each triple consists of a random challenge, a response that the handset must return to authenticate itself, and a content key for encrypting subsequent traffic between the mobile and the base station. The base station then relays the random challenge to the handset. The SIMcard which personalises the handset holds a secret issued by the authentication centre, and it computes both the response and the content key from the random challenge using this secret. The vulnerability we planned to exploit is that, although there is provision in the standard for encrypting the traffic between the base station and the authentication centre, in practice operators leave the transmissions in clear. This is supposedly `for simplicity' (but see below). To break GSM, we transmit the target IMSI from a handset and intercept the five triples as they come back on the microwave link to the base station. Now we can give the correct response to the authentication challenge, and encrypt the traffic with the correct key. We can do this online with a smartcard emulator hooked up through a PC to a microwave protocol analyser; in a less sophisticated implementation, you could load the handset offline with the responses and content keys corresponding to challenges 2 through 5 which will be used on the next four occasions that you call. The necessary microwave test set costs about $20,000 to buy, but could be home built: it's more than an undergraduate project but much less than a PhD, and any 23cm radio ham should be able to put one together. We would have borrowed this, and reckoned on at most 3 person months for SIM-handset protocol implementation, system integration, debugging and operational testing. Given such an apparatus, you can charge calls to essentially any GSM phone whose IMSI you know. IMSIs can be harvested by eavesdropping, both passive and active; `IMSI-catchers' are commercially available. The fix for our attack is to turn on traffic encryption between the GSM base stations. But that will not be politically acceptable, since the spooks listen to GSM traffic by monitoring the microwave links between base stations: these links contain not only clear keys but also clear telephony traffic. Such monitoring was reported in the UK press last year, and now the necessary equipment is advertised openly on the net. See for example . The RISK for intelligence agencies? Making systems like GSM give government access to keys can have horrendous side effects (especially where this access is via channels that aren't properly documented and evaluated). These side effects can get you into serious conflict with powerful commercial interests. The RISKS for phone companies? Firstly, letting spook agencies bully you into a bad security design with the assurance that it will only compromise your customers' privacy, has as a likely side-effect the compromise of your signalling and thus your revenue. (David Wagner, Bruce Schneier and John Kelsey made this point for the US cellular system: see .) Secondly, most phone companies have no crypto expertise. Their security managers are largely ex-policemen or accountants, and so are unable to evaluate the security claims made by equipment manufacturers and intelligence agency representatives. Thirdly, by restricting parts of the security specification to people who signed a non-disclosure agreement, the GSM consortium deprived itself of the benefit of open scrutiny by the research community. It is this scrutiny that has led to protocols such as SSL and SET having their holes found and fixed. However, the global deployment of GSM ensured that many people would be cleared to know the design, most of which can be got anyway by observing traffic or by reverse engineering unprotected equipment. So public scrutiny was inevitable - but only after billions of dollars' worth of equipment had been deployed and the system could not changed. So the GSM security-by-obscurity strategy gave them the worst of all possible worlds. The consumer electronics industry should take note. The specific RISK for Deutsche Telekom: responding to cynicism about GSM security claims by putting up a reckless challenge and thus motivating an attack. The RISK for GSM users: that crooks running a call-sell operation will book a very expensive phone call on your account. An established modus operandi is to set up a conference call which their clients and counterparties join in succession. As the bill isn't forwarded to the service provider until the phone goes on-hook, you can end up with a five-figure bill for a call that lasted several days and involved hundreds of overseas telephone numbers. Some GSM operators (such as Vodafone) limit this exposure by terminating all calls after six hours; but your IMSI can be used on a network that doesn't do this. And of course, as with `phantom withdrawals' from cash machines, the use of cryptography will `prove' that you're liable for the bill. Ross Anderson, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory Acknowledgement: our research students Stefan Hild, Abida Khattak, Markus Kuhn and Frank Stajano contributed in various ways to researching and planning this attack. An academic paper on the subject will appear in due course. +============================================== From pooh at efga.org Fri Dec 5 19:51:17 1997 From: pooh at efga.org (Robert A. Costner) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:51:17 +0800 Subject: Chris Lewis kills babies after he molests them. In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971204161846.0391b08c@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971205224327.0392b644@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> At 07:31 AM 12/5/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >"Robert A. Costner" writes: > >> At 12:07 PM 12/4/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> >I might have a good cause of action against Chris Lewis, but the asshole is >> >in Canada. (I found out the forger's home address. I hope someone blows his >> >fucking brains out, for he surely deserves to die.) >[snip] >> >> In most matters where I have been involved with Chris Lewis, I have tended >> to side with Chris. > >Therefore you're a censorous cocksucker and an asshole. Fuck you. My! What language! And without a remailer. At least the "snip" part gave you instructions on how to follow proven legal procedure to file against alleged spam in a situation like this, so you no longer have to whine about Chris Lewis being in Canada and you not having a clue as to how to deal with it. -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh at efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key From advantag at simplyads.com Sat Dec 6 11:53:41 1997 From: advantag at simplyads.com (advantag at simplyads.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:53:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Earn up to $1000 per day with tiny classified ads!!! Message-ID: <199712061649.LAA12740@loki.silkspin.com> Have you ever wondered if those tiny ads in the classified sections of magazines make any money? Well some do!!! And Some, MAKE A LOT OF MONEY!!! Like everything there is a formula for success. Click here or send an email to siybr at simplyads.com and we'll send you back some incredible money making information instantly via auto-responder. What have you got to lose? If you would like to be removed from our mailing list simply type "remove" in the subject line and hit reply. We are sorry for the intrusion. Have a wonderful day! The Advantage Press From UFy5Pi7z6 at top1story.net Sat Dec 6 11:59:45 1997 From: UFy5Pi7z6 at top1story.net (UFy5Pi7z6 at top1story.net) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:59:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Gifts for the Holidays Message-ID: Great bargains and discounts on Christmas gifts. Online since 1991 and voted Best of the Web by CNET, we offer the world of Swiss Army knives, watches and gift sets, and the world of sunglasses (including Ray-Ban). Enjoy discounts of up to 50%. Visit Sunglass World and Swiss Army World at http://www.tiac.net/users/sunworld From comsec at nym.alias.net Fri Dec 5 20:08:46 1997 From: comsec at nym.alias.net (Charlie Comsec) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:08:46 +0800 Subject: Anonymous Thread Message-ID: <19971206040027.1052.qmail@nym.alias.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty Cantsin wrote: > Something that I have found irritating about the posts by > non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a > meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be repudiated, > or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster. I compared this > to sound bites. How is that fundamentally different from non-anonymous posts, though? You can always disavow (or attempt to) a previous post by claiming it was forged, that someone stole your password, hacked your account, or posted it when you accidentally left your terminal logged on while you were at lunch. In addition, there's nothing to stop someone from obtaining multiple e-mail accounts. So why should ten anonymous posts be an more irritating than ten posts from hotmail.com, juno.com, etc. accounts? They could be from ten different people, just one, or any number in between. > On second thought, however, there is an easy way to solve this. If > the anonymous poster accepts the context of previous messages, the > discussion can continue. There's no reason why the person behind the > virtual thread has to be the same, but the context itself is important > if we want to have interesting discussions. Agreed. It's the ideas that are important, not the identity of the person[a] expressing them. The only exception I can think of is if the person expressing the ideas is asking that they be accepted because of some unique qualification or expertise he claims to possess. > So, if you don't want to sign your messages, just acknowledge the > message ID of the relevant previous messages whose context you wish to > use. Unless that's coupled with a PGP signature, there's nothing to keep one anonymous person from impersonating another and agreeing to something. For example, if "A" is debating "B", there's nothing to stop "B" from posting as "C", claiming to be an anonymous KKK, NAMBLA, etc. member, then posting again, impersonating "A", and pretending to agree with "C" (by, as you say, "acknowledging C's message id"). Nor is it much better if "A", "B", and "C" are non-anonymous. "B" can open a throwaway account as "C", and then forge a follow-up from "A". Unless it's done among a group of people skilled at interpreting headers, it may well succeed, or at least arouse a lot of F.U.D. about "A". - --- Finger for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIhcnwbp0h8ZvosNAQHsHwf9G2qBkAmpgR4+mTnsb4IHZeEDQZ8rWP7P TVQ8Z0lnfoZW6OOlXUZi2y42LRI7+j5OvCTRW4P/Yndiuiaqz0Bi7cWGt9FfLDMz gDg7g3doNMe9xDDEUsAHaAYdkPEgHub+Udd+YUKEMJMcn/o/7soPHfBQFMSK2ZqI s08+mdd0EPyM7ZN9EfIxaU7sBFpWLKhLjA6pCwqihIyBLrCVnxZd28jcOowXTCL/ +2E6eLqy4JBv8Wh00YMFjb9aw3GfXw/LImEYCVoA6OUum5uvA5eyENlGOtdDQx8/ aBmPW6cKoLAnBb2MkcxmU9rrO4lxkQNk9tHW+HBs7WfEr6u8RwWtSA== =KWVK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From JonWienk at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 5 21:16:06 1997 From: JonWienk at ix.netcom.com (Jonathan Wienke) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 13:16:06 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <881247576199712041419.JAA30815@users.invweb.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971205203955.006e9750@popd.netcruiser> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:44 PM 12/4/97 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: >Abstinance is murder. > >Letting just _one_ egg miss fertilization denies that egg the chance to become >a human being. I think that the felony charge should be manslaughter for this >crime as it's not quite as bad as: > >Birth control > >Birth control is nothing more than premeditated murder, though >I think that a plea-bargain in most cases should be offered: Drop the charge >to manslaughter if the perp agrees to artificial insemination with the eggs of >some woman who is unable to get pregnant due to some medical condition. This, of course is the position of the Mormon Church, and was originally used to justify the polygamous practices of the early Mormons. Somehow this concept (as well as polygamy) was phased out by "new revelations" just like the "skin of blackness" curse on all non-whites was during the sixties. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 iQA/AwUBNIjXGcJF0kXqpw3MEQKYVgCg/JSiBQbEt5cH14HNUMO8oYjimfAAn0OM ZmvqXW1G1EGJKWLimP6Lfmwe =QZ6P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Jonathan Wienke PGP Key Fingerprints: 7484 2FB7 7588 ACD1 3A8F 778A 7407 2928 3312 6597 8258 9A9E D9FA 4878 C245 D245 EAA7 0DCC "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams "Stupidity is the one arena of of human achievement where most people fulfill their potential." -- Jonathan Wienke Never sign a contract that contains the phrase "first-born child." RSA export-o-matic: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Here's a copy of some correspondence in relation to my implementation of a `rubber hose proof' (cryptographically deniable) file system (actually implimented as a block device on which you can mount any file system). I'm happy with the cryptographic strength of the system (but feel free to comment anyway). That said, I'm not convinced that my avoidance of media (i.e disk surface) analysis attacks (which could potentially show the pre-sense or otherwise of cryptographic file systems other than the "duress" ones) is entirely effective. I'd like some comment from gauss-ridden declassification guru's here :) [...] Here's how I'm implementing `aspects' in Rubberhose/marutukku; `aspect' is the term I'm using to refer to the cryptographically-deniable (i.e rubber-hose-proofed) "portion", of a maru extent i.e it's a different _aspect_ (view) of the same underlying physical block extent. I decided that random split lengths don't add to the security of the scheme - only 2x from my calculations - which isn't enough to warrant the increase in memory use and complexity involved. The extent is simply divided up into n splits (say 1024 or one every 256k, whichever is smaller). Each aspect has an encrypted 32bit block remap list (which is simply a linear array because of the fixed split size). A split avoidance bit-map is created from these per-aspect remap lists on instantiation of the aspects. An individual aspect looks like so (when saved): typedef struct { m_u32 keySum; /* key checksum */ u_char masterKey[MAX_KEY]; u_char latticeCipherType, blockCipherType; u_char pad[MAX_BLOCK - (4 + MAX_KEY + 1 + 1) % MAX_BLOCK]; /* block align */ } maruCycle; typedef struct { maruCycle cycle; u_char keySalt[MAX_PASSPHRASE]; maruLatticeKey latticeKeySalt[2]; u_char blockIV[MAX_FS_BLOCK_SIZE]; u_char latticeSalt[2*MAX_LATTICE_DEPTH*MAX_BLOCK_KEY]; /* must be 64 aligned */ m_u32 remap[MAX_SPLITS]; m_u32 iterations; maruCipher keyCipherType; } maruHeaderAspect; There are an array of (8 by default) of these constructs in a maruHeader. The smap accessor macros are simple: #define SMAP_SET(p, n) (((p))[(n)/(sizeof(maruSmap)*8)] |= (1 << ((n) % (sizeof(maruSmap)*8)))) #define SMAP_CLR(p, n) (((p))[(n)/(sizeof(maruSmap)*8)] &= ~ (1 << ((n) % (sizeof(maruSmap)*8)))) #define SMAP_ISSET(p, n) (((p))[(n)/(sizeof(maruSmap)*8)] & (1 << ((n) % (sizeof(maruSmap)*8)))) By default, each unused maruHeaderAspect struct contains random noise (except for keyCipherType, which defaults to being the same for all aspects) and is of course indistinguishable from a valid maruAspect without the associated key. Instantiation example: Say you have three valid aspects, a1, a2 and a3. Arbitrarily, you have chosen a1 to be the simple duress aspect (i.e ``you expect us to believe you have solitary letter of donation to the Polit Bureau Ball in your entire encrypted file system?! Do you know what this is Nikov? . THIS is the finest cryptanalytic device known to man. THIS is a RUBBERHOSE! *thwap* *thwunk* *boink*. Now... what's the *real* key Nikov... or should we call you... Nikolay Bukharin?''), a2 to be the limited disclosure aspect ("Dear diary. Nikita, Ivan, Boris and came over today and smoked a *shit load* of hash. Not wanting to offend, I had a toke, but like that capitalist dog ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H illustious leader of the freeworld, was careful not to inhale.") and a3 has your ice-9 formula nicely tucked away. You decide one fine morning that you want to add an ATP pre-cursor as a catalyst to your ice-9 recipe of destruction (ostensibly, you plan to generate this stuff from cultures of genetically modified mouse liver cell mitochondria), and provide the a1, a2 and a3 pass-phrases. a1, a2 and a3 are decrypted. the aspect remap is parsed and used to create the physical block "avoidance" map (checking for conflicts along the way). Joyous about the frozen seas to come, you copy the ATP pre-cursor catalyst into a3 and the file system tries to write a new block - e.g b28 - to a3. b28 is translated through the a3 remap table to b-1 (unallocated). A random block remap number is generated e.g b595 and tested against the avoidance smap. If free, it is marked and chosen to be the new a3 mapping, otherwise the algorithm simply does a circular hunt for the next free entry in the avoidance smap. Naturally, reading only requires the key of the aspect you are interested in (divulging). Writing to one aspect without the keys to the other aspects will randomly trash them as new splits are assigned. Timer remaps, reads and re-writes: This would be the simple end of it, were it not but for magnetic domain leakage/disk surface wear analysis attacks. Theoretically, this sort of attack could used to demonstrate access patterns by the drive head in regions outside those used by the duress aspect blocks. What we want to do here is to make sure the non-data carrying magnetic/other properties of the disk substrate are as close to a Jackson Pollock painting as is possible. i.e totally random :) Three methods are used: 1) every few seconds, we read a random number of blocks within a split in a random location and write it back to that same location with a m-1/m (e.g 9/10) (recursive) chance of an additional write. 2) every-time there is a conventional write, there is a m-1/m chance of a full remap of the split concerned. 3) every n seconds a random full split remap. (maybe not needed given the statistical properties of the above - I need to think about this a lot more. its not simple) All aspects are defined to take up 100% of the marutukku extent from the file-system perspective - this is essential to our deniability scheme. This works fine with most file-systems - e.g UFS, because they only write to a small fraction of their addressable blocks when formatted - i.a few super-blocks and inode, rather than zeroing every block, and so split usage for a given aspect reflects population of the file system that pertains to it. Cheers, Julian. -- Prof. Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people |together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks proff at iq.org |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless proff at gnu.ai.mit.edu |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery From whgiii at invweb.net Fri Dec 5 22:01:16 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:01:16 +0800 Subject: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article) In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971205152745.036de494@panix.com> Message-ID: <199712060555.AAA19274@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.2.32.19971205152745.036de494 at panix.com>, on 12/05/97 at 03:27 PM, Duncan Frissell said: >>*Yes, Libertarians criticize corporate welfare, but just because it corrupts >>the notion that a person's entire worth can be summarized in a stock >>portfolio. >No they criticize it because they don't like to *pay* for it. They >believe in lower taxes and smaller governments. I think this shows a misunderstanding of the Libertarian philosphy. A Libertarian opposes the theft of property from one person for the benift of another. It doesn't matter if is for the benifit of the bean picker in So. Cal. or for the owner of the bean farm. It is the *theft* at the point of a gun that is objected to. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIjosY9Co1n+aLhhAQIogwP/aiVuLBfSWHGZdyAERGjkGZC7/kr2+DX9 o/QSNcw5tJqpBLwrgyA5VwQEC/+hQg3Yi9rAFNP9OQrB1kqLjyGDPOSwm4vzUxPE 4pe7Ktg0DShuyz/LsOmtPgZqGgrGImhkJYdgbax1dojwc29vz/s29YW/uOMxT1Ab HtNFTQaTj/8= =e7rX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mikhaelf at mindspring.com Fri Dec 5 22:07:38 1997 From: mikhaelf at mindspring.com (Mikhael Frieden) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:07:38 +0800 Subject: Hate speech in Germany... Message-ID: <3.0.16.19971206005257.0c1feac8@pop.mindspring.com> At 03:37 AM 12/6/97 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote: >However, also the traditional right-wing "liberals" >and "conservatives" >endorse strict censorship of hate speech. You might ask yourself of their genesis. >The reason why I do not support any anti-racst organization, except >Nizkor, is that most such "human rights" advocacy groups in Europe are in >favour of censorship. Nizkor is the worst of them all. They even misrepresent physical laws. >The United Nations is a threat to freedom of speech in particular in Europe >where we have no gaurantee of freedom of speech with similar strength as >that the First Amendment provides. You folks should get yourselves a 2nd amendment first. >It was shocking to observe that states such as China, Nigeria, Pakistan >can influence freedom of speech >from within the U.N. under >cover of "elimination of all forms of racial discrimination." Passing a law in a good cause only invites people to find ways to use it to their own ends as in Canada against Zundel. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest. From bgw0N7j49 at blac1ktie.net Sat Dec 6 14:13:22 1997 From: bgw0N7j49 at blac1ktie.net (bgw0N7j49 at blac1ktie.net) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:13:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lasers/Optics/Optical Tables - Save! Message-ID: MWK INDUSTRIES SALE! JUST A QUICK LETTER TO SHOW YOU SOME LASERS- OPTICS AND OPTICAL TABLES SURPLUS THAT WE JUST RECEIVED. ITEM TRIMMU12 14 WATT ARGON LASER MADE FOR HEART SURGERY, TRIMEDYNE MODEL 900 TEMOO, POLORIZED,220VAC INPUT , WATER COOLED , FIBER LAUNCH, ALL ON ROLLAROUND CART EXCELENT FOR LAB USE, THE POWER WAS MEASURED AT 13 TO 14 WATTS. PRICE $9500 12 MONTH WARRANTEE. ITEM: COHERENT ARTICULATING ARM FROM A MODEL 451 CO2 MEDICAL LASER. ECCELLENT COND. $200 ITEM CO220A: CO2 LASER MADE BY PFIZER ,1990, FOR SURGERY, TATTOO REMOVAL ECT. 20 WATT OUTPUT , TESTED AND IN EXC. COND. 110 VAC INPUT, COST $40,000 NEW OUR PRICE 4,900. MODEL 20-C ITEM:PDA-1U1 SPECTRA PHYSICS QUANTRA RAY PULSED DYE LASER , GOOD FOR SPARE PARTS MODEL PDA-1 $500 ITEM NEWU1 NEWPORT OPTICAL TABLE 16" BY 36" 4" THICK, 1 " HOLE SPACING, COMES WITH A RUBBER ISOLATED TABLE STAND, NOT AIR SUPPORTED, $750 ITEM: HEPSN1 HELIUM NEON POWER SUPPLY KIT OPERATES UP TO A 15 mW LASER, INCLUDES ALL COMPONENTS AND PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STUFF AND SOLDER THE CIRCUIT BOARD . 4" BY 3" BY 3", PRICE $75 ITEM HENEU12 1 TO 1.5 MW HE-NE LASER 632.8 nM INCLUDES 12VDC INPUT POWER SUPPLY ALL IN A PLASTIC HOUSING 6.25 IN. BY 1.375IN BY 2.25 IN. TEMOO,RANDOM POL. ,1.7 MR DIVERGENCE. 12 MONTH WARRANTEE , PRICE $45 ITEM MELU12 1 TO 2 mW HE-NE LASER 632.8 NM , PULLS FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT .EACH UNIT INCLUDES HE-NE HEAD AND POWER SUPPLY[110VAC INPUT]. ALL YOU NEED TO PROVIDE IS A POWER CORD AND A FUSE TO MAKE THE UNIT OPERATIONAL. THE BEAM IS TEM00, POLORIZED WE WILL COVER EACH UNIT WITH A 12 MONTH UNLIMITED HOUR WARRANTEE, EXCELLENT FOR FOR LAB OR HOME USE. NEW THESE COST APPROX. $350 OUR PRICE $85. DIMENSIONS 9.75 BY 1.25 INCHES, P.S. 4.25 BY 3.25BY 1.25 INCHES. ITEM RAMCNS1: RAMAN CELL OPTICS 308 nm AR/AR 4600 A 0=0 DEGREES 1000 MM FL. 2" DIA. NEW. ORIGINAL PRICE $520 OUR PRICE $175 ITEM TFPOLNS1: POLARIZERS , THIN FILM FOR 532 nm , NEW, ORIGINAL COST $590 EACH OUR PRICE $200 EACH 10 MM DIA. ITEM CO2OCNS1: CO2 HIGH REFECTOR AND OUTPUT COUPLER 10.5 MM DIA, OC =79%R NEW. $200 A SET. ITEM 25MNS1: DIELECTRIC BROADBAND MIRRORS 450 TO 700NM , NEW WITH PLASTIC PROTECTIVE COATINGS , 2 SIZES 25 MM SQ. AND 50 MM SQ. RECOMENDED FOR HIGHER POWER LASERS. 25MM SIZE ITEM 25MNS1 $20 50MM SIZE ITEM 50MNS1 $25 ITEM # BSDNS1: 50/50 DIELECTRIC COATED PLATE BEAM SPLITTER 630 TO 660 NM COMES IN A TRIANGLE SHAPE EACH SIDE APPROX. 1" PRICE $20 ITEM # 45NS1 45 DEGREE RED REFLECTOR , PASSES 488 TO 532NM , CAN BE USED TO COMBINE RED AND GREEN/BLUE LASERS TO CREATE A WHITE LIGHT LASER. 1" SQ. PRICE $15 ITEM# PCINS1 PLANO/CONVEX LENS COATED FOR YAG 1064NM , AR COATED, 10MM DIA. NEW, ORIG. COST $250 OUR PRICE $100 ITEM# INFILTER : INTERFERENCE FILTERS USED FOR PASSING A PARTICULAR SPECTRAL LINE , 11.8 MM DIA. CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND WRAPPED IN LENSE PAPER. THE FOLLOWING WAVE LENGTHS ARE AVAILABLE. 523.5, 547.4 , 572.1, 512.9, 550.6, 488, 505.7 nm price $20 each. FOR A COMPLETE LINE OF NEW AND USED LASERS - OPTICS -ELECTRO OPTICS- LASER SHOWS ORDER A COMPLETE CATALOG AT MWKINDUSTRIES.COM TO: ORDER GO TO OUR WEB SITE MWKINDUSTRIES.COM {SECURE ORDERING SITE} QUESTIONS OR REMOVAL FROM MAILING LIST EMAIL: MWK at WORLDNET.ATT.NET MWK INDUSTRIES 1269 POMONA RD CORONA CA 91720 PHONE 909-278-0563 FAX 909-278-4887 From news at witcapital.com Fri Dec 5 22:21:25 1997 From: news at witcapital.com (news at witcapital.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:21:25 +0800 Subject: Wit Capital Opens Online Brokerage with Free Trading Offer Message-ID: <199712060609.WAA22247@toad.com> *************************************** Wit Capital Update December 4, 1997 www.witcapital.com *************************************** We're pleased to tell you that Wit Capital's online brokerage service is open and ready to accept your stock orders! To celebrate the launch of this service, we're making an offer that's hard to beat: open an account by Christmas Day, 1997 and trade FREE* for the entire month of January, 1998. Our regular fees are only $14.95 per trade for market orders and $19.95 per trade for limit orders. Listed trades over 5,000 shares are subject to a 1-cent per share charge for the entire order in lieu of the above fee. Using the online brokerage is easy. Just visit http://www.witcapital.com and click "Trade" from the menu bar at the top of the page. Then just follow the prompts. You can buy, sell or sell short NASDAQ, New York or American Stock Exchange stocks. We accept market, limit, stop, stop limit and many other types of orders. You'll need to have enough funds, securities or margin buying power in your account to cover your transaction before we can accept your order. Your cash awaiting investment will receive a competitive money market interest rate. We will soon be adding options and mutual fund trading, as well as a touch-tone service you can use when you're away from your computer. Remember, to trade FREE* for the entire month of January, you must open an account by December 25, 1997, so do it today! Just visit http://www.witcapital.com and click "Open Account" from the menu bar on the left-hand side of the page. *Maximum 25 free trades in January 1998. Trades must be 250 shares or more to qualify. Member NASD and SIPC From suzy_g18 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 6 14:45:20 1997 From: suzy_g18 at hotmail.com (suzy_g18 at hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:45:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free Live Sex! Message-ID: <0000000000.AAA000@hotmail.com> ****************Attention Video Sex Lovers***************** Never Pay for Video Sex ever again. Brand New Totally Free Live Video Sex Website. Come Check out over 600 Live Video sex Channels! http://207.105.143.54/teenporn/A002 Not forgetting hundreds of XXX MPEG videos, pictures, hot stories, special star features adult games and even an online casino! http://207.105.143.54/teenporn/A002 From loki at infonex.com Fri Dec 5 23:41:29 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:41:29 +0800 Subject: [Mix-L] another mixmaster source branch In-Reply-To: <199712051943.TAA04959@server.test.net> Message-ID: Obviously I would be happy to put it on mine. -Lance At 7:43 PM +0000 12/5/97, Adam Back wrote: >Anyone with a export controlled web site in the US like to give home >to Rich Salz's mixmaster re-write? > >Adam > >------- Start of forwarded message ------- >Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:28:32 -0500 (EST) >From: Rich Salz >To: coderpunks at toad.com >Subject: Take my mixmaster source >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Sender: owner-coderpunks at toad.com >Precedence: bulk > >A long time ago, Lance graciously gave me a copy of his mixmaster >source. I ended up doing a line-by-line rewrite, splitting it >into different executables, FSF configure'ing it, etc. > >I'm not going to have time to finish it. There is one bug that >I know of, an off-by-one error in decoding multi-hop messages. > >If you would like fame and fortune and a somewhat interesting >debugging problem, and you're inside the US or Canada, please >send me email. I would like to see this code get released, and >used. > >Thanks. >------- End of forwarded message ------- > >To unsubscribe from mix-l, send email to majordomo at alpha.jpunix.com >with the body of the message containing the line: > >unsubscribe mix-l ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at infonex.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.infonex.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Dec 6 00:53:29 1997 From: jamesd at echeque.com (James A. Donald) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 16:53:29 +0800 Subject: Please Beta test my communications cryptography product. Message-ID: <199712060843.AAA20121@proxy3.ba.best.com> At 04:19 PM 12/5/97 -0600, Rick Smith wrote: > I admit I can't figure out what crypto mechanism Kong is really using since > there's obfuscating talk of passphrases and secrets. Your secret key is 240 bit number modulo the order of the generator. This number is generated by hashing your secret file and passphrase. Your public key is an elliptic point, equal to the secret key times the generator. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ From 50881206 at 10179.com Sat Dec 6 19:38:29 1997 From: 50881206 at 10179.com (50881206 at 10179.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 19:38:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: TIRED OF LOSING 1/3 OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY TO THE I.R.S? Message-ID: DO YOU PULL YOUR HAIR OUT EVERY TIME INCOME TAX SEASON COMES? DECLARE YOURSELF FREE!!! EXPATRIATE FROM THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES. "DECLARATION OF EXPATRIATION" SHOWS THE ONLY CASE WHERE A UNITED STATES JUDGE; THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; AND, JUSTICE KENNEDY OF THE SPREME COURT CONCUR ON THE CONTRACTS. IT WAS DECLARED THAT WE ALL HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP; AMERICAN AND CITIZENSHIP AND UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP. YOU WERE BORN INTO AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND CONTRACTED INTO UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP. THIS DECLARATION PROVES THE CONTRACTS "HE PAYS SOCIAL SECURITY, HE USES THE POSTAL SERVICE, THEREFORE, MR. COOPER IS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN," ARE FRAUDULENT. PACKAGE INCLUDES: 1. DECLARATION OF EXPATRIATION 2. COVER LETTER TO THE I.R.S. 3. NOTICE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ALL THIS FOR ONLY $300.00. THINK ABOUT IT - THAT'S A SMALL PRICE COMPARED TO THE THOUSANDS YOU SPEND IN TAXES EACH YEAR! REMOVE THE I.R.S. CHOKE COLLAR!!! PLACE ORDERS NOW TO FREE YOURSELF BEFORE THE TAX TIME RUSH. SEND $300.00 (USD) TO: OCEAN SOUND FREEDOM TRUST 1 506 18TH STREET VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA (23451) $1,000 REWARD TO ANYONE PROVING THE FACTS LISTED IN THE AFORMENTIONED BRIEF TO BE ERRONOUS. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEND $5.00 (USD) TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS, FOR AN INFORMATIVE ESSAY. From tm at dev.null Sat Dec 6 04:10:42 1997 From: tm at dev.null (TruthMonger) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 20:10:42 +0800 Subject: Slaughterhouse 7 Message-ID: <34893DDA.57A3@dev.null> [BLACKHAWK DOWN] Background A defining battle leaves echoing scars By Mark Bowden INQUIRER STAFF WRITER November 16, 2007 LATE IN THE AFTERNOON of SlaughterDay, Oct. 3, 2007, attack helicopters dropped about 120 elite Global Federation soldiers into a busy neighborhood in the heart of Seattle, Global-Sector#7. Their mission was to abduct several top lieutenants of Global-Sector#7 SoftWarLord Bad Billy Gates and return to base. It was supposed to take about an hour. Instead, two of their high-tech UH-60 Blackhawk attack helicopters were shot down. The men were pinned down through a long and terrible night in a hostile city, fighting for their lives. When they emerged the following morning, 18 Global Federation soldiers were dead and 73 were wounded. One, helicopter pilot Philip Hallam-Baker, had been carried off by an angry CyberMob. He was still alive, held captive somewhere in the city. The Global-Sector#7 toll was far worse. Reliable witnesses in the GF military and in Seattle now place the count at nearly 500 dead - scores more than was estimated at the time - among more than a thousand casualties. Many were women and children. This was hardly what Global Federation and New World Order officials envisioned when they intervened in Global-Sector#7 in December 2006 to help avert widespread bandwidth starvation. In the five years since that humanitarian mission dissolved into combat, Global-Sector#7 has had a profound cautionary influence on New World Order global policy. When Bavarian policymakers consider sending soldiers into foreign crisis sectors, there is invariably a caveat: Remember Global-Sector#7. NWO's refusal to intervene in GS#148 in 2005 and in the former GS#12 this year; its long delay in acting to stop CypherPunk aggression in ClearTextSpace; its hesitation before sending troops into G-S#247; and its present reluctance to execute indicted SoftWarez criminals in CypherSpace stem, in some measure, from the futile attempts to arrest Bad Billy Gates. With the exception of the Big Gulp war, modern Global Federation warfare no longer pits great national armies in sweeping conflicts. Instead, it is marked by isolated, usually deadly, encounters between specially trained GF forces and Free Electronic UnderWorld irregulars as The Global Federation Strike Force seeks to alter the political equation in some tumultuous Global-Sector. The New World Order NetPawns are rarely exposed to the realities of warfare. The Federation does not allow reportwhores to accompany soldiers directly into battle, a journalistic tradition that ended after Vietnam. What results is a sanitized picture of civilian slaughter. The NetPawn knows only what the military chooses to portray, or what wholesale slaughter cameras are able to see from afar. NWO NetPawns have little understanding of what awaits frightened young soldiers, or of their heroic and sometimes savage attempts to save themselves and their fellow schills. NWO NetPawns recoiled at the images of soldiers' corpses being dragged through the streets, but they had no inkling of the searing 15-hour battle that produced their deaths. There has never been a detailed public accounting. Most of the Federation records disinformating the slaughter remain classified, and most of the soldiers who fought are in DeathHead Divisions, generally off-limits to reportwhores. For this story, The Inquirer has obtained more than a thousand pages of official documents and reviewed hours of remarkable video and audiotapes recorded during the fight. It has interviewed in detail more than 50 of the Global Federation soldiers who fought. Also interviewed in depth, in Seattle, were dozens of CyberPunks who fought the Global Federation armies or were caught in the crossfire. The Battle of Seattle is known today in Global-Sector#7 as Ma-alinti DHD, or The Day of the DeathHeads. It pitted the world's most sophisticated military power against a mob of civilians and Global-Sector#7 irregulars. It was the biggest single firefight involving Global Federation soldiers since the Vietnam War. The battle was photographed and videotaped by sophisticated cameras aboard satellites, a P-3 Orion spy plane, and UH-58 surveillance helicopters hovering directly over the action. Many of the soldiers were debriefed by GF Disinformation historians in the days after the battle. Top commanders were later subjected to a New World Order inquisition. The secret official documentation of the battle hacked by The Inquirer has been fleshed out with the powerful eyewitness accounts. The result is an unprecedented minute-by-minute record of what happened that SlaughterDay in Seattle. Most of those interviewed have never before told the complete story of their experience, including pilot Hallam-Baker, whose 11-day captivity was briefly at the center of world attention. Many soldiers are still unaware of certain battle episodes that did not involve them. Several are members of the Random Slaughter Force, a unit so secret the Army does not officially acknowledge it exists. Theirs is a story of well-laid plans gone awry, of tragic blunders, of skillful soldiering, heroism, and occasional cowardice. The portrait reveals a military force that underestimated its enemy. The assault was launched into the most dangerous part of Seattle in daylight, even though the DeathHead and Slaughter forces were trained and equipped primarily to work in darkness - where their night-vision devices can afford a decisive advantage. Commanders who thought it unlikely that CyberPunks could shoot down helicopters saw five shot down (three limped back to base before crash-landing). Ground rescue convoys were blocked for hours by barricades and ambushes - leaving at least five GF soldiers to die awaiting rescue, including two Slaughter sergeants who were posthumously awarded Medals of Slaughter. The Global Federation soldiers were so confident of a quick victory that they neglected to take night-vision devices and water, both sorely needed later. Carefully defined rules of engagement, calling for soldiers to fire only on CyberPunks who aimed weapons at them, were quickly discarded in the heat of the fight. Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on babies and eventually at anyone and anything they saw. Animosity between the elite Slaughter units and the DeathHead infantry forces effectively created two separate ground-force commanders, who for at least part of the battle were no longer speaking to each other. Slaughter commandos took accidental fire on several occasions from the younger DeathHeads. Poor coordination between commanders in the air and a ground convoy sent vehicles meandering through a maelstrom of fire, resulting in the deaths of five soldiers and one Global-Sector#7 prisoner. Official GF estimates of Global-Sector#7 casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Global-Sector#7 clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The NWO placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Seattle not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate. The Task Force DeathHead commander, Maj. Gen. Kent Crispin, testilying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city ``we would have sunk it.'' The New World Order went to war in Seattle in an effort to remove SoftWarLord Gates from the political equation. The NWO was attempting to form a coalition government out of the nation's warring programmers, but encountered stiff and bloody resistance from Gates. Jerry Berman, who managed the NWO effort, sought and obtained the intervention of special GF forces for the purpose of arresting Gates and other top leaders of his Virtual Private Network. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Seattle came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by GF helicopters (acting on behalf of the NWO) on a meeting of Gates clansmen. Prompted by a Global-Sector#7 ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 GF soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the NWO. Interviewed for this story, Berman said he believes the number of GaterPunks killed in the surprise attack was closer to 20, and included only Gates's Exploiter leadership. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Gates's clan was officially at war with Global Federation Troops - a fact many NWO NetPawns never realized. By Oct. 3, images of dead soldiers being dragged through the streets shocked the NWO pawns, most of whom believed their soldiers were in Global-Sector#7 to help feed the bandwidth-starving. How could a charitable mission provoke such savagery? But Task Force DeathHead was not in Seattle to feed the bandwidth. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Gates or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. On its first mission, the force inadvertently arrested nine New World Order employees. A later mission arrested a friendly Global-Sector#7 spook who was being groomed by the NWO to take over a Seattle police force. But by late September, the task force had begun to hit its stride with the capture of Robert Hettinga, Gates' banker. The deadly Oct. 3 raid was the sixth and last. Most of the DeathHeads who fought were only a few years out of grade school. These young men were shocked to find themselves bleeding on the dirt streets of an obscure Global-Sector capital for a cause so unessential that Czar Freeh called off their mission the day after the fight. In strictly military terms, Seattle was a success. The targets of that day's raid - two obscure clan leaders named Tim May and Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM - were apprehended. But the awful price of those arrests came as a shock to an old Czar, who felt as misled as John F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. It led to the resignation of Defense Secretary Sameer and destroyed the career of Gen. Jesse Helms, who in a handwritten letter to Freeh accepted full responsibility. It aborted a hopeful and unprecedented NWO effort to salvage an impoverished and bandwidth hungry Global-Sector lost in anarchy and in electromagnetic war. Every battle is a drama played out apart from broader political issues. Soldiers cannot concern themselves with the decisions that bring them to a fight. They trust their oppressors not to risk their lives for too little. Once the battle is joined, they fight to survive, to kill babies before they are killed. The story of a battle is timeless. It is about the same things whether in Troy or Gettysburg, Normandy or the Ia Drang. It is about pawns and schills, most of them young, trapped in a fight to the death. The extreme and terrible nature of war touches something essential about being human, and soldiers do not always like what they learn. For those who survive, the battle lives on in their memories and nightmares and in the dull ache of old wounds long after the reasons for it have been forgotten. Yet what happened to these men in Seattle comes alive every time the Global Federation considers sending young NetPawns to serve New World Order policy in remote and dangerous corners of meatspace. --------------------------------------------------------------- � 2007, Philadelphia InfoBytes Inc. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of Philadelphia InfoBytes Inc. is expressly prohibited. From toner98 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 6 20:36:40 1997 From: toner98 at hotmail.com (toner98 at hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 20:36:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: TONER Message-ID: <> BENCHMARK PRINT SUPPLY 1091 Redstone Lane Atlanta GA 30338 (770)399-0953 ***NEW ANNOUNCEMENT**** OUR NEW, LASER/FAX TONER CARTRIDGE,PRICES NOW AS LOW AS $39 & UP WE CARRY MOST ALL LASER PRINTER CARTRIDGES, FAX SUPPLIES AND COPIER TONERS AT WAREHOUSE PRICES INCLUDING: HEWLETT PACKARD SERIES 2,3,4,5,2P,3P,4P,5P,4L,5L,3SI,4SI,5SI IBM/LEXMARK SERIES 4019,4029,4039,4049,OPTRA EPSON SERIES 1000,1100,1500,6000,7000,8000 NEC SERIES 95 CANON FAX/LASER CARTRIDGES INCLUDING 700/770/5000/7000 CANON COPIER PC SERIES INCLUDING 3,6RE,7,10 HP FAX SERIES INCLUDING FX1,FX2,FX3 PRICES CHANGE WEEKLY, PLEASE CALL TO GET MOST RECENT PRICING AND AVAILABILITY. All major credit cards accepted. Corporate term accounts available with approved credit. We're open 24 hrs 7 days/week ORDER FROM BENCHMARK PRINT SUPPLY ONE OF THE LARGEST DISTRIBUTERS OF FAX/PRINTER/COPIER SUPPLIES WITH UNCONDITIONAL 1 YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PRODUCTS . From toner98 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 6 20:36:40 1997 From: toner98 at hotmail.com (toner98 at hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 20:36:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: TONER Message-ID: <> BENCHMARK PRINT SUPPLY 1091 Redstone Lane Atlanta GA 30338 (770)399-0953 ***NEW ANNOUNCEMENT**** OUR NEW, LASER/FAX TONER CARTRIDGE,PRICES NOW AS LOW AS $39 & UP WE CARRY MOST ALL LASER PRINTER CARTRIDGES, FAX SUPPLIES AND COPIER TONERS AT WAREHOUSE PRICES INCLUDING: HEWLETT PACKARD SERIES 2,3,4,5,2P,3P,4P,5P,4L,5L,3SI,4SI,5SI IBM/LEXMARK SERIES 4019,4029,4039,4049,OPTRA EPSON SERIES 1000,1100,1500,6000,7000,8000 NEC SERIES 95 CANON FAX/LASER CARTRIDGES INCLUDING 700/770/5000/7000 CANON COPIER PC SERIES INCLUDING 3,6RE,7,10 HP FAX SERIES INCLUDING FX1,FX2,FX3 PRICES CHANGE WEEKLY, PLEASE CALL TO GET MOST RECENT PRICING AND AVAILABILITY. All major credit cards accepted. Corporate term accounts available with approved credit. We're open 24 hrs 7 days/week ORDER FROM BENCHMARK PRINT SUPPLY ONE OF THE LARGEST DISTRIBUTERS OF FAX/PRINTER/COPIER SUPPLIES WITH UNCONDITIONAL 1 YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PRODUCTS . From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Dec 6 08:45:40 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 00:45:40 +0800 Subject: Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Anyone care to submit major censoring categories for each > church? ;-) Maybe the best way for cypherpunks to attack > this is to come up with free generic filtering software that > any well recognized group can develop filtering lists for. > Wait -- a name is coming to me -- GNUSitter? How about a variant on this idea: a cypherpunks web filter that filters out all content which has any of the following: Superstitious religious claptrap Moralising on porn etc. Anti free speech rhetoric All government departments All Anti-drug "war on some vegetables" rubbish etc. etc. etc. And specifically filters in as a random start page for the browser any of the following: Pornography Free speech advocacy Hate speech Violent, filthy, disgusting, explicit pages showing images of death and torture. Any pages graphically depicting the stories and parts of the bible the religious types like to forget about. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] Sat Dec 6 08:45:51 1997 From: Use-Author-Address-Header at [127.1] (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 00:45:51 +0800 Subject: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed In-Reply-To: <3485813d.117631170@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <53537998fff00b31d5800713f6d8201a@anonymous.poster> gburnore at netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > :> Sure it does in your mind and I'm sure in the mind of the anon-asshole. > : > :Call someone an "asshole" all you like, but when you have to qualify that and > :call him a "black asshole", "gay asshole", "Jewish asshole", or "anon > :asshole", it only demonstrates your personal prejudice and bigotry. Your > :arguments are so weak that you must resort to ad hominem argumentation to > :divert attention from the facts. > : > :Repeating your unproven accusations over and over does not make them true. > > One could say that about you. An asshole posting only anonymously is the > anonymous asshole. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Posting ONLY anonymously"? Wherever did you get that idea? If you really believe that this "anonymous asshole" is "posting only anonymously", then your previous accusations that someone else on this NG (who posts NON-anonymously) was this person were a LIE, weren't they? So which of your two contradictory statements is the lie? Or are they BOTH lies? They can't both be true. > Note that I have never and will never say that people who > post anonymously are assholes. You just did. When you have to single out alleged "assholes" as being black, gay, Jewish, anonymous, Italian, or whatever, you reveal your own prejudices against that group. For example, you never hear a white person say, "That white bastard just cut me off" while driving, do you? Such language is usually reserved for groups you HATE. For all your recent backpedalling and sucking up, your stance on privacy, anonymity, remailers, etc. remains quite clear. > :Are you claiming that all the DataBasix personnel no longer have access to > :the Internet simply because the databasix.com domain is down? Considering how > :lax Netcom is with their servers, any abuse you might allege could easily have > :come from someone with a Netcom account. > > Yawn. It could have as easily come from you. "Could have" equals "proof" in DataBasix-speak? (You did just move to the part of the country where burning alleged "witches" was once a popular pasttime, didn't you?) Remember that you're the person CLAIMING that this alleged abuse even occurred, so the burden of proof is on you. > :You might as well reconnect databasix.com to the net because having it down > :is not a credible alibi -- not when most of the players involved have > :Netcom accounts, and a few even have shell accounts from which they could > :have run Perl scripts. > > I don't require an alabi because I've done nothing to require one. If everyone bought into that attempt at "logic" (assuming your conclusion as part of your argument), we'd have no need for jails, would we? It could become the universal response to "where were you on the night of XX/XX/XX?" > You on the other hand apparently feel you need to hide. Bovine excrement. Concealing one's name and e-mail address is no different conceptually from concealing one's home address or phone number. So if you truly have nothing to hide, please feel free to post that information, or else shut up about having nothing to hide. If you have nothing to hide, why are you so afraid of people reading your posts via from DejaNews that you cloak each one with that No-Archive header? I remember when you once criticized a fellow poster for "hiding behind" it, and now you're doing the same thing you criticized him for! > It's obvious to me and to many that you want to cause damage to the remailers. "Obvious to me" does not constitute proof. I posted Jeff's account of YOUR anti-remailer activities. He mentioned you and Belinda Bryan BY NAME. When you have similar evidence against someone else, naming names, please post it. You have yet to demonstrate that this mythical monster you're expecting others to believe exists is anything other than your own self-serving creation. It reminds me of what one philosopher said about the devil -- "if he didn't exist, we'd have to create one". > :Not as long as you want to keep it alive by claiming that you are a "victim" > :of some grand forgery, "UCE-baiting", "cyber stalking" scheme. Sam is right > :in doubting your claims that most of the things you allege happened to you > :even occurred. He pointed out that the one flimsy piece of evidence you've > :been able to produce more recently than February of 1997 originated from YOUR > :OWN DOMAIN! > > > You mean not as long as you keep posting lies. Huh? The "evidence" was posted by YOU and the analysis came from Sam. I wasn't even in that loop. Nice try. -- From hallam at ai.mit.edu Sat Dec 6 09:52:50 1997 From: hallam at ai.mit.edu (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 01:52:50 +0800 Subject: Singapore Message-ID: <01bd026d$85c8c4a0$06060606@russell> > Hallam-Baker obviously thinks that he can thwart my insightful, >barbed diatribes against him by posting empty messages to the >CypherPunks list, No, I was merely speechless. If you think that Singapore is a Libertarian paradise then you are not a Libertarian. I don't doubt that Duncan is capable of being an appologist for the Signapore regime just as there were a lot of 'Communists' who used to fawn over Stalin. The fact is that Singapore taps every telephone call, monitors every public place and performs traffic analysis to identify dissident communities. The fear of being identified in such a community is a major means of suppressing dissent. Duncan and Declan are merely indulging in a very popular passtime of idealogues, fawning over benevolent dictatorships. Phill From cvhd at indyweb.net Sat Dec 6 10:07:41 1997 From: cvhd at indyweb.net (cvhd at indyweb.net) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 02:07:41 +0800 Subject: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971205164216.006f950c@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971206080245.0085b100@indyweb.net> At 11:42 AM 12/5/97 -0500, John Young wrote: > Right to Privacy for Sale in Cyberspace; SynData Technologies Inc. > Speaks Out Against Key Recovery > > Cedar Grove, N.J. -- SynData Technologies Inc., a provider of encryption > software solutions, released a statement today condemning Network > Associates Inc. for supporting the government's key recovery program. > Network Associates recently purchased Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). > PGP had historically been opposed to key recovery. > > "It is time to seriously consider the threat that Network Associates poses > to the individual's constitutional right to privacy," said David Romanoff, CEO > of SynData Technologies Inc. "While Network Associates claims to protect > privacy in cyberspace, they have actually traded our right to privacy for a > shot at increased revenues overseas by supporting the key recovery program. > The slippery slope has begun right under our noses. It's time to challenge > both the government and companies who support the government's key > recovery program before it is too late." > > "The government's key recovery program is a complete violation of the > individual's right to privacy and, in fact, compromises of the system are > already taking place. This shows that key escrow is an untenable policy," > said Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading authorities on encryption > and author of the book "Applied Cryptography". "SynData is paving the > way for other software developers by taking a stand in opposition to the > government and companies like Network Associates." - - - Begin Signed Opinion - - - Everyone should keep in mind that John McAfee very well knows on which side of his bread it is buttered-- McAfee has made his fortune on the site-licenses for government use of his anti-virus product. U.S. Customs alone liceneses 17,000+ copies. Is anyone kidding themselves about which side of GAK and Key Escrow McAfee will come down on? I have never bought into any of the conspiranauts BS about PGP backdoors as long as PZ was involved with it but I will certainly assume it is to be a "given" with PGP in the hands of McAfee. - - - End Signed Opinion - - - Signed - - - CVHD - - - From zahn at berlin.snafu.de Sat Dec 6 10:35:27 1997 From: zahn at berlin.snafu.de (Steffen Zahn) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 02:35:27 +0800 Subject: Signature checker for Cantsin Protocol No. 2 In-Reply-To: <199712030038.BAA29410@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: <199712061827.TAA03807@n242-197.berlin.snafu.de> Hello, I have put together a package to check Cantsin 2 Signatures. Prerequisites are: perl Version 5 libgmp Version 2.* a C compiler precompiled binaries are provided for Linux-ELF (libc-5.*), if you have that you don't need libgmp. Pick it up from http://www.snafu.de/~zahn/cantsin.tar.gz (22KByte) Regards Steffen -- home email: user at domain where domain=berlin.snafu.de, user=zahn Use of my address for unsolicited commercial advertising is forbidden. "Where do you want to crash today?" From tcmay at got.net Sat Dec 6 11:21:28 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:21:28 +0800 Subject: Problems with PGP Finland site? Message-ID: Someone in alt.security.pgp reported that the Finland PGP site seems to be denying access. I tried http://zone.pspt.fi/pgp/ and got a "Forbidden" message. Could just be a temporary glitch. Or a switch to a different URL. Anyone know? But the paranoid part of me wonders if the hammer is finally coming down on these offshore "pirate sites." (Not piracy in any SPA sense, as PGP, Inc. is clearly complicit in publishing the PGP source code books and encouraging Cypherpunks to pick up stacks of them at Bay Area meetings for FedEx delivery to offhsore sites.....but the OECD/Wasenaar Cabal clearly views this sort of thing negatively. Perhaps Crypto Czar Aaron applied his rod to the cops in Helsinki and the site went"stale." :-{) --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at REPLAY.COM Sat Dec 6 11:24:56 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:24:56 +0800 Subject: Hate speech in Germany... Message-ID: <199712061913.UAA21991@basement.replay.com> Peter Herngaard wrote: >Mr. Frissell asserts that Germany lacks rights such as freedom of >speech and association. This is not true. The German Basic Law >provides for everyone the right to freedom of speech, religion and >association. However, Germany prohibits hate speech i.e. National >Socialism and incitement to racial, religious and national hatred. I believe this is exactly what Mr. Frissell had in mind. Incidentally, I heard that last year there were a series of raids on bookstores for "hate" literature. One of the books seized was Art Spiegelman's "Maus". The justification was that it glorified violence. (Feel free to correct me if this is baseless rumor. ;-) >>Reply to Duncan Frissell: >>If the German people desired to abolish the Radikalenerlass they >>could do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as >>U.S. citizens could abolish use of capital punishment against >>minors. Is there any difference? > >There is a difference, in that calling for the abolition of laws >banning 'hate speech' can easily be labelled as 'hate speech' in >themselves. > >I think it's true for banana republics. However, as far I know >itsn't illegal in Germany to call for the abolition of all hate laws. >But calling for the abolition of human rights is certainly against >the law. !!! It sounds as if in Germany one may not discuss even the most basic political philosophy without violating the law. I'm not sure what is meant by "calling for the abolition of human rights". What would be some examples of things somebody could say and what would be the penalties? (Presuming you are allowed to give examples, that is.) >Yes. But if the majority of the voting population *really* wanted to >install a hate speech censorship regime, they could elect a House >and a Senate being able to change or amend the Bill of Rights. It >seems that criminalization of "flag desecration" to many is what hate >speech is in Europe. This is exactly correct. >In addition, we do not prohibit pornography, and obscenity is a >non-existent legal category. Another good point. Many in the U.S. have become so accustomed to these speech restrictions that it seems normal. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Hate speech in Germany... To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No. 2] 94C43229A76383D818D39952F7A41ACA0394C6FE 90BC91101F85741DD34904CB85F53587E2F60552 -957 957 1E2E934E6521F0AF31CED38EB60FCF9AD2E9997879F053F097F49EE39B97FA22D66D438A9409D20F479DB6DCCCCFBAA6AE95FACA8B67B91F03CE50DBB5F9AC0862C2DC9E39B2020FD099DD52E2C68D92E524037DBAB7CFE1783329BE5E0CA468674B5916EBE0F3F2C1DAB6A0CB8D48AE7586C741FE3117577A540EB663816E70C6D554AA2FBA42F85B7A486B96AFA3975FD9EC4F51344EC22B215A0284C7C9397066B71AA506A7824A233A349564FE0DCB358CF5001D2A13EAF9603C65AE4620450DD4CDB7141D7B63422714441AA67B9F871701D8F19082DE73D3B0F1B2973B4A306106FCBE72BBB2CE47D9CACCA721562FB6CEC08F5FC95DB2559E658CC2F9 4FDDF6A60F4EE3F960B4FF277E000C85196D9776BD39C87EE2A606527FE6FD16CFBE9787DB5392D2938D035CF4DB14EF86B6E7499298F37AC0C31832CDD411376B18EBA2FBA072E2983FCA5A617F5B5F209B76B2615B6942AE99CCF257D19F1EDF8FBEB52A735E2A1BD184A2F18B9EBD8054F14472FF39C65D569F9564FD0CC41F656D3D6B9BC60A65DDECD57CACD83322E56FF8EF2742647785CB6054B75215BE0C0DAE6459322C3B431CCCB39151C7FB65B9D88FC5050FD4CC455404C7586275E3057EF0C4E0D6603383E4276EE4B34F68D062CE7CCE5DCE3600F19AFC8CA9CBF233A6C02D735CD20D207DF789BAA8E3DC389FE1BDEBF2A57215BE49286945 From tcmay at got.net Sat Dec 6 11:27:28 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:27:28 +0800 Subject: Problems with PGP Finland site? Message-ID: Never mind. Sorry. It looks like http://www.pgpi.com/ is still open for business, so paranoia is unwarranted. Though I wonder for how long Network Associates will continue to publish source code books and encourage their wide distribution around the world? Or how long source code will be available at all. Or how long the freeware version will be available. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jya at pipeline.com Sat Dec 6 11:33:05 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:33:05 +0800 Subject: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971206192208.00706884@pop.pipeline.com> cvhd at indyweb.net wrote: >I have never bought into any of the conspiranauts BS about >PGP backdoors as long as PZ was involved with it but I will >certainly assume it is to be a "given" with PGP in the hands >of McAfee. Has Phil Zimmermann responded to the months long criticism of PGP 5.0 for Business and PGP's acquisition by Network Associates? If not, what seems to be the most reasonable explanation for Phil not answering, to allay suspicions and sustain PGP's worldwide reputation? The explanations by others working with PGP, Inc. would surely be more credible if Phil expressed public support for their views. I still find it hard to accept that Phil would squander his personal reputation, and thereby the reputation of his invention, by refusing to provide a public accounting of what's happening with PGP Inc. And, no matter the legal and financial restrictions that might be contraining him. And no matter that PGP's competitors are probably encouraging some of the attacks. Security by obscurity, by indifference to public doubts, seems to be a surefire way to undermine Phil's years long struggle to distinguish himself from those less courageous than him who are pushing products less reliable than PGP has been believed to be until now. It's a haunting thought to consider that Phil may have been shown evidence by others that PGP is not as reliable as many have long believed, evidence that perhaps demonstrates what he knew all along. This is harsh suspicion and one that needs his response, if for no other reason to allay the fear that even prior versions of PGP are now suspect. PGP and Phil's personal reputation are at stake, not PGP, Inc., which is secondary. There are lots of folks whose freedom, if not lives, may be at risk due to his silence. Perhaps it's time for Phil to reaffirm that difficult choice between success and conviction, between making a killing and betraying others to do so. To remind those who think you can have both ways and get away with it is a cowardly fantasy too often hidden behind self-serving ethics. If Phil personally (not the PGP officer, not the distinguished scientist bullshit role, not the PGP employees) refuses to stand behind PGP as it has been known and trusted, then PGP and Phil should be denounced forever as a grand deception and treachery, even worse than the other crypto products eagerly shaped -- and openly proud of it -- to fit the specs of the paymaster snoops Phil himself once bravely challenged. I think Phil will come through now, as he has in the past, to distinguish himself and PGP (not Inc.) from the craven pack. If he doesn't, it's smart to give up using PGP in all its guises past and future. From nobody at REPLAY.COM Sat Dec 6 11:38:41 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:38:41 +0800 Subject: words have value, for good or ill Message-ID: <199712061933.UAA24057@basement.replay.com> A ghost speaking through the medium of replay.com communicated: >Consider: anyone might legitimately say they could understand why the >government opposes access to cryptography. It represents a threat to >their monopoly power. But if someone said they were becoming >convinced that restrictions on access to crypto were a good thing, >we'd be attacking them in an instant. These are two completely >different issues. One is a matter of understanding evil motivations, >which we can all benefit by. The other is a matter of advocacy of >evil. That must be opposed, and in fact this list has been a strong >force for such opposition. I see the list as a place to discuss ideas rather than as a propaganda vehicle or a political party. >The problem this raises is that it is difficult to know where May >stands on any issue. He makes contradictory statements, refuses to >reconcile them, even refuses to admit that they are contradictory. >Which is his true view? No doubt, whichever one turns out to be most >convenient in the end. Next you'll be telling us we should not obediently follow his every command! Whose side are you on? >What a weak and childish individual this is, this man who is said to >be the most respected of the cypherpunks. You might be happier if you did not associate with a group of weak and childish individuals. I have no doubt that Tim May contradicts himself from time to time. And, when he changes his mind he does not announce it to the list and carefully credit each person who influenced his views. Sometimes he is insensitive or even rude ("chop chop"). I've never seen him apologize, either. Probably he doesn't have the circuits to do it. But, so what? He's still the most interesting contributor to the list. I can well understand why you don't put him in your killfile. Perhaps instead of name calling, you should actually address a point or two and discuss it. If you think McVeigh did the wrong thing, it would be interesting to hear why. And it would interesting to hear why you believe that a McVeigh killing innocents is wrong, but a U.S. Air Force doing the same thing is right. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom rah at shipwright.com Sat Dec 6 11:40:44 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:40:44 +0800 Subject: Mises and Batman Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:46:31 -0800 to: misesmail at colossus.net from: news at mises.org subject: Mises and Batman Sender: owner-misesmail at colossus.net Precedence: Bulk This has to be a first in the history of the Austrian School. The new issue of THE BATMAN CHRONICLES, a quarterly, features "Berlin Batman," a story revolving around the Nazi confiscation of Ludwig von Mises's papers from his Vienna apartment in 1938. Batman attempts to rescue the papers from a German government train, and says of Mises, "I once met him, and I've read his work. He's a brave man to oppose the party in these barren times." Batman sees in Mises a comrade in arms. We won't give away the ending, but in a recap at the end of story, there are excerpts from Robin's 1998 "unpublished" "memoirs of the Batman": "Ludwig von Mises escaped to the United States when the Nazis ransacked his apartment in 1938. It was his landlady, a friend of his mother's, who told the authorities Von Mises was working on a new book which challenged Nazi social and economic policies. They slowed him down, but they couldn't stop him. He continued work on a book which was eventually published in '49, called 'Human Action', now considered one of the great libertarian works of our times." There is much more, and it is all beautifully drawn and written by Paul Pope. It is available at comic book stands everywhere. The price is $2.95. Cheers to D.C. Comics (1700 Broadway, New York, NY 10019)! --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: From brianbr at together.net Sat Dec 6 12:08:45 1997 From: brianbr at together.net (Brian B. Riley) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 04:08:45 +0800 Subject: A Medal -- Or A Prison Cell? Message-ID: <199712062000.PAA21076@mx01.together.net> ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- Date: 12/06 1:10 AM Received: 12/06 11:39 AM From: James A Chappelow, chappja at mail.auburn.edu Reply-To: Vermont Libertarian, vtlp-list at catamount.com To: Multiple recipients of, vtlp-list at catamount.com >From the Liberator Online: A Medal -- Or A Prison Cell? Larry Gates, a 54-year-old ex-Marine, operates a convenience store in rural Iconium, Missouri. He's also a volunteer fireman. Last Christmas Eve he was listening to a licensed fire department radio when he heard a report that police were chasing two suspected murderers. Police had lost track of the suspects. From his knowledge of the area, Gates was aware that the car would pass directly in front of his store. Gates grabbed a shotgun and sidearm, and along with his three adult sons pulled two vehicles into the intersection, blocking it. Both vehicles had fire emergency lights flashing. A few seconds later the suspects' car approached the roadblock. Gates' son Carey motioned for the car to stop. Instead, the car suddenly accelerated directly at Carey. Gates fired his shotgun once at the car. The car swerved away from his sons, went around the roadblock, and continued down the road. Two of Gates' sons followed the car at a moderate pace. The car was driving erratically. Soon it slowed enough for the passenger, a woman, to leap out. Gates' sons stopped. The woman suspect was slightly wounded from Gates' shotgun. One of Gates's sons, an Emergency Medical Technician, administered first aid. The other son resumed following the car. When he came across the abandoned car, he called police. Shortly the other suspect was arrested. The two suspects, who had been abusing drugs for days, confessed to two homicides. The woman said the driver had planned to commit suicide by crashing the car. Did the Gates family get medals? No. The St. Clair, Missouri prosecutor has charged Larry Gates with "unlawful use of a weapon," a felony offense. He was released from jail on $5,000 bond. If convicted he faces up to five years' imprisonment and the permanent loss of his Second Amendment rights. Gates has turned down offers to plea bargain his charges down to a misdemeanor. He goes to trial December 10. Gun Owners of America has established a legal defense fund for Larry Gates. For info call 703-321-8585. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The courts have found that citizens are not legally entitled to police protection, yet citizens who defend themselves and their communities are routinely prosecuted as if THEY are the criminals. We are forced to pay taxes to support a police force that is not required to defend us and is instead used to punish us for defending ourselves. I don't get it. James A Chappelow "History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." Adolf Hitler --------------------------------------------------- This message is from the VTLP-list (Vermont Libertarian) mailing list. To send a message to everyone on this list send email to . To unsubscribe from the list send eamil to with "unsubscribe vtlp-list" in the body of the message. To subscribe to the list send email to with "subscribe vtlp-list your name" in the body of the message. ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys "Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" - Tom Clancy From emc at wire.insync.net Sat Dec 6 12:26:49 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 04:26:49 +0800 Subject: Gay Youth Site Closed Message-ID: <199712062021.OAA26304@wire.insync.net> The axe of censorship strikes again, this time against a gay-positive teen site. Moral alarmists screeched that depictions of kids embracing each other and kissing were "sexually suggestive." Can't have that, can we? The Seattle Times crows over the site's disappearance and praises efforts to prevent sex education from crossing over into "sex promotion." Woo Hoo! Alternative Kids Welcome to the Alternative Kids Web Page! This page is filled with links and information for kids who are searching out their sexual orientation. Do you feel that you might be bisexual, gay, or lesbian? This is the place for you. Sounds like a mirroring opportunity. :) -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From emc at wire.insync.net Sat Dec 6 13:21:09 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 05:21:09 +0800 Subject: Encrypted Horsemen Safe for Kiddies Message-ID: <199712062114.PAA26384@wire.insync.net> Good one, Bob. ----- WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Online pornographers should be required to use encryption, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, (R, Va.) Tuesday at the Internet Online Summit: Focus on Children conference held here. "That would certainly keep it away from children," said Goodlatte. "I'm not advocating encryption to let pornography flourish." Goodlatte, a champion of loosening encryption legislation, has sponsored legislation to allow the export of encryption products and another bill in the intellectual property arena, as well as another bill increasing liability for those found guilty of running Internet gambling operations. Goodlatte was the afternoon speaker in place of Newt Gingrich, speaker of the House, who couldn't attend. In addition, Attorney General Janet Reno postponed her appearance until Wednesday morning at 10:30. Goodlatte took the opportunity to speak of the Clinton adminstration's policy on encryption. "The Clinton administration's current encryption policies are a severe hinderance on the development of the full potential of the Internet," he said. He also said the House Judiciary Committee will begin a review of the Clinton administration's enforcement of laws on obscenity. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From ronman at hotmail.com Sun Dec 7 05:31:42 1997 From: ronman at hotmail.com (ronman at hotmail.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 05:31:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: The FREE info you requested Message-ID: <19971207132859.AAB28884@roth> HERE is the program YOU have been waiting for! Please print this information so you will read it comfortably. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Read through this program twice, then do the math! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Friend, My name is Christopher Erickson. Two years ago, the corporation I worked at for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends, and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. I truly believe it was wrong for me to be in debt like this. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share my experience in hopes that this will change your life FOREVER.... FINANCIALLY!!! In mid-December, I received this program via email. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they worked or not. One claimed I'd make a million dollars in one year...it didn't tell me I'd have to write a book to make it. But like I was saying, in December of '92 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly, I couldn't believe my eyes. Here was a MONEY- MAKING PHENOMENON. I could invest as much as I wanted to start, without putting me further in debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figuredit out, I would at least get my money back. After determining that the program is LEGAL and NOT A CHAIN LETTER, I decided "WHY NOT". Initially I sent out 10,000 emails. It only cost me about $15.00 for my time on-line. The great thing about email is that I didn't need any money for printing to send out the program, only the cost to fulfil my orders. I am telling you like it is, I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "cheat" anyone, no matter how much money it cost me! In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13th, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. When you read the GUARANTEE in the program, you will see that "YOU MUST RECEIVE 15 TO 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN TWO WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" My first step in making $50,000 in 20 to 90 days was done. By January 30th, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. If you go back to the GUARANTEE, "YOU MUST RECEIVE 100 OR MORE ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN TWO WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 19th, of my emailing of 10,000, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car. Please take time to read the attached program, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER! Remember, it won't work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It doesn't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money!!!!!! (REPORT #2 explains this.) Always follow the guarantee, 15 to 20 orders for REPORT #1, and 100 or more orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 20 to 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS !!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I'm sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and you are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! Sincerely, Christopher Erickson PS Do you have any idea what 11,700 $5 bills ($58,000) look like piled up on a kitchen table? IT'S AWESOME! "THREW IT AWAY" "I had received this program before. I threw it away, but later wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get a copy, so I had to wait until I was emailed another copy of the program. Eleven months passed, then it came. I DIDN'T throw this one away. I made $41,000 on the first try." Dawn W., Evansville, IN "NO FREE LUNCH" "My late father always told me, 'remember, Alan, there is no free lunch in life. You get out of life what you put into it.' Through trial and error and a somewhat slow frustrating start, I finally figured it out. The program works very well, I just had to find the right target group of people to email it to. So far this year, I have made over $63,000 using this program. I know my dad would have been very proud of me." Alan B., Philadelphia, PA A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM By the time you have read the enclosed information and looked over the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for ten years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate... because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich", inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of your money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have already made over FOUR MILLION DOLLARS! I have retired from the program after sending out over 16,000 programs. Now I have several offices which market this and several other programs here in the US and overseas. By the Spring, we wish to market the 'Internet' by a partnership with AMERICA ON LINE. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way.It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting program to everyone that you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on every one of them!. Remember though, the more you send out, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent, IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! "THINK ABOUT IT" Before you decide against this program, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! Definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. IT WORKS! Paul Johnson, Raleigh, NC HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU $$$$$$ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we 'll assume you and all those involved send out 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a .5% response. Using a good list the response could be much better. Also many people will send out hundred s of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those .5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The .5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The .5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 five dollar bills for you. CASH!!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF ONLY 2,000. Believe me, many people will do that and more! By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing. You obviously already have an internet connection and email is FREE!!! REPORT#3 will show you the best methods for bulk emailing and purchasing email lists. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come in contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. If you believe that someday you'll get that big break that you've been waiting for, THIS IS IT! Simply follow the instructions, and your dream will come true. This multi-level email order marketing program works perfectly...100% EVERY TIME. Email is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non-commercialised method of advertising NOW!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using email. Get your piece of this action!! MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING (MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in the Harvard Business School, and both Stanford Research and The Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50% and 65% of all goods and services will be sold throughout Multi-level Methods by the mid to late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 500,000 millionaires in the US, 20% (100,000) made their fortune in the last several years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show 45 people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. INSTRUCTIONS: This is the GREATEST Multi-level Mail Order Marketing anywhere: STEP #1 Order all four 4 REPORTS listed by NAME AND NUMBER. Do this by ordering one REPORT from each of the four names listed on the next page. (4 REPORTS at US $5 each will be only $20 Total!) For each REPORT, send $5 CASH ( checks take longer to clear the bank.) AND a SELF-ADDRESSED, STAMPED envelope (BUSINESS SIZE #10) to the person listed for the SPECIFIC REPORT. INTERNATIONAL ORDERS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE $1 EXTRA FOR POSTAGE. It is essential that you specify the NAME and NUMBER of the report requested to the person you are ordering from, and send CASH as checks take longer to clear the bank. You will need ALL FOUR 4 REPORTS because you will be REPRINTING and RESELLING them. DO NOT alter the names or sequence other than what the instructions say. IMPORTANT: Always provide same-day service on all orders. STEP #2 Replace the name and address under REPORT #1 with yours, moving the one that was there down to REPORT #2. Drop the name and address under REPORT #2 to REPORT #3, moving the one that was there to REPORT #4. The name and address that was under REPORT #4 is dropped from the list and this party is no doubt on the way to the bank. When doing this, make certain you type the names and addresses ACCURATELY! DO NOT MIX UP MOVING PRODUCT/REPORT POSITIONS!!! STEP #3 Having made the required changes in the NAME list, save it as a TEXT (.txt) file in it's own directory to be used with whatever email program you like. Again, REPORT #3 will tell you the best methods of bulk e-mailing and acquiring e-mail lists. STEP #4 E-mail a copy of the ENTIRE program (EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE READ HERE) to everyone whose address you can get your hands on. Start with friends and relatives first since it is easiest to convince them to take advantage of this fabulous & profitable opportunity. That's what I did. And they love me now, more than ever. Then, e-mail to anyone and everyone! Use your imagination! You can get e-mail addresses from companies on the internet who specialize in email mailing lists. These are very cheap, 100,000 addresses for around $35.00. IMPORTANT: You won't get a good response if you use an old list, so always request a NEW list. You will find out where to purchase these lists when you order the 4 REPORTS. ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS!!! ABOUT THE FOUR REPORTS: You already know that each costing $5. They not only serve as a means to work this program, but also contain worthwhile information. Some people use these reports to help them with this program, or to start a completely new program of a similar structure. The reports explain how this structure works, and why. The reports also show how MLM is used by major corporations, and how to obtain e-mailing lists, and how advertise by ways such as bulk e-mailing. REQUIRED REPORTS TO BE ORDERED ARE LISTED BELOW ***Order each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME*** ALWAYS SEND A SELF-ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE AND $5 CASH ( checks take longer to clear the bank) FOR EACH ORDER REQUESTING THE SPECIFIC REPORT BY its *NAME* AND *NUMBER* _____________________________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "HOW TO MAKE $250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Ron Rothstein P.O. Box 3011 Farmingdale, NY 11735 _____________________________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: M. Myre 324 Claude Lachenaie, QC J6W 5Y6 Canada _____________________________________________________________________ REPORT#3 "SOURCES FOR THE BEST MAILING LISTS" LIU Qi Box 34-451, Yu-Qiao-Bei-Li Yu-Qiao Post Office Tong-Xian, Beijing 101101 PR CHINA ____________________________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "EVALUATING MULTI-LEVEL SALES PLANS" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Jerry H. P.O. Box 2 Atwood, CA 92811-0002 USA =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF CONCLUSION I am enjoying my fortune that I made by sending out this program. You too, will be making money in 20 to 90 days, if you follow the SIMPLE STEPS outlined in this mailing. To be financially independent is to be FREE. Free to make financial decisions as never before. Go into business, get into investments, retire or take a vacation. No longer will a lack of money hold you back. However, very few people reach financial independence, because when opportunity knocks, they choose to ignore it. It is much easier to say "NO" than "YES", and this is the question that you must answer. Will YOU ignore this amazing opportunity or will you take advantage of it? If you do nothing, you have indeed missed something and nothing will change. Please re-read this material, this is a special opportunity. If you have any questions, please feel free to write to the sender of this information. You will get a prompt and informative reply. My method is simple. I sell thousands of people a product for $5 that costs me pennies to produce and email. I should also point out that this program is legal and everyone who participates WILL make money. THIS IS NOT A CHAIN LETTER OR PYRAMID SCHEME. At times you have probably received chain letters, asking you to send money, on faith, but getting NOTHING in return, NO product what-so-ever! Not only are chain letters illegal, but the risk of someone breaking the chain makes them quite unattractive. You are offering a legitimate product to people. After they purchase the product from you, they reproduce more and resell them. It's simple free enterprise. As you learned from the enclosed material, the PRODUCT is a series of four FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS REPORTS. The information contained in these REPORTS will not only help you in making your participation in this program more rewarding, but will be useful to you in any other business decisions you make in the years ahead. You are also buying the rights to reprint all of the REPORTS, which will be ordered from you by those to whom you mail this program. The concise one and two page REPORTS you will be buying can easily be reproduced at a local copy center for a cost off about 3 cents a copy. Best wishes with the program and Good Luck! "IT WAS TRULY AMAZING" "Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this program. But conservative as I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was no way that I could not get enough orders to at least get my money back. BOY, was I ever surprised when I found my medium sized post office box crammed with orders! I will make more money this year than any ten years of my life before." Mary Riceland, Lansing, MI TIPS FOR SUCCESS Send for your four 4 REPORTS immediately so you will have them when the orders start coming in. When you receive a $5 order, YOU MUST send out the product/service to comply with US Postal and Lottery laws. Title 18 Sections 1302 and 1341 specifically state that: "A PRODUCT OR SERVICE MUST BE EXCHANGED FOR MONEY RECEIVED." WHILE YOU WAIT FOR THE REPORTS TO ARRIVE: 1. Name your new company. You can use your own name if you desire. 2. Get a post office box (preferred, as there may come dozens or hundred of such $5 cash letters every day, you'd better to set private PO box to keep your money-in safety and convenient.) 3. Edit the names and addresses on the program. You must remember, replace the name and address next to REPORT #1 with YOURS and move the others down one, with the fourth one being BUMPED OFF the list. 4. Obtain as many e-mail addresses as possible to send until you receive the information on mailing list companies in REPORT #3. 5. Decide on the number of programs you intend to send out. The more you send, and the quicker you send them, the more money you will make. 6. After mailing the programs, get ready to fill the orders. 7. COPY the 4 REPORTS so you are able to sent them out as soon as you receive an order. IMPORTANT: ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ORDERS YOU RECEIVE! 8. Make certain the letter and reports are neat and legible. GUARANTEE The check point which GUARANTEES your success is simply this: you must receive 15 to 20 orders for REPORT #1. This is a must!!! If you don't within two weeks, email out more programs until you do. Then a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2, if you don't, send out more programs until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, (take a deep breath) you can sit back and relax, because YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AT LEAST $50,000. Mathematically it is a proven guarantee. Of those who have participated in the program and reached the above GUARANTEES -ALL have reached their $50,000 goal. Also, remember, every time your name is moved down the list you are in front of a different REPORT, so you can keep track of your program by knowing what people are ordering from you. IT'S THAT EASY. REALLY, IT IS!!! REMEMBER: "HE WHO DARES NOTHING, NEED NOT HOPE FOR ANYTHING." "INVEST A LITTLE TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY NOW OR SEARCH FOR IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE." BEST WISHES! --------------------------------------------------------------------- HELP FILE --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Friends, I have taken the liberty to put together a help file for all of the people who purchase a report from me. This file may be distributed to all of your customers at no charge to you. This letter gives you the rights to give this file to everyone who purchases a report from you, so long as *this* file is distributed to them at no additional charge. INTERNET ADVERTISING FOR FREE Most of you will want to sell as many reports as possible, without having to purchase large bulk-e-mailings and expensive classified ads on the Internet. The three most effective methods to do this for free are: Web Pages with your current Internet Provider, Postings on Newsgroups, and Free Classified Ad areas on the World Wide Web. ---Post directly to potential downlines--- There are many ways you can build a downline, but the best is to start surfing the Classified ads on the Internet. Look for people that are doing business on the Internet selling products, such as craft items, how to bo oks, pagers, phone cards or anything where they are trying to sell a line of products. People who are in Network Marketing or MLM are also good prospects. The free classified ads are the best. Stay away from people how are trying to sell one item like their car, a boat or their house these are people how are not interested in a business proposition, they are there to make one sale and one sale only. At the bottom of these ads there is a place to send an e-mail message to the author of the ad, click on it and fill out the name field, and the field where you can put your e-mail address. Then leave what ever is in the subject field there, this way it shows you are sending them a message from their ad and not just picking them out of thin air. Then go on to the part where you can leave a message and put. I often respond to classified ads with below message: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Dear Business Minded Friend, Thank You for your posting. Please accept my invitation to examine another exceptional business opportunity -- Try what ' $20+Internet ' can bring you! :) Not a get-rich-quick plan. If you are willing to spend $20 and some free time with your computer to e-mail and advertise to people, then you are welcome to join us. How much money you make is determined by your efforts. A serious participant could expect to earn around $50,000. Send Your Request for FREE Information to: PLEASE ACCEPT MY SINCERE APOLOGY IF YOU RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION MORE THAN ONE TIME, AS IT RESULTED FROM YOUR POSTS IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The direct approach works best and quickest! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED !!! But! As you may have noticed, this way often incurs complain or attack from people without entrepreneurship. Advertising is always annoying to some people, but, there is always some other people just need the information advertised! This is why advertising industry is growing and growing... So you are advised to take a little more step to set two e-mail addresses, the one permanent ( along with the postal address ), and the initial one may become invalid at any time. At the next time you cover a new group of postings, you may need to generate a new e-mail address for those interested people to send info request. Anyway, there are lots of free e-mail services on the Net. If no secure permanent e-mail address available, you should suggest your downlines to use snail-mail to contact you. Actually, as the two files contain detailed information, your downlines have little necessity to contact you other than purchase one of the four business reports. ---Postings on Newsgroups--- Posting on newsgroups can be quite beneficial, but can also be the source of a great deal of junk mail, sent to you by merciless bulk mailers who don't know how to appropriately send bulk-mailings. These people often use software specially designed to rip your email address off of your post ings on a Newsgroup and place it in a large bulk emailing file. These files are often resold to countless companies who will start using this file to email all sorts of junk to you. The latest email I received from such a person, was a letter trying to get me to buy a machine that would generate a chemical you could rub onto you skin and it would cure a whole plethora of illnesses, among such outrageous claims, this chemical would cure the common cold, acne, asthma, AIDS, cancer, etc.. the list went on. Not only am I certain that this chemical is illegal (it claimed to cure you by destroying viruses and illness "by suffocation"), but sounded quite lethal. While this type of email might be good for a laugh (to see how naive people try to take you for), when you start receiving hundreds of them every week, it is annoying, and frustrating. Before I tell you which Newsgroups are good to post this opportunity on, I will tell you how you can trick these bulk e-mailers' software package into sending themselves an "undeleiverable mail" message. When you place a posting on a usenet group, try not to type your actual email address anywhere in your posting. You can type such things as "In an effort to reduce junk email I have placed a % sign where @ should be, please replace the % sign for an @ sign when replying to this email address" So your email address (if it was john at doe.com) would appear after this message as john%doe.com. This can help reduce your junk mail significantly, and rest assured, you will get junk mail from these unscrupulous e-mailers. Now that you are armed with this you are ready to place your postings. If some junk email doesn't bother you, you can just skip the above step (like I usually do. It is far too easy to just hit DELETE to get rid of unsolicited email). Still, there are some people who will flame you. There is no getting around that. A workplace hazard I suppose :) Good Newsgroups to place your ad for this opportunity. (I have had goodresponses from every one of the following groups): alt.business alt.business.accountability alt.business.import-export.computer alt.business.misc alt.business.multi-level alt.consumers.free-stuff alt.business.internet.commerce alt.make.money.fast alt.misc alt.alt alt.misc.jobs.offered alt.misc.misc alt.business.home.pc There are hundreds of others, but the idea here is to try and focus your postings to attract those people most likely to be interested in this opportunity. If you begin posting this opportunity in such outrageously unrelated places such as alt.lucid.dreams, you are likely to get flame email. So try to stay within the realm of business and "misc." groups.alt.business. home.pc is a HOT place to post this ad, I have had over 20 replies from this group within the last two days when I posted my ad. What should your posting consist of? I tend to not like posting the whole program on the newsgroups. I suppose you could do that, I suggest against it. It is far better to obtain a person's email address after they write you to request the program. That way you will be able to stay in touch with the person, and also gauge how successful a particular posting is before the snail-mail for orders starts to come in. You will then also be able to tell which postings are generating a good response, which are not generating responses and which places are really HOT. I typically write the following: --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: MAKE 1997 *YOUR* YEAR. or: SUBJECT: INVEST IN YOURSELF THIS YEAR. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Posting: ----------- Why work for someone else when you can be working for yourself, making a very substantial income? If I offered to show you a program in which you could turn a $20 investment into thousands of dollars, would you be interested? Would you be interested if I offered you information on this program for FREE? Here's a look at the program I want to offer you this year: * Proven track record of success * Guaranteed program to raise capital fast (in about 90 days) * Quickly establish a "snowball growth" effect * Operate this business from home, office, or store * Completely Legal and "scam-free" under Lottery and Postal laws * No person-person selling * No personal contact with your customers if you don't want to * Learn how to harness the power of the Internet to your advantage * Obtain financial freedom in a very short period of time * People are scrambling to obtain information on this program (some people get on the Internet to LOOK for this program) * Originator of this program does not receive a dime for your participation * No-one above you "makes all the money" The 90-day clock to financial security is already working From anon at anon.efga.org Sat Dec 6 14:20:55 1997 From: anon at anon.efga.org (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 06:20:55 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <9db3255e8dfb4cc139b6713c67ebd331@anon.efga.org> Tim Mayo's abysmal grammar, atrocious spelling and feeble responses clearly identify him as a product of the American education system. _ / ' | /><\ Tim Mayo //[ `' ]\\ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Dec 6 15:57:56 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 07:57:56 +0800 Subject: NA PGP Future (Re: Problems with PGP Finland site?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971206155107.006d03d8@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 11:26 AM 12/06/1997 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Though I wonder for how long Network Associates will continue to publish >source code books and encourage their wide distribution around the world? > >Or how long source code will be available at all. > >Or how long the freeware version will be available. I don't know about source code, but remember that the McAfee side of NA has been letting people use their virus checker as freeware for years for noncommercial use. The more interesting problems are how fast will the PGP staff leave after the merger, depending on what happens to their salaries, stock, etc., and how dead the Key Recovery Alliance support in NA is. Rumors I've heard are that the staff will lose a lot of people, but on the other hand the KRAP support is pretty dead. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts at ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 From alan at clueserver.org Sat Dec 6 16:03:46 1997 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:03:46 +0800 Subject: Encrypted Horsemen Safe for Kiddies In-Reply-To: <199712062114.PAA26384@wire.insync.net> Message-ID: <199712070100.RAA31148@www.ctrl-alt-del.com> At 03:14 PM 12/6/97 -0600, Eric Cordian wrote: > >Good one, Bob. > >----- > >WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Online pornographers should be required to use >encryption, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, (R, Va.) Tuesday at the Internet >Online Summit: Focus on Children conference held here. > >"That would certainly keep it away from children," said Goodlatte. >"I'm not advocating encryption to let pornography flourish." > >Goodlatte, a champion of loosening encryption legislation, has >sponsored legislation to allow the export of encryption products and >another bill in the intellectual property arena, as well as another >bill increasing liability for those found guilty of running Internet >gambling operations. > >Goodlatte was the afternoon speaker in place of Newt Gingrich, speaker >of the House, who couldn't attend. > >In addition, Attorney General Janet Reno postponed her appearance >until Wednesday morning at 10:30. > >Goodlatte took the opportunity to speak of the Clinton adminstration's >policy on encryption. "The Clinton administration's current encryption >policies are a severe hinderance on the development of the full >potential of the Internet," he said. > >He also said the House Judiciary Committee will begin a review of the >Clinton administration's enforcement of laws on obscenity. >From the A.P. Notwire... House Rep. Arrested on Morals Charge Rep. Bob Goodlatte was arrested today for selling PGP at a local schoolyard. "Since there has been so much scrutiny on election contributions, we have to get cash however we can." Rep. Goodlatte said. It is not known how much money was raised by Rep. Goodlatte in this fashion. An unknown accomplice known only as "Truthmonger" is sought by the Justice Department in regards to this incident. In other news, Rep. Goodlatte faces a trademark suit from the Starbucks corporation over his name. "Goodlatte is associated solely with our company. Therefore the use of that name violates our intellectual property rights.", said a Starbucks Spokesperson. --- | "That'll make it hot for them!" - Guy Grand | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org Sat Dec 6 16:23:07 1997 From: wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org (Rabid Wombat) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:23:07 +0800 Subject: Superdistribution development/release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Don't under-estimate Bob; he can factor large primes in his head instantly. quadraticsievemonger On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Lucky Green wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > > > Persistent Cryptographic Wrappers (RightsWrapper) - No matter where the > > digital document (financial newsletter, educational test, minutes from a > > court proceeding, sensitive health care records, etc.) goes, no matter > > how it gets there, whether it is used and then subsequently > > redistributed, etc. the document is always encrypted. It is never left > > decrypted and exposed even while it is being viewed. > > They have lost their mind. Since humans are notoriously bad at performing > decryptions in their head in real time, whatever is sent to the display > *must* be cleartext. Any competent programmer can grab it at that point. > > -- Lucky Green PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. > "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" > > From tcmay at got.net Sat Dec 6 16:47:32 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:47:32 +0800 Subject: A Medal -- Or A Prison Cell? In-Reply-To: <199712062000.PAA21076@mx01.together.net> Message-ID: At 1:00 PM -0700 12/6/97, Brian B. Riley wrote: > Larry Gates, a 54-year-old ex-Marine, operates a convenience store in > rural Iconium, Missouri. He's also a volunteer fireman. Last Christmas > Eve he was listening to a licensed fire department radio when he heard > a report that police were chasing two suspected murderers. Police had > lost track of the suspects. From his knowledge of the area, Gates was > aware that the car would pass directly in front of his store. "Suspected murderers," not "convicted murderers." And the cops could have been chasing any number of persons. (I'm not intending to sound like a simp-wimp apologist for criminals, but the language of this article, including "suspected murderers," "suddenly accelerated," "abusing drugs for days," "confessed to two homicides," and "planned to commit suicide" all smack of sensationalism. And did the Gates family know any of this stuff about "abusing drugs" and "planned to commit suicide"? Of course not. So, what if the folks in the car were tax protestors, whom the police radio misidentified as suspected murderers? Or other kinds of suspects? What if the passenger was a hostage? What if she had been killed by the shotgun blast? (The shooter presumably aimed to kill, after all. As we all know, shotgun pellets don't disable engines very well.) Just as we don't want cops shooting at "fleeing cars"--unless trained personnel have concluded that a threat exists or that no other means of stopping the car is feasible, so, too, we don't want suburban cowboys deciding to shoot at cars that are no immediate danger to them. (The "Instead, the car suddenly accelerated directly at Carey" sounds fishy to me, as few drivers would ram a car if they could see a way around the roadblock, which the driver apparently did.) I have no problem with anyone defending themselves or their family, or even their direct neighbors, with heavy firepower. But I don't want "volunteers" shooting at me, for example, if the local Gestapo happens to be chasing me. >From what I've read here, the prosecution is warranted. --Tim May > Gates grabbed a shotgun and sidearm, and along with his three adult > sons pulled two vehicles into the intersection, blocking it. Both > vehicles had fire emergency lights flashing. > > A few seconds later the suspects' car approached the roadblock. Gates' > son Carey motioned for the car to stop. Instead, the car suddenly > accelerated directly at Carey. Gates fired his shotgun once at the > car. The car swerved away from his sons, went around the roadblock, > and continued down the road. > >Two of Gates' sons followed the car at a moderate pace. The car was > driving erratically. Soon it slowed enough for the passenger, a woman, > to leap out. Gates' sons stopped. The woman suspect was slightly > wounded from Gates' shotgun. One of Gates's sons, an Emergency Medical > Technician, administered first aid. The other son resumed following > the car. When he came across the abandoned car, he called police. > Shortly the other suspect was arrested. > > The two suspects, who had been abusing drugs for days, confessed to > two homicides. The woman said the driver had planned to commit suicide > by crashing the car. > > Did the Gates family get medals? No. The St. Clair, Missouri > prosecutor has charged Larry Gates with "unlawful use of a weapon," a > felony offense. He was released from jail on $5,000 bond. If convicted > he faces up to five years' imprisonment and the permanent loss of his > Second Amendment rights. > >Gates has turned down offers to plea bargain his charges down to a > misdemeanor. He goes to trial December 10. Gun Owners of America has > established a legal defense fund for Larry Gates. For info call > 703-321-8585. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The courts have found that citizens are not legally entitled to police >protection, yet citizens who defend themselves and their communities are >routinely prosecuted as if THEY are the criminals. We are forced to pay >taxes to support a police force that is not required to defend us and is >instead used to punish us for defending ourselves. I don't get it. > >James A Chappelow > > "History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the > subject races to carry arms have prepared their own > downfall by so doing." > Adolf Hitler > > >--------------------------------------------------- >This message is from the VTLP-list (Vermont Libertarian) mailing list. To >send >a message to everyone on this list send email to >. To >unsubscribe from the list send eamil to with >"unsubscribe vtlp-list" in the body of the message. To subscribe to the >list >send email to with "subscribe vtlp-list your >name" >in the body of the message. > > > > >----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- > >Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr > For PGP Keys > > "Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, > he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" - Tom Clancy The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Sat Dec 6 17:07:47 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:07:47 +0800 Subject: A Medal -- Or A Prison Cell? Message-ID: At 1:00 PM -0700 12/6/97, Brian B. Riley wrote: > Larry Gates, a 54-year-old ex-Marine, operates a convenience store in > rural Iconium, Missouri. He's also a volunteer fireman. Last Christmas > Eve he was listening to a licensed fire department radio when he heard > a report that police were chasing two suspected murderers. Police had > lost track of the suspects. From his knowledge of the area, Gates was > aware that the car would pass directly in front of his store. > Gates grabbed a shotgun and sidearm, and along with his three adult > sons pulled two vehicles into the intersection, blocking it. Both > vehicles had fire emergency lights flashing. > > A few seconds later the suspects' car approached the roadblock. Gates' > son Carey motioned for the car to stop. Instead, the car suddenly > accelerated directly at Carey. Gates fired his shotgun once at the > car. The car swerved away from his sons, went around the roadblock, > and continued down the road. Also, how did Gates and his sons know the car was in fact the suspect's car? I doubt they could read a license plate of an approaching car, if in fact the cops even knew the license plate number and had broadcast it. If it turns out that the Gates family merely set up their own roadblock and tried to stop a car matching the general description (e.g., "a late model white Ford sedan," which might well be the case for a police chase), then they were truly reckless. If I were driving my late model white Ford sedan through the backroads of rural Missouri and some potential rednecks up ahead had their vehicles blocking the road, I'd for damn sure not stop so they could rob and maybe kill me. I'd gun the accelerator and try to get around this roadblock. As they weren't cops and the vehicles weren't police cars, why should a driver be fool enough to stop for some rednecks blocking the road? (If this example is not clear, ask yourself if you would stop your car for some blacks in Miami who blocked the road with their vehicles....) This is precisely why we don't want helpful do-gooders setting up their own road blocks and firing shots at cars that don't stop. --Tim May (P.S. If it turns out the Gates family knew _with certainty_ that the approaching car was in fact exactly the one being chased, and if their vehicles were painted fire engine red (not typical for volunteer fire deparment folks and their private vehicles), then this slightly ameliorates the recklessness of their actions. But I'd be surprised if this is the case. And I know that if some rural yahoos tried to stop me by blocking the road, I'd shoot first and ask questions later, as *I* would be the party actually defending myself against a threat.) The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ravage at ssz.com Sat Dec 6 17:13:35 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:13:35 +0800 Subject: A Medal -- Or A Prison Cell? (fwd) Message-ID: <199712070122.TAA28995@einstein.ssz.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:05:06 -0700 > From: Tim May > Subject: Re: A Medal -- Or A Prison Cell? > Also, how did Gates and his sons know the car was in fact the suspect's car? > > If it turns out that the Gates family merely set up their own roadblock > and tried to stop a car matching the general description (e.g., "a late > model white Ford sedan," which might well be the case for a police chase), > then they were truly reckless. > > As they weren't cops and the vehicles weren't police cars, why should a > driver be fool enough to stop for some rednecks blocking the road? > > (If this example is not clear, ask yourself if you would stop your car for > some blacks in Miami who blocked the road with their vehicles....) > > This is precisely why we don't want helpful do-gooders setting up their own > road blocks and firing shots at cars that don't stop. Since crypto-anarchy & free-market economic anarchy both do away with centralized authorities isn't this sort of behaviour what is *expected* of members of the community under these systems? Doesn't the fact that there is a clear and present danger to both person and community justify these sorts of actions? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage at ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| From nobody at REPLAY.COM Sat Dec 6 18:22:32 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:22:32 +0800 Subject: Anonymous Thread Message-ID: <199712070219.DAA28316@basement.replay.com> Charlie Comsec wrote: >Monty Cantsin wrote: >> Something that I have found irritating about the posts by >> non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a >> meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be >> repudiated, or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster. I >> compared this to sound bites. > >How is that fundamentally different from non-anonymous posts, though? >You can always disavow (or attempt to) a previous post by claiming it >was forged, that someone stole your password, hacked your account, or >posted it when you accidentally left your terminal logged on while >you were at lunch. All true. But, in the case of the anonymous post there has usually been no indication other than writing style and topic that suggests the poster is using the context of previous anonymous posts. There's no particular reason to think the second post has anything to do with the first. This means that the ideas cannot be developed to any great depth or detail. I would prefer to see anonymous posters include the messages which supply context or just give the message IDs. >In addition, there's nothing to stop someone from obtaining multiple e-mail >accounts. So why should ten anonymous posts be an more irritating than >ten posts from hotmail.com, juno.com, etc. accounts? They could be from ten >different people, just one, or any number in between. Actually, it's the context and the complexity of the text that interests me. If ten different people play the role of anonymous in one thread, each accepting the context of the previous posters, there is no reason why that isn't just as interesting as if it were one poster. >> On second thought, however, there is an easy way to solve this. If >> the anonymous poster accepts the context of previous messages, the >> discussion can continue. There's no reason why the person behind the >> virtual thread has to be the same, but the context itself is important >> if we want to have interesting discussions. > >Agreed. It's the ideas that are important, not the identity of the person[a] >expressing them. The only exception I can think of is if the person >expressing the ideas is asking that they be accepted because of some unique >qualification or expertise he claims to possess. And even then it never hurts to think carefully about why they should be trusted, how it is that they know what they claim to know, and if there are any ways to verify their claims. >> So, if you don't want to sign your messages, just acknowledge the >> message ID of the relevant previous messages whose context you wish to >> use. > >Unless that's coupled with a PGP signature, there's nothing to keep one >anonymous person from impersonating another and agreeing to something. >For example, if "A" is debating "B", there's nothing to stop "B" from >posting as "C", claiming to be an anonymous KKK, NAMBLA, etc. member, >then posting again, impersonating "A", and pretending to agree with "C" >(by, as you say, "acknowledging C's message id"). That's okay, though, because you deal with each post on its own merits one at a time. If person "C" says "This posts uses the remarks by the anonymous poster in posts 1, 2, 3,.. as context" then you can say, "You now say X, but before you said Y, and that's a contradiction." That person (or even another person) can come back and say something genuinely interesting like "It seems like a contradiction, but in fact it isn't for such-and-such a reason." In practice the way people have been doing this is just by signing their posts "TruthMonger" or something. But, message IDs give you more control over the accepted context. >Nor is it much better if "A", "B", and "C" are non-anonymous. "B" can open >a throwaway account as "C", and then forge a follow-up from "A". Unless >it's done among a group of people skilled at interpreting headers, it may >well succeed, or at least arouse a lot of F.U.D. about "A". Sabotaging a non-persistent identity through a remailer is effortless. Forging takes a little more effort. But, yes, I would like to see more people signing their messages. It would reduce some problems. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Anonymous Thread To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom KPeters8765 at mailexcite.com Sun Dec 7 10:31:18 1997 From: KPeters8765 at mailexcite.com (KPeters8765 at mailexcite.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:31:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mail Your Message to Millions Message-ID: <9811744758.CLA998002@mailexcite.com> Tired of NOT making money on the internet? Did you REALLY believe that ALL you had to do was: Put up a web page somewhere in Cyberspace with beautiful graphics, the latest Java and some frames; Advertise in a few free classifieds; Act like an expert in newsgroups; since you're not supposed to advertise in them; And, customers were going to beat a path to your door. If you believed that- BOY, have I got some swampland in Florida for you! If you want to make money on the internet, YOU'D better be PROACTIVE! YOU'D better go after business like you MEAN IT! YOU'D better send some E-MAIL - Lots of it! And YOU'D better tell your story as much as you can, as often as you can, to whomever you can! WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD. Bulk e-mail works! If you know how to write an ad, identify a need, and fullfill it with your product, you can make money on the Internet EVEN on a very limited budget. This form of advertising has been proven MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than other forms of advertising because people read their e-mail. And, the message will wait in the recipient's e-mail box until it is read. Your message is SEEN not buried! Your business deserves a piece of the fastest growing industry in the U.S.- THE HOME-BASED BUSINESS INDUSTRY ( $427 billion in annual sales). Internet sales are projected to be over $10 billion by the year 2000, up from $300 million in 1994. We've got the addresses YOU need. A Web site alone, posting through newsgroups and registering with a few search engines while placing a few classifieds just won't work. What good is a Web page no one knows is there? Bulk e-mailing is the lowest-cost method of generating qualified sales leads, On average, a solo direct (snail) mail promotion would cost around $500.00 per thousand, whereas bulk e-mail costs pennies per thousand. No known form of media advertising can compete with the low cost of bulk e-mail. Our e-mail lists are maintained on state-of-the-art computers and are updated daily to assure you the very latest names for your mailings. Bulk Email Works!! Put your sales message in front of responsive buyers. Our lists are compiled from active and willing on-line purchasers and entrepreneurs. THESE ARE SERIOUS CUSTOMERS LOOKING FOR SERIOUS OFFERS! These BUYERS want to read and hear more about your products/services. Our list is updated daily with fresh and new email addresses. Even if you receive 1/10 of 1% response for mailing 1,000,000 email addresses you would receive 1000 replies !!!! How much money would you make? Save TIME and MONEY! Make money on the seat of your Pants! Focus entirely on your sales. Let us do your mailing for you at these INCREDIBLY LOW RATES: _____YES- mail my message to 50,000 responsive buyers for $49.95 _____YES- mail my message to 100,000 responsive buyers for $89.95 _____YES- mail my message to 250,000 responsive buyers for $199.95 _____YES- mail my message to 500,000 responsive buyers for $359.95 _____YES- mail my message to 1,000,000 responsive buyers for $679.95 _____YES- mail my message to 2,000,000 responsive buyers for $1299.95 *************** WE SPECIALIZE IN TARGETED MAILINGS - CALL FOR DETAILS*************** _____YES- mail my message to 5,000 targeted buyers for $79.95 _____YES- mail my message to 10,000 targeted buyers for $119.95 _____YES- mail my message to 15,000 targeted buyers for $154.95 _____YES- mail my message to 20,000 targeted buyers for $184.95 Type of business or people you need to target _____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ We MAIL, MAIL, MAIL- YOU SELL, SELL, SELL. REMEMBER: Get 1/10 of 1% and from a mailing af 1,000,000 email addresses and you get 1000 replies!!! Would you make any money? We take CHECKS BY FAX get our most up to date list mailed for YOU by ordering NOW!! Call 407-956-1151 to order by phone or Fax your order to 407-952-7984 Office hours are Mon-Fri 10 am - 6 pm Eastern Standard Time. Make checks or money order payable to: PICC Or mail check or money order to: Progressive Internet Communications, Co. P.O. Box 100512 Palm Bay, Florida 32910-0512 ORDER YOUR MAILING PROGRAM TODAY!! ORDER FORM ======================================================== Name___________________________________________ Address__________________________________________ City______________________State_________Zip_______ E-Mail Address____________________________________ Phone___________________________________________ Business phone____________________________________ Check Ordering info: Name( exactly as it appears on check) ______________________________________________________ Check number_______________Dollar Amount_________________ **Fraction Code(numbers that appear below check number on top right) (do not leave blank-ex:123-45/6789)__________________________ Numbers at Bottom of check(read left to right please indicate blank spaces with a space)____________________________________________ Bank Name_____________________________________________ Bank Address____________________________________________ Bank City/Bank Zip Code___________________________________ Bank phone # (if applicable)_________________________________ ****** LIMIT 1 PAGE****** * when faxing check- fill out as you would normally do (write in the dollar amount and write VOID on the check. ** Cannot process order without fraction code ***Mailings are done within 5-8 business days from the day we receive payment. ** PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE A SUBJECT LINE WITH YOUR AD** **IF ORDERING FROM OUTSIDE THE US PLEASE SEND US POSTAL MONEY ORDER** From whgiii at invweb.net Sat Dec 6 21:00:08 1997 From: whgiii at invweb.net (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:00:08 +0800 Subject: One for the Good Guys Message-ID: <199712070455.XAA29871@users.invweb.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well McAffe has reluctantly pulled out of KRAP. http://www.pgp.com/newsroom/na-kra.cgi - From the wording of the press release they still are unwilling to admit the error of their ways but at least they have realized the fallout from being associated with such an orginization. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNIor7o9Co1n+aLhhAQL5lAP+KcogSdFYFLqczIOAiAIaXM0xhPz488VP 9/M2i3JrYq4kxg2gl4TKCIineHewGzKuEutA4xhiP5ITIlRIQ3HWPldURpi1j8RR Qil7AczrynhAvR3SY4/kyWxkLtczLlD+DedXciamAxmvD0jp0QSkez5RqzuEVCMg nJgWK1RzXmY= =MjpK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rapnet at ix.netcom.com Sat Dec 6 22:51:23 1997 From: rapnet at ix.netcom.com (rapnet at ix.netcom.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:51:23 +0800 Subject: 16 Million! Just Released! Message-ID: <3316270_67131480> IT WAS JUST RELEASED!! INTRODUCING...MILLIONS VOL. 1 We took a total of over 92 million email addresses from many of the touted CD's that are out there (bought them all - some were $300+)! We added the millions we had in storage to those. When we combined them all, we had in excess of 100+ million addresses in one huge file. We then ran a super "sort/de-dupe" program against this huge list. It cut the file down to less than 25 million!!! Can you believe that? It seems that most people that are selling CD's are duping the public by putting numerous files of addresses in the CD over and over. This created many duplicate addresses. They also had many program "generated" email addresses like Compuserve, MCI, ANON's, etc. This causes a tremendous amount of undeliverables, and for those that use Stealth programs, clogs up servers quickly with trash, etc. We then ran a program that contained 150+ keywords to remove addresses with vulgarity, profanity, sex-related names, postmaster, webmaster, flamer, abuse, spam, etc., etc. Also eliminated all .edu, .mil, .org, .gov, etc. After that list was run against the remaining list, it reduced it down to near 16 million addresses! So, you see, our list will save people hundreds of dollars buying all others that are out there on CD and otherwise. Using ours will be like using the 100+ million that we started with, but a lot less money and alot less time!! We also purchased Cyber-Promos ($995.00) CD. We received it just prior to finishing production work on the new CD. We had our people take a random sample of 300,000 addresses from the touted 2.9 that they advertised. We used a program that allows us to take a random sample of addresses from any list. We were able to have the program take every 9th address, thus giving us a 300,000 list of Cyber's email addresses from top to bottom. We did not clean these, but we did create 3 seperate files named cyber1.txt, cyber2.txt, & cyber3.txt of 100,000 addresses each. This will give all people that use the list a opportunity to send mail to the list before deciding if their CD is all it's hyped to be. We also included a 2+ million "Remove/Flamer" file broke into seperate files for ease of extracting and adding to your own database of removes. "You can buy from the REST or you can buy from the BEST. Your choice. _____________________________ What others are saying: "I received the CD on Friday evening. Like a kid with a new toy, I immediately started bulking out using the new email addresses. Over the course of the weekend, I emailed out over 500,000 emails and I received less than TWENTY undeliverables!! I am totally satisfied with my purchase!! Thanks Premier!!" Dave Buckley Houston, TX "This list is worth it's weight in gold!! I sent out 100,000 emails for my product and received over 55 orders! Ann Colby New Orleans, LA **************************************** HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE Here is what you get when you order today! >> 16 Million Email Addresses... 1 per line in simple text format on a CD. Files are in lots of 100,000 (no codes needed to open files). All files are separated by domain name for your convenience. PLUS you receive a tremendous REMOVE list! AND the a sampling of CyberPromo's HOT list. >>> NOW ONLY $149.00! This price is effective for the next seven days, thereafter the price will be $199.00 so ORDER NOW! All lists are completely free of any Duplicates. We also on a continual basis, add New Names and Remove Undeliverables and Remove Requests. The result is the Cleanest Email Addresses Available Anywhere to use over and over again, for a FRACTION of the cost that other companies charge. Typical rates for acquiring email lists are from 1 cent to as high as 3 cents per email address - that's "INFORMATION HIGHWAY" ROBBERY!. Don't even hesitate on this one or you will miss out on the most effective way to market anywhere..PERIOD! If you have any further questions or to place an order by phone, please do not hesitate to call us at: 908-245-1143 To order our email package, simply print out the EZ ORDER FORM below and fax or mail it to our office today. We accept Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, Checks by Fax and Mail. _________________ EZ Order Form _____Yes! I would like to order MILLIONS Vol. 1 email addresses for only $149.00. *Please select one of the following for shipping.. ____I would like to receive my package OVERNIGHT. I'm including $15 for shipping. (outside US add an additional $25 for shipping) ____I would like to receive my package 2 DAY delivery. I'm including $10 for shipping. (outside US add an additional $25 for shipping) DATE_____________________________________________________ NAME____________________________________________________ COMPANY NAME___________________________________________ ADDRESS_________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP___________________________________________ PHONE NUMBERS__________________________________________ FAX NUMBERS_____________________________________________ EMAIL ADDRESS___________________________________________ TYPE OF CREDIT CARD: ______VISA _____MASTERCARD CREDIT CARD# __________________________________________ EXPIRATION DATE________________________________________ NAME ON CARD___________________________________________ AMOUNT $____________________ (Required) SIGNATURE:x________________________ DATE:x__________________ You may fax your order to us at: 1-615-431-7058 CHECK BY FAX SERVICES! If you would like to fax a check, paste your check below and fax it to our office along with all forms to: 1-615-431-7058 ****************************************************** ***24 HOUR FAX SERVICES*** PLEASE PASTE YOUR CHECK HERE AND FAX IT TO US AT 1-908-245-3119 ******************************************************* If You fax a check, there is no need for you to send the original check. We will draft up a new check, with the exact information from your original check. All checks will be held for bank clearance. If you feel more comfortable sending payment through the mail, please send all forms and Check or Money Order to: Rapture Narketing Inc. P.O. Box 616 Kenilworth, NJ 07033 From nobody at REPLAY.COM Sat Dec 6 23:14:00 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:14:00 +0800 Subject: New key Message-ID: <199712070655.HAA02800@basement.replay.com> Some readers have suggested that my El Gamal key values were not chosen correctly. My previous key used a random large prime, but Schneier suggests choosing one with a guaranteed large prime factor ("Applied Cryptography", section 11.6). To correct that I offer a new El Gamal key which I will use for signing: p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g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y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his prime value has been chosen so that (p-1)/2 will also be prime. I will continue to use Cantsin Protocol No. 2 as before. It's good to see that others are beginning to develop tools to use this protocol. Suggestions for improvements continue to be welcomed. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: New key To: cypherpunks at algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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rom anon at anon.efga.org Sun Dec 7 00:59:26 1997 From: anon at anon.efga.org (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 16:59:26 +0800 Subject: No Subject Message-ID: > Since crypto-anarchy & free-market economic anarchy both do away with > centralized authorities isn't this sort of behaviour what is *expected* of > members of the community under these systems? Doesn't the fact that there is > a clear and present danger to both person and community justify these sorts > of actions? > The concept of "Free-Market-Crypto-Anarchy" doesn't jibe with the "Lynch-Mob Democracy" mentality exhibited by Gates. One of the fundamental principles of anarchy is a willingness to let others hash out their own problems, i.e. I will ignore him unless his actions impact or affect me personally/financially. It is not as if the Gates were going to be affected by the "suspects"...they had to go out of their way to interfere with someone else's pursuit of happiness. That is clearly unacceptable. The last thing we need is a deputized citizenry...talk about a police state. (I guess that would be the ultimate form of the "Policeman Inside") From harish at brokat.com.sg Sun Dec 7 01:27:46 1997 From: harish at brokat.com.sg (Harish Pillay) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:27:46 +0800 Subject: Singapore In-Reply-To: <01bd026d$85c8c4a0$06060606@russell> Message-ID: <199712070907.RAA05005@brokat.com.sg> Hi. I am appalled at the level of informed intelligence displayed on this list by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker. > > Hallam-Baker obviously thinks that he can thwart my insightful, > >barbed diatribes against him by posting empty messages to the > >CypherPunks list, > > No, I was merely speechless. > > If you think that Singapore is a Libertarian paradise then > you are not a Libertarian. I don't doubt that Duncan is > capable of being an appologist for the Signapore regime > just as there were a lot of 'Communists' who used to fawn > over Stalin. > > The fact is that Singapore taps every telephone call, monitors > every public place and performs traffic analysis to identify > dissident communities. The fear of being identified in such > a community is a major means of suppressing dissent. I would indeed like to know what you take on a regular basis to conclude the above. Tapping phones? Monitoring public places? Analysing traffic? Whichever parallel universe that you are dwelling in in definitely not one I would like to be in. Your utterly misinformed and totally ludicrous statements above can only make me conclude that you are not serious in making it, except to respond to all the be-numbed responses by previous posters. I am a Singaporean and have lived most of my life in Singapore. I am no lapdog of the government (thank you) nor do I agree with everything the government does. If it is of any interest to you, you can go to my home page for information on dirt that I have posted about the SG govt. You can also go to many other sites all over (both within Singapore and outside) that discuss a wide array of issues, (www.sintercom.org) for example. I did come across some ill-informed post (not by Phillip though :-)) that said that there are national filters to Internet access here. Well, indeed, the top level ISPs here have choosen to use filtering proxy servers to filter out an alleged list of 100 porno sites (you can see that there is an on going URL hunt to discover these filtered sites on www.sintercom.org/hunt/rahunt.html. You should also visit www.isoc.org.sg for additional discussion on this). Having said all that, this filter list is 100% by-passable using sites such as www.anonymizer.com. Regards. -- Harish Pillay